Sitting of 11 February 1963

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

  TREATY OF ROME (PRIVATE FORESTRY)
  Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he held discussions with the Common Market authorities about subsidies to private forestry under Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): This did not form part of our negotiations, but we have been in touch with the Commission and I understand that it is still studying the question.
  Mr. Digby: Are we to understand that the whole question of British forestry has received consideration by the Government in the course of these negotiations?
  Mr. Heath: It was not part of the formal negotiations, but we discussed with the members of the Commission, when we were discussing the Treaty generally, what their plans for forestry within the Community would be.

  DISARMAMENT (EUROPEAN REGIONAL SCHEMES)
  Mr. Mayhewasked the Lord Privy Seal what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the creation of a zone of controlled disarmament in Central Europe.
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Lord Privy Seal if Her Majesty's Government will now approach the French Government with a view to formulating a joint policy designed to remove Russian bases from Eastern Europe and United States bases from Western Europe.
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will invite the French
  910
  Government to join Her Majesty's Government in an attempt to open negotiations with the Soviet Union with a view to a settlement of the German problem on the basis of some variant of the Rapacki Plan.
  Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government do not believe that European regional schemes of the kind suggested, which would unduly inhibit our freedom to deploy our defensive resources as and where we wanted, would contribute to the lessening of international tension. They do not contemplate any approach to the French Government on these questions. A more hopeful approach is through the United States' disarmament plan, which has been tabled at the Geneva Conference with our full support and provide for the balanced reduction of all military forces everywhere.
  Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this concept will come up at the disarmament conference beginning next week? Will he consider it again in the hope that the Government can take a more positive attitude to this idea at these talks? The difficulties are obvious, but what alternative do the Government have? Is it safe to leave all the initiative in this matter to Mr. Khrushchev and, possibly, President de Gaulle?
  Mr. Heath: No, certainly not. The initiative we took was taken with the United States Government. We were in full support of the proposals for a disarmament plan which are still before the disarmament conference at Geneva.
  Mr. Hughes: Surely the initiative in this matter has been taken by Mr. Roy Thomson. Would not it pay the country better if Mr. Roy Thomson were to take over the Foreign Office and run it on a commission and life peerage basis?
  Mr. Heath: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Foreign Office should appear in colour.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Does not the Lord Privy Seal appreciate that the only possible basis for a settlement by negotiation with the Soviet Union is disengagement on some such basis as the Rapacki Plan? If he goes on stonewalling this for years while piling up

  911
  arms, does not he realise that he is backing the forces making for a world war and sabotaging peace?
  Mr. Heath: No. I cannot accept that that is the only basis for reaching a peaceful settlement. Nor does the Soviet Union, otherwise it would not have put forward its own disarmament plan.

  UNITED NATIONS (SELF-DETERMINATION)
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals have been made, in the context of United Nations Charter revision, to delete self-determination from the principles of the United Nations Organisation.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): I am not aware that any such proposal has been made.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since the United Nations has probably stifled Papuan self-determination by imposing Indonesian administration, and has attempted to deny Katanga self-determination while conceding self-determination to Ruandi and Burundi and demanding it for other dependant and former dependent territories, does not my right hon. Friend think that this selective and hypocritical application of the principle is disreputable? If there is to be a revision of the United Nations Charter should it not be considered whether the principle of self-determination should be abandoned?
  Mr. Thomas: I cannot accept that it is selective. The application of the principle of self-determination must, of course, depend on the circumstances of each case.

  YEMEN
  Mr. Dugdaleasked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government have yet decided to recognise the Government of the Yemen.
  Mr Heath: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) on 5th February.
  Mr. Dugdale: Is it surprising that the Government, with their guilty conscience over Suez, naturally dislike any Government which happens to be recognised and supported by President Nasser? Do not they think that this sort of "shut-your-eyes" business is getting quite absurd in view of the fact that even the American Government recognise that the new Yemeni Government is firmly established and have recognised it themselves?
  Mr. Heath: We have set down very clearly the criteria for recognition by the British Government. This matter is under our constant study. As I have already told the House, our Minister in Taiz has been brought back here for consultation so that we can discuss the matter further with him. However, I cannot accept the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman suggested for not recognising the Yemeni Government.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that recognition is not a favour to the Government in question but is in British interests?
  Mr. Heath: But there also have to be criteria, which the right hon. Gentleman, with his long experience, knows include whether a Government has complete control of the country or not, and that is something we have to examine most carefully.
  Sir P. Agnew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the loyalist forces are now within nine miles of Sana? Will he, therefore, give the House an assurance that he will do nothing to discourage the Imam from the attempts which he is making at the restoration of his full authority over the whole Yemen?
  Mr. Heath: The attitude of Her Majesty's Government throughout has been one of non-intervention. I have heard reports of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers, but I have not had confirmation of them.
  Mr. Grimond: Is it true that the Yemeni Government has said that it intends to expel our diplomatic mission unless recognition is afforded within a week?
  Mr. Heath: Not as far as I know.
  Mr. Dugdale: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

  SUDAN (BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Lord Privy Seal what British missionaries and other British subjects have been expelled from the Sudan in recent months; what representations have been made; and whether he will make a statement.
  Mr. P. Thomas: Seven British missionaries have had their residence permits withdrawn and have therefore had to leave the Sudan in the last two years. No protest has been made. No other British subjects have, so far as I know, been asked to leave.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware of disturbing reports of religious persecution in the Southern Sudan? Since many of us hope very much for a rapprochement between Christianity and Islam, is there anything that the Foreign Office can do to see whether there can be any improvement in the situation in the Southern Sudan?
  Mr. Thomas: This is a question of Sudanese legislation. There has certainly been no suggestion that the missionaries have been harmed in any way. Therefore, I do not think that there is any ground on which Her Majesty's Government can intervene.

  DENMARK ("RED CRUSADER" INCIDENT)
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will publish the terms of the agreement concluded between the Danish Government and Her Majesty's Government regarding the "Red Crusader" incident; to what extent the Faroe and Aberdeen fishing interests, respectively, were specifically catered for in this agreement; and if he is satisfied that the agreement will further harmony between the fishing fleets involved.
  Mr. P. Thomas: I gave the terms of this settlement to the House on 23rd January. The Faroese Authorities and the owners of the trawler were consulted by their respective Governments. I am
  914
  satisfied that this settlement will contribute to harmony in the area.
  Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that he gave the information only in sketchy terms and did not give the full details, and that the unhappy circumstances in which the agreement arose and its consequences provide a splendid opportunity of bringing together three fishing nations which have had unhappy relations? The nations to which I refer are Great Britain, Denmark and the Fames, and Finland. There is now a splendid opportunity of bringing them together and providing peace and harmony among the fishing interests in the North Sea?
  Mr. Thomas: The parties mentioned by the hon. and learned Member are in close touch and discussions on the subject of British fishery interests in the Faroes are soon to open. Obviously, I cannot anticipate what might take place.

  N.A.T.O.

    French Military Contribution
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Lord Privy Seal what were the actual contributions by the French Government to the military strength of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in troops and aircraft in the last five years.
    Mr. Heath: Details of the French military contribution are confidential to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
    Mr. Shinwell: Are the details confidential because ever since the creation of N.A.T.O. the French Government have never met their commitments? Is the Minister aware that our obligations have been far better fulfilled than those of any other country, with the exception of the United States? As our contribution is a long way in excess of the French, will Her Majesty's Government resist any pressure from any quarter to increase our military contributions?
    Mr. Heath: All the details of the military contributions by the different members of N.A.T.O. are confidential to the organisation. I should not like to comment on the general remarks which the right lion. Gentleman has made.
    Mr. Mayhew: While contributions are confidential, are withdrawals confidential? What withdrawals of French forces have there been?
    Mr. Heath: That is also confidential.

    Polaris Submarines
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Lord Privy Seal if, at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Ministerial meeting, Her Majesty's Government will oppose the United States proposal that Polaris submarines should be manned by crews drawn from the European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent, in the Bahamas agreement, it was envisaged that the German Federal Government should participate in the control of nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Heath: The Nassau Agreement envisaged a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation multilateral nuclear force. The composition of the force, and arrangements for its manning, targetting, command and political control are for discussion in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. There are no proposals under consideration in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for placing nuclear warheads under the independent control of any non-nuclear Power.
    Mr. Allaun: While I am partially relieved to hear the last part of that Answer, may I ask whether it would not contravene both the spirit and the intention of the Brussels Treaty if control of a submarine and Polaris missiles were given to a German commander or crew? Will Her Majesty's Government completely and resolutely oppose any such proposal should it be made later?
    Mr. Heath: There is nothing in the Nassau Agreement or proposals as they have been put to N.A.T.O. to imply any change in the existing arrangements for the control and custody of nuclear warheads.
    Mr. Allaun: The right hon. Gentleman has not given the undertaking for which I asked. Would it not be possible for such an undertaking to be given to the House today?
    Mr. Heath: The statement which I have made makes it plain that there is no change in the position.

    United States Weapons (Maintenance)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will instruct the United Kingdom representative on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council to inquire what weapons are in the possession of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation which were transferred by the United States to North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries in Europe at the close of the last war; by what means they are being maintained; and what armament firms are providing them with spare parts.
    Mr. Heath: No. Sir.
    Mr. Shinwell: Why not? Why this tenderness for the feelings of these monopolistic firms who conduct these operations which are confined to the United States? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these firms only are entrusted with the task of maintenance of the weapons, spare parts and the rest which are associated with N.A.T.O.? Why should we not have a look at it in a matter of this sort?
    Mr. Heath: I was not aware of the purpose of the Question. It is not out of tenderness for anybody that I gave the Answer that I did. It is recognised in N.A.T.O. that the procurement of weapons and maintenance is a matter for the national Governments, not N.A.T.O. Therefore, if we are to obtain such information—which is a very large exercise indeed—it is not a matter for N.A.T.O. to carry out.
    Mr. Shinwell: Would the right hon. Gentleman make some inquiry about this? Is he aware that British firms are excluded from undertaking the task of maintenance? Why should this be so?
    Mr. Heath: If the right hon. Gentleman will let me have any information he has I will gladly look into it.
    Mr. Shinwell: I will send it.

    ANGLO-SOVIET RELATIONS
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the Soviet Government policy expressed by Mr. Khrushchev of a wish for peaceful

    917
    coexistence with the West, and their willingness to disagree openly with China over this issue, what steps he is taking in consultation with Her Majesty's Government's Western allies to improve relations with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in order to reduce the need for a high rate of defence expenditure; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government constantly consider, in consultation with our allies, ways and means of improving relations with the Soviet Union. In particular, Her Majesty's Government have made sustained efforts to solve the disarmament problem, which would contribute greatly to the end which my hon. Friend has in mind.
    Sir C. Osborne: Since Mr. Khrushchev has obviously quarrelled with the Chinese over the question of peaceful coexistence, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that all the Western allies have gone halfway to meet him in this desire and so to reduce the tremendous cost of armaments the world over?
    Mr. Heath: It is true that there are certain doctrinal differences between the Soviet Union and China. The Western Alliance has made perfectly plain its desire to follow a policy of peaceful coexistence.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: So that we may understand what the Government have done, will the right hon. Gentleman give us a White Paper setting out the terms of the Russian draft treaty for general disarmament and Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards each clause of those proposals?
    Mr. Heath: I will certainly examine the request which the right hon. Gentleman has made and discuss it with my hon. Friend the Minister of State.

  GERMANY

    Armed Forces
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the fact that the total strength of the West German land and air forces already exceed the limits laid down under Article I of Protocol II of the Revised Brussels Treaty, he will now give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will exercise the veto power
    918
    provided under Article 3 of that Protocol to prevent further increases in the limits laid down for the German Federal Republic.
    Mr. Heath: The strength of the West German land and air forces does not exceed the limits laid down under Article I of Protocol II of the Revised Brussels Treaty.
    Mr. Warbey: Is the Lord Privy Seal still trying to pretend to this House that the West German armed forces do not already exceed the limits established under the Paris Agreements? The right hon. Gentleman will recognise the words of those agreements. Is he denying that the West German armed forces already exceed those limits and that it is planned to exceed them still further during the coming year? Is the right hon. Gentleman's excuse for conniving at the remilitarisation of Germany that Her Majesty's Government are doing it clandestinely?
    Mr. Heath: My Answer was absolutely clear and the hon. Member has no grounds for disputing it. The limits have not been exceeded and there is no proposal that they should be.

    German Foreign Policy, 1918–45 (Documents)
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Lord Privy Seal what opportunity was given to the persons named on pages 1062–1069 of Series C Volume IV of Documents on German Foreign Policy 1918–1945 to see the proposed text and to comment thereupon.
    Mr. P. Thomas: Under the Exchange of Letters of 14th March to 12th April, 1956, (Command 37) between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the transfer to the Federal Republic of the archives of the former German Foreign Office, access to these documents is given at all times. Photostat copies of the documents covering the period since 1918 are also available for public research in London and in Washington. In these circumstances it is not normal practice to inform all those referred to prior to publication.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: In view of the fact that this concerned the views and

    919
    attitudes of distinguished people, including the King at the time, would it not have been a little more courteous to have shown them these documents which it was intended to publish and to have invited their comments upon their contents—in view of the fact that these comments in the documents were made, after all, by an emissary of Hitler and there is some doubt as to their truth?
    Mr. Thomas: Well, it is true that the attention of His Royal Highness the Duke of Windsor, whose name appears with those of 28 other persons in the pages referred to by my hon. Friend, would normally have been drawn to the contents of this text before publication. It is regretted that, due to an administrative oversight—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—His Royal Highness's attention was not so drawn in this case and an apology has been made to His Royal Highness.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Would the views of the other 28 people named also have been drawn to this, or would it only have been the Duke of Windsor whose attention would have been drawn to these documents?
    Mr. Thomas: Normally it would have been only the attention of His Royal Highness the Duke of Windsor.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: On what ground would that distinction be made? After all, the other 28 people also have reputations to guard and protect and have a right to make comments.
    Mr. Thomas: The other people are private persons and these documents are open to inspection by them. His Royal Highness the Duke of Windsor was in an official position in Britain at the time, as King.

    Ex-Admiral Doenitz
    Mrs. Castleasked the Lord Privy Seal what conditions were attached to the release of ex-Admiral Doenitz from Spandau Prison in 1956.
    Mr. Heath: None, Sir.
    Mrs. Castle: In view of the recent speech by Admiral Doenitz to German students in Schleswig-Holstein, ought there not to have been? Is this Nazi warmonger to be allowed to stir up pro-Hitler and anti-British feeling among German youth? Will the right hon.
    920
    Gentleman make representations on this point immediately to the Federal Government?
    Mr. Heath: The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg sentenced Admiral Doenitz to ten years' imprisonment, which he served in full. It did not impose any restriction on his subsequent activities. It is not for me to say, in answer to the hon. Lady, what the Tribunal should have done. The plain fact is that Admiral Doenitz served his full sentence and was then released as a free man in a free country. What is important is that the immediate reaction of public opinion and the Press to the speech in the Federal Republic has been hostile, which is a very good indication of the strength of democratic freedom in the Republic.
    Mr. Shinwell: Why is the right hon. Gentleman so lenient and liberal in sentiment towards these ex-Nazi criminals and so lacking in liberal sentiment towards East Germans?
    Mr. Heath: I am stating a matter of fact as to what the International Tribunal did. It sentenced Admiral Doenitz to ten years' imprisonment, which was served in full. No conditions were imposed by the Tribunal for after his release. That is a matter of fact.
    Mrs. Castle: Was not the reaction of Doenitz's young audience not one of hostility but of vociferous applause? Is this not a cause of great anxiety to all those who fear the recurrence of Fascism in Europe today? In view of this, will not the right hon. Gentleman raise this matter with the Federal Government?
    Mr. Heath: The school has been much criticised for its invitation to Admiral Doenitz to speak. The speech has been condemned by Press and public opinion in the Federal Republic.

  BRUSSELS NEGOTIATIONS (COST)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Lord Privy Seal the total expenditure incurred by the Foreign Office in connection with the negotiations to enter the Common Market.
  Mr. Heath: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon.

  921
  and gallant Friend the Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Captain Kerby) on 6th February.
  Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister save me some research by stating exactly what that sum is? Can he tell us what we have got for this expenditure?
  Mr. Heath: If the hon. Member looks up the reply, he will see the detailed figures. Approximately, the additional cost to the Foreign Office was £100,000 and the cost of the regular London-based staff was £90,000, making a total of £190,000. I should have thought that as this House authorised the Government to enter into the negotiations such a sum would have been considered a moderate amount for the 16 months' work which was carried out.

  NUCLEAR TESTS
  Mr. Mayhewasked the Lord Privy Seal what further action he is now taking to secure agreement on a nuclear test ban.
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now make a statement on the talks on ending nuclear test explosions.
  Mr. Heath: I have nothing to add to the statement which I made on 4th February in reply to the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) and Barking (Mr. Driberg).
  Mr. Mayhew: Is not the Soviet position in these talks hard to defend? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that now they have accepted the principle of on-site inspection the gap between the two sides seems to have narrowed a good deal? Will he undertake next week at the discussions at the disarmament conference to find ways and means of narrowing the gap between two or three on-site inspections on the one side and eight and ten on the other?
  Mr. Heath: Yes, it is perfectly true that the gap has been narrowed because the Soviet Union has returned to its position in 1961 in accepting on-site inspection. The United States and we ourselves for our part have moved in the number of inspections which we requested from 20 down to between ten and eight. We hoped that in the dis-
  922
  cussions which were carried out in New York between the Soviet Union and the United States it would be possible to reach agreement. We are, therefore, sorry that the Soviet Union decided to suspend those talks and to take the matter back to the nuclear test conference, but we naturally hope to make progress there.
  Mr. Allaun: But since the gap between three and ten is so small—HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—Call we not compromise on six or seven, and why not ask neutral scientists to make the inspection? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that people are sick and disgusted that all three Governments in their eternal test ban dance go up and down, one advancing the other retreating, like a minuet? Surely the British Government could give a lead and contract out of the business? That would clinch it.
  Mr. Heath: The American and the British Governments have, as I have just said, made their contributions towards trying to get a settlement. The position is that the Soviet Union has indicated that it believes that the number of tests is a political matter, and we hold strongly the view that this is, of course, a matter of scientific means of detection and of defence and is, therefore, vital; but we want to reach agreement with the Soviet Union.
  Mr. Mayhew: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain this vital difference in practical terms between, say, five on-site inspections and eight, which we agreed?
  Mr. Heath: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward this proposal on behalf of one side or the other. I am not here at the Dispatch Box to negotiate sums for a final settlement.
  Mr. Hendersonasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the negotiations for a nuclear test ban agreement and on the progress made at the 18-Power Disarmament Conference.
  Mr. Heath: On the nuclear test ban negotiations, I have nothing to add to the reply I have just given to the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), and Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). The Eighteen

  923
  Power Disarmament Conference is due to reconvene tomorrow. During the last session before Christmas no significant progress was made on the subject of disarmament.
  Mr. Henderson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that more than a year ago the United States and Soviet Governments introduced their disarmament plans into the conference? Does he remember that that was followed by a statement by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary indicating that Her Majesty's Government would produce a master plan? Are the Government producing a master plan? If not, what initiative do they propose to take at the resumed conference?
  Mr. Heath: We have given our full support to the United States plan.
  Mr. Mayhew: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that, in his letter to Mr. Khrushchev at the time of the Cuban crisis, the Prime Minister said that the crisis opened the way to new initiatives on disarmament, with special reference to stage one of the disarmament plan? What has been done to follow that up?
  Mr. Heath: In the general position, we have seen new initiatives in the nuclear test talks, first in New York and now transferred to the conference. As for the other matters, we must await the conference.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Foreign Secretary said in Geneva at the Committee of 18 last March that the Committee should take the best parts of both the Russian and the American plans and make a master plan? What have we taken from the Russian plan? Have we in any degree given support to any of their proposals?
  Mr. Heath: I understand that the Conference has been examining each part of the plans. Unfortunately progress has been very slow indeed. It is therefore not near the stage where we can produce a master plan from two plans.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: What have the Government done?
  Mr. Heath: We have taken our full part in the discussions on the various sections of the plans.

  SPAIN (MISS CHLOE VULLIAMY)
  Sir L. Plummerasked the Lord Privy Seal (1) what was the nature of the protests he made to the Spanish Government over the arrest of a British subject, Miss Chloe Vulliamy, on 14th January, 1963, her detention by the Spanish police for four days in Cordoba and her subsequent deportation from Spain; and whether he will make a statement;
  (2) on what date the Spanish Government authorities informed Her Majesty's Ambassador in Madrid of the arrest on 14th January, 1963, and subsequent detention of Miss Chloe Vulliamy; and what action he took on receipt of this information.
  Mr. P. Thomas: Her Majesty's Ambassador was not informed at the time. Miss Vulliamy communicated with the Foreign Office after her return to this country and on the instructions of my noble Friend Her Majesty's Ambassador made representations to the Spanish Government on 25th January. The Spanish Government undertook to arrange an immediate enquiry.
  Sir L. Plummer: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that this Quaker lady, with no political associations at all, was charged with having given £3 to the family of a Spanish political prisoner, that she was thrown into a Spanish gaol under filthy and intolerable conditions, and that the Spanish authorities kept her incommunicado and then deported her without any proper charge being made against her? The Foreign Office have taken a long time to insist on the Spanish Government's both making an apology and paying compensation. May I ask the Joint Under-Secretary whether the Foreign Office will now make it quite clear to General Franco that British people are not to be treated in this way?
  Mr. Thomas: I am aware of the facts of the case as described by this lady to the Foreign Office and to the Press. I think we should now await the full reply by the Spanish Government to the representations we have made to them.
  Sir L. Plummer: In view of what I regard as the unsatisfactory nature of

  925
  this reply—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I wish to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

  CANADA (NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND BASES)
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will raise in the North Atlantic Council, as a matter affecting the defence policy of the organisation, the official American proposals that the Canadian Government should arm their forces with nuclear weapons and provide nuclear bases on their territory.
  Mr. Heath: No, Sir.
  Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting by his reply that the N.A.T.O. Council is not concerned with the deployment of nuclear weapons within the territories of the N.A.T.O. Alliance? Can he tell us whether or not it is the policy of the Government, in order to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons, to ensure that the present deployment of nuclear weapons within N.A.T.O. is confined to the N.A.T.O. territories?
  Mr. Heath: I was not implying that. This matter at the moment is primarily one for the countries concerned.

  CZECH AMBASSADOR, LONDON
  Mr. Liptonasked the Lord Privy Seal what action he took following the protest he received from the Czech Ambassador in London regarding a microphone discovered in his desk; and what was discovered by the engineers and detectives whom he sent to examine the microphone.
  Mr. P. Thomas: No such protest has been received.
  Mr. Lipton: May I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, which indicates that the report which appeared in the Sunday Telegraph of 3rd February last is completely without foundation? Will the hon. Gentleman dissociate himself from this irresponsible attempt to create ill feeling between Her Majesty's Government and the Czechoslovak Government—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no Ministerial duty on the Joint Under-Secretary of State to dissociate himself from reports he did not create.

  UNITED STATES AND CUBA
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the renewal of tension between the United States and Cuba, he will bring the matter before the Security Council and propose the adoption of an international inspection system under United Nations auspices based on reciprocity and on an undertaking to settle all differences by the methods prescribed in the United Nations Charter.
  Mr. Heath: No, Sir.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that tension is being caused by the growing campaign in the United States, in Administration quarters and in Congress, alleging that Cuban defence preparations endanger the safety of the United States? Is he further aware that an international inspection system such as that proposed here would put an end to that tension? Does he acknowledge no responsibility as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council for obviating further crises between members of the United Nations?
  Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir; we accept our full responsibilities, but as far as I know there has been no significant change in the situation since the United States and the Soviet Government sent their letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 7th January. In any case, on the last occasion when there was tension over Cuba the United States was speedy indeed in taking the matter to the United Nations itself.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Yes, after taking armed action in defiance of the Charter.
  Mr. M. Foot: If the right hon. Gentleman will not take the course of action proposed in the Question, will he say what action the British Government are taking in the present Cuban difficulties? Does he really tell the House that there has been no fresh development in the Cuban situation, when everybody else can see that there is the same mounting tension in the United States? There is

  927
  a growing possibility that there may be a fresh Cuban crisis. Have the British Government taken any action about it?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is referring to what he supposes to be the internal political situation in the United States. I said that there has been no change in the situation, broadly speaking, since the two Governments exchanged their letters with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Was not the Charter devised to secure discussion of exactly such disputes as this before they become dangerous to the peace of the world?
  Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir; and, if I remember rightly, this matter is still in the cognisance of the United Nations.
  Sir M. Lindsay: If there were a fresh Cuban crisis, would it not be better to leave it to President Kennedy to deal with as he dealt with the last one?
  Mr. Speaker: That question is hypothetical throughout.

  CONGO
  Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Lord Privy Seal why the British delegate at the United Nations has not raised the subject of the Congo during the 40 meetings of the Security Council of the United Nations Organisation which have taken place since November, 1961.
  Mr. P. Thomas: I have nothing to add to what I said on 7th February.
  Dr. Johnson: Does my hon. Friend realise that the statement to us in the debate was very unsatisfactory? Is he satisfied that Her Majesty's Government should continue to pay to the United Nations but have no effective say in what goes on? Is not this an impossible and humiliating situation for a great nation?
  Mr. Thomas: As my hon. Friend knows, we went into this matter very fully in the debate last week. As I said, I do not think any useful purpose would be served by making a request as suggested in the Question.
  Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Lord Privy Seal what action the United Nations is proposing to take in regard
  928
  to the presence of private armies in the Congo which constitute a threat to the peace of neighbouring countries.
  Mr. P. Thomas: The Secretary-General's plan for national reconciliation in the Congo provides among other things for the integration of dissident troops in the Congolese national armed forces.
  Dr. Johnson: Does not my hon. Friend agree, however, that the United Nations troops would have been better used before this in cleaning up all these armies rather than in pursuing the vendetta against Mr. Tshombe?
  Mr. Thomas: No, Sir. As my hon. Friend knows, I cannot accept the way he has put his supplementary question.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. Friend also aware of the private armies being organised in the Congo for attacks on Portuguese territory? Should not the United Nations concern itself with real threats to peace and security? Will Her Majesty's Government ask it to do something about this?
  Mr. Thomas: I understand that a number of Angolan nationalists are training in the area to the south of Leopoldville. This area, however, is not controlled by the United Nations.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the present situation in the Congo and on the steps to be taken to secure the economic rehabilitation of the country.
  Mr. P. Thomas: Senior officers of the Katanga gendarmerie have taken the oath of allegiance to President Kasavubu, as provided for in the U Thant Plan for National Reconciliation. Arrangements are going ahead for the implementation of the economic and monetary provisions of the plan, and the emphasis of the United Nations effort in the Congo is now being switched to economic assistance.

  RUSSIAN DELEGATION (HOTEL ACCOMMODATION)
  Sir C. Osborneasked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware that a party of 28 Russian teachers and students, whose

  929
  educational tour was arranged by the British Council, were compelled to share four and five in a bedroom in a Bristol hotel; who was responsible; if he will ensure that all similar delegations are properly looked after; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Robert Cookeasked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware that a party of 28 Russian teachers and students, whose educational tour was arranged by the British Council, were compelled to share four and five in a bedroom in a Bristol hotel, because more arrived than were expected; and if he will ensure that proper arrangements are made for such parties in future.
  Mr. P. Thomas: The National Union of Students was responsible for arranging this tour, which is one of a number of exchanges under the Anglo-Soviet Cultural Agreement operated by non-Governmental organisations with British Council support. The union has successfully received some four hundred Soviet student visitors in the past five years and I have no doubt that the incident in question was an isolated one which is unlikely to recur.
  Sir C. Osborne: While I am grateful to hear that this is an isolated case, is my hon. Friend aware that the proprietors of the hotel were left feeling very dissatisfied with the arrangements and that the Russians themselves were also disappointed? Does he think that the National Union of Students is a responsible body to be controlling Government money in this way? Ought not better arrangements to be made?
  Mr. Thomas: No, Sir. I think that as a matter of policy it is right that the details of the tours should be left to the student organisations. The British Council has, of course, a real interest in this, and I believe that it hopes to make arrangements to prevent the recurrence of similar events in future.
  Mr. J. Dugdale: Will the hon. Gentleman say exactly what he means when he says that the British Council has "a real interest" and refers to, I think, "with British Council support"? What exactly does the British Council do in this matter?
  Mr. Thomas: These exchanges are financed by the British Council.
  Mr. Mayhew: Is not one of the lessons to be learnt that the more these exchanges can take place in an unofficial, unorganised manner, the better? Is there anything wrong in principle with students sharing a hotel room unless they are organised by some governmental body? Therefore, will the hon. Gentleman not be discouraged from promoting these exchanges and try constantly to make them less and less official instead of more and more so?
  Mr. Thomas: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

  VISAS (EAST GERMANY)
  Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government are now prepared to grant visas to people from East Germany who desire to come to this country for the purpose of taking part in international sporting meetings or competitions.
  Mr. Heath: No, Sir.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this grotesque decision by N.A.T.O. to refuse visas to people from East Germany is gravely hampering the international organisations which carry on sport, and that the Olympic International Council has just held a conference to protest against it? Does he not appreciate that this is helping to destroy a movement which is doing more than anything else to break down the cold war?
  Mr. Heath: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also agree that the grotesque wall put up in Berlin is doing mare than anything else to hinder the lives of the people who live in West Berlin and have relations in East Berlin. The right hon. Gentleman knows that these restrictions were placed by all the N.A.T.O. countries on exit permits for this very reason, to show that we are not prepared to acquiesce in the wall.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have visited the wall and made speeches about it quite as strong as his? Is he also aware that this ridiculous restriction is doing very great harm and impeding the sporting intercourse between East and West

  931
  Germany which was previously so beneficial?
  Mr. Heath: I pay tribute to the speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman, and that is why I hoped that he would show an understanding of the situation. The plain fact is that people are allowed out of East Germany only if they serve the purposes of the East German Government, and, therefore, the East German Government are prepared to allow sporting teams to leave only if it suits their own purposes. We are, therefore, perfectly entitled to maintain these restrictions.
  Mr. Rankin: If the right hon. Gentleman objects to walls, why should he erect a wall in regard to sport?
  Mr. Heath: That was not a very good one. I should have thought that the answer was quite plain. We wanted to show our abhorrence of the wall, and we have shown it in this way, by refusing to grant exit permits to people, including sporting teams.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I give notice that I shall raise this matter on an early occasion in view of the unsatisfactory reply.

  PORTUGAL (B.B.C. BROADCASTS)
  Mr. Pavittasked the Lord Privy Seal why the British Broadcasting Corporation discontinued their broadcasts to Portugal in 1957; when the intention to transmit a daily half hour programme is likely to be realised; and what means are being used to convey news and views to the people of Portugal in the absence of this radio link.
  Mr. P. Thomas: The British Broadcasting Corporation's broadcasts to Portugal were discontinued in 1957 in order to release resources for other services then considered of a higher priority: it is the intention to resume broadcasting in Portuguese on 28th April. In the meantime the commercial news agencies supply British news to the Portuguese press and radio and the Embassy has an information officer.
  Mr. Pavitt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a large section of public opinion in this country opposes the way in which political prisoners are being
  932
  treated in Portugal? Will he ask the broadcasters to bear this in mind with a view, perhaps, to securing an amnesty? Will he consider applying the same techniques to Dr. Salazar as are being applied now to President de Gaulle?
  Mr. Thomas: The purpose of these broadcasts is to do what we can to bring about better understanding of the British point of view in Portugal.

  EUROPEAN FREE TRADE AREA
  Mr. Stonehouseasked the Lord Privy Seal when he intends to consult the European Free Trade Area countries following the breakdown of the Common Market negotiations; and what policy Her Majesty's Government are proposing to the European Free Trade Area.
  Mr. Heath: The ministerial meeting of the European Free Trade Association Council on 18th and 19th February will be the occasion for a full review of the situation created by the breakdown of the Brussels negotiations.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Is it the intention to develop E.F.T.A. as a positive economic force, or is it merely to be used as a counter for the resubmission of the British application to join the E.E.C.?
  Mr. Heath: The Association exists for the increase and improvement of trade between its members. That it has been doing since its foundation and throughout the course of the negotiations in Brussels. I have no doubt that it will continue to do that in accordance with the provisions of the Stockholm Convention.
  Mr. Kershaw: Is it the intention at the forthcoming meeting to raise the possibility of agriculture being made part of the Treaty of Stockholm?
  Mr. Heath: It is up to any of the members of the Association to raise any matters they like. It is well known that agriculture is of particular importance to some of them.

  BAHRAIN (MRS. K. V. ABRAHAMS)
  Mr. Stonehouseasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will advise the political agent in Bahrain to allow the two children

  933
  of Mrs. K. V. Abrahams, holding an unconditional residence permit in Bahrain, to visit their mother.
  Mr. P. Thomas: I have asked the Political Agent for a full report on this matter.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there have been stupid mistakes in Bahrain before? Will he ensure that these children, aged 13 and 8, respectively, are allowed to go to Bahrain and that no bureaucracy will be allowed to interfere?
  Mr. Thomas: Before commenting, I should await the report of the Political Agent.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Potatoes
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Minisster of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated amount of potatoes that will be licensed for import into this country during the next six months.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): I cannot estimate what the quantity involved will be. So long as there is a risk of shortage later in the season, imports will be admitted freely from countries that can satisfy our plant health requirements.
    Mr. Wainwright: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that ample supplies come in without harming the producers and also to cater for the needs of the consumers? Will he look into what happened last year, when exporters from other countries broke agreements with British importers with the result that prices increased two, three, and sometimes four times?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: We will watch the situation very carefully to see that we do not get a repetition, as far as it can be avoided, of conditions of last year.
    Mr. Peart: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that consultations take place with the Potato Board in view of what happened last year, when there was a crisis?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: We are in constant touch with the Board. The hon. Gentleman need have no fear on that score.

  MINISTRY OF AVIATION

    Trooping Contracts
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Aviation whether he will now make a statement on the possibility of British Overseas Airways Corporation and British European Airways competing for trooping contracts.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Neil Marten): The Corporations can already compete for ad hoc trooping work, and I understand they contemplate putting proposals before the Air Transport Licensing Board for the carriage of troops on scheduled services at rebated fares. My right hon. Friend is examining the question of allowing the Corporations to compete for long term trooping contracts.
    Mr. Lee: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is the second point I am concerned about? Will he agree, now that the independents can obtain licences on the scheduled routes of the Corporations on the prextext that this brings competition into aviation, that it is only fair that we should reciprocate by giving the Corporations more freedom in trooping and other activities, since they have not the same freedom in such activities as the independents have?
    Mr. Marten: My right hon. Friend is now considering this question.
    Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman remember, when considering the award of trooping contracts to the Corporations, that they have a large number of aircraft which have been taken out of service and are sitting on the tarmac in mothballs?
    Mr. Marten: These are matters to be taken into consideration.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that unless a profitable use can be found by the independents for aircraft surplus to the requirements of the nationalised airlines, the

    935
    nationalised airlines will continue to make unexpectedly high losses?
    Mr. Marten: That is rather a different question.

    Supersonic Airliner (Anglo-French Agreement)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on the future of the joint agreement between the British Aircraft Corporation and Sud Aviation to build the prototype of a supersonic airliner, in the light of President de Gaulle's decision to exclude Great Britain from the Common Market.
    Mr. Marten: This agreement was not dependent on the outcome of the Common Market negotiations, and it continues in force.
    Mr. Rankin: But surely it is evident that this agreement was originally inspired by the present Minister of Defence with the Common Market in mind? Surely that is accepted even by the Government, and does not it show that while President de Gaulle is not anxious to have us in the Common Market he is not going to bar our money? Also, as the aviation industry is now in decline, ought not we to reconsider our position with regard to the building of this aircraft and realise that we can do the job ourselves to the benefit of our own industry?
    Mr. Marten: No, Sir. I think that the original agreement was arrived at for very sound commercial reasons. Whatever misgivings the hon. Gentleman may have on this matter, I assure him that my right hon. Friend and I are firm believers in this Entente Cordiale.
    Mr. P. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that most people are thoroughly satisfied with this practical working agreement unbeclouded by any political overtones at all?
    Mr. Marten: I am most grateful for that comment. As I understand it, the Members of the Liberal Party are not particularly satisfied with it.
    Mr. Lee: In view of the belief of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend in the Entente Cordiale, will he inform the Prime Minister that we do not wish to limit it in any way at all, even to Royal visits to Paris?
    Mr. Marten: The point will be met.

  PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Scotland
    The Earl of Dalkeithasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how much has been spent by his Department in Scotland as a direct consequence of unemployment in 1961 and 1962.
    The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Niall Macpherson): Unemployment benefit payments in Scotland totalled nearly £7 million in 1961 and are estimated at about £9½ million in 1962.
    The Earl of Dalkeith: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication of how much this would have been on the basis of the new rates which are to come into force before long?
    Mr. Macpherson: Not without notice, because I am rather wary of making calculations in my head, but if my hon. Friend adds between 17 and 18 per cent. he will reach the answer.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that these figures of £7 million and £9½ million show how high is the rate of unemployment in Scotland? Is he also aware that those men and women who have been unemployed for a long time are much more interested in the Government finding them a job than knowing what the Government would have paid them over the past two years if the unemployment rate had been higher?
    Mr. Macpherson: These figures obviously reflect the degree of unemployment current at the time. My duty is to ensure that payments are made to those who are unemployed, rather than find jobs for the unemployed, which is for my right hon. Friend.

    Medical Certificates
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if, in view of the continuance of the inclement weather, he will give publicity to the fact that people suffering from minor ailments who find difficulty in visiting their doctor should follow the advice contained in his Department's Pamphlet No. 16, to the effect that they can send a note to their local insurance office explaining that they cannot supply a certificate in three days, giving details of their incapacity and promising to send a certificate within a period of ten days.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: There are already arrangements for reminding people through the medium of the local Press that if they have difficulty in obtaining medical certificates they may instead send in written notice of their incapacity, provided they do so within three days. These arrangements may be brought into operation as and when abnormal conditions locally so warrant. The arrangements seem to work satisfactorily, but if the hon. Member has any suggestions to make, I shall be glad to consider them.
    Sir B. Janner: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that there are a large number of people who are not aware of these provisions and to whom, in consequence of the present inclement weather, considerable hardship results from making a personal visit? Will he give further publicity to this in the local papers?
    Mr. Macpherson: When the circumstances seem to require it, further publicity is given in the local papers. This is a matter which is left to the local manager at his discretion. As to the more general question, the leaflet dealing with sickness benefit indicates that this is one of the procedures which can be followed. In other words, if it is not possible to send a medical certificate within three days, it is possible to send a note instead.
    Mr. Snow: In using the term "local Press", does the Minister include the weekly local Press, which is often the most important paper to publicise this sort of fact?
    Mr. Macpherson: Yes, Sir. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is most certainly included.

    Retirement Pension (Capital Value)
    Sir J. Maitlandasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what is the capital value to a single person and to a husband and wife, respectively, of the retirement pension on becoming eligible for the rate of pensions proposed under the new proposed rates of pension; and how much in each ease the pensioner will have personally subscribed in contributions.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: The capital value to a single man retiring at age 65 when the proposed pension rates come into
    938
    force will be about £1,700, and to a married couple where the wife is five years younger about £3,600. The maximum value of the contributions the man can have paid for these pensions will be about £230 (with a similar amount from his employer).

  HOSPITALS

    Mentally Subnormal (Private Institutions)
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Minister of Health how many beds are obtained by hospital authorities in private institutions for subnormal and severely subnormal patients; and if he will give the figures for each regional hospital board.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): One thousand five hundred and seventy-six. I will, with permission, circulate the detail in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the Minister aware that some of the costs which parents and local authorities have to meet in respect of private patients are astronomical, and that in some instances they reach between £10 and ten guineas a week for each patient who has to be accommodated in a private hospital where such beds have to be undertaken for very difficult patients?
    Mr. Braine: I am aware that there are instances of this. I think that it would be best if the hon. Gentleman awaited the reply which I shall circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and then if he has a particular case in mind perhaps he will communicate with me direct and I shall do my best to answer him.
    Following are the figures:

    Region

    Beds (at November, 1962)

    Newcastle

    …

    122

    Leeds

    …

    —

    Sheffield

    …

    97

    East Anglia

    …

    42

    North West Metropolitan

    …

    258

    North East Metropolitan

    …

    108

    South East Metropolitan

    …

    15

    South West Metropolitan

    …

    159

    Oxford

    …

    45

    South Western

    …

    92

    Birmingham

    …

    90

    Manchester

    …

    243

    Liverpool

    …

    164

    Wessex

    …

    141

    Wales

    …

    —

    Total

    …

    1,576

    Mr. Spriggsasked the Minister of Health what is the cost of a bed in a private institution for sub-normal patients when such beds are obtained under contract by regional hospital boards; and what is the cost to the patient, and to the local health authority, in cases where the regional hospital board have not contracted for beds in such private institutions.
    Mr. Braine: The cost varies from about £4 a week to £8 and above; this information is not available.
    Mr. Spriggs: I want to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the case which I have raised with him in correspondence and ask whether something more could be done by his Ministry to speed up the new beds required by a large number of people who are having to manage very difficult patients at home? A large number of these cases are affecting the health of parents and those who have to manage them.
    Mr. Braine: Yes, Sir. This is very much in our minds.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: When the Minister says that the cost is £4 to £8 and above, how much above £8 is above?
    Mr. Braine: I should like notice of that question.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Hospital Treatment (Doctors' Letters)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Health if he will issue a standard form and envelope for general practitioners to use in referring patients for hospital treatment.
    Mr. Braine: A sub-committee of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee is considering this.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the Minister give this urgent attention? Where it has been tried it has proved a considerable saving to general practitioners, hospitals and patients. Will he expedite the work of the sub-committee so that this useful measure can come into operation at an early date?
    Mr. Braine: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am glad to be able to say that the sub-committee expects to report shortly.

    Nurses, Nottingham
    Mr. Whitlockasked the Minister of Health what are the shortages of nursing staff at each of the Nottingham hospitals.
    Mr. Braine: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:
    Following are the additional numbers (whole-time equivalent) of nursing and midwifery staff, trained and untrained, which the hospital authorities wish to recruit:—

    Nottingham General

    164

    Nottingham City

    153

    Highbury

    44

    Nottingham Eye

    7

    Cedars

    1

    Heathfield

    22

    Sherwood

    68

    Firs Maternity

    16

    Ruddington Hall

    7

    Nottingham Children's

    13½

    Nottingham Hospital for Women

    Nil

    Mapperley

    17½

    St. Francis

    9½

    Coppice

    8

    Bastford

    3

IRAQ
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on Iraq.
Her Majesty's Ambassador in Iraq has had an interview with the new Foreign Minister, Talib Hussein Al-Shabib, in which the latter asked for recognition by Her Majesty's Government. All the evidence we have indicates that the new régime in Iraq has the support of the armed forces and the bulk of the population, and is in effective control of the country.
The new Government officially stated on 8th February that they will comply with Iraq's international commitments and treaties. Her Majesty's Government have noted this assurance with satisfaction.
In these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government consider that it would be proper to accord recognition to the new Iraqi Government. Her Majesty's Ambassador in Baghdad has accordingly been instructed to inform the Iraqi Foreign

941
Minister today of Her Majesty's Government's recognition. Her Majesty's Government look forward to the development of friendly relations between the United Kingdom and Iraq.
The House will regret to learn that two British subjects, Mr. R. Braithwaite, of the Embassy staff, and Mr. K. Deves, the Reuter correspondent, were slightly wounded by stray gunshots during the fighting in Baghdad. Her Majesty's Ambassador has been making extensive inquiries but, apart from these two, who have now left hospital, there are no other reports of harm to British subjects or damage to British property.
The Iraq Petroleum Company heard on 10th February that its staff at Kirkuk and Basra were all safe and well.
Mr. Mayhew: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that the Government's decision to recognise the new régime is a realistic one, and provides a welcome contrast to their attitude over the Yemen? Can he say whether there is yet any indication of the attitude of the new régime to the oil company, and whether there are any proposals for discussions on this subject?
Mr. Heath: The situation in the Yemen is not comparable with that which exists in Iraq. The new Government have already stated officially—on 8th February—that they will act to secure the flow of oil abroad.
Mr. Skeet: In view of the very delicate arrangements between the Iraqi Government and the British Government, and the very significant British investments in Iraq, is it not ludicrous to contemplate the importation of Soviet oil?
Mr. Bowles: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: was there not something rather ominous in the statement of the new Foreign Secretary of Iraq that he proposed to do some damage to the new State of Israel?
Mr. Heath: The undertaking which I have given in my statement was that they would respect all their international obligations, and as they are a member of the United Nations they will, therefore, respect the United Nations Charter.
Mr. W. Yates: Has it been made clear to the Lord Privy Seal that the revolution is an Iraqi revolution and not an Egyptian one? Will he also say whether he considers that there is any chance that the new Iraqi Government will contemplate a union with the U.A.R.?
Mr. Heath: I cannot comment on these matters of internal Iraqi politics.
Mrs. Castle: Does not this decision make absolutely astonishing the right hon. Gentleman's earlier announcement about his attitude to the Yemen? Is it not a fact that we are the only major Western country except France which has not recognised the Yemen? Why should our criteria be so different from those of our allies in this respect?
Mr. Heath: I have already said that the circumstances in the two countries are not comparable. I was able to state this afternoon that the new régime has the support of the armed forces and the bulk of the population, and is in effective control of the whole country. It therefore reaches the criteria which we normally hold for recognition.
Mr. P. Noel-Baker: When the Lord Privy Seal said that the Iraqi Government are in control of the entire country, does he mean that their authority has been accepted by the Kurdish rebels?
Mr. Heath: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is a long-standing difficulty in Iraq; but the information that we have is that the Government have control of the country.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (BRUSSELS NEGOTIATIONS)
3.35 p.m.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I beg to move,
That this House expresses its full confidence in the determination and ability of Her Majesty's Government to deal with the political and economic situation arising from the breakdown of the Brussels negotiations.
During the next two days the House will be discussing the broad political and economic consequences of the breakdown of the Brussels negotiations. Later in the debate my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will give a fuller account than he was able to do on 30th January of the last scenes of a very dramatic week, and, no doubt, will be able to add his reflections on the European situation immediately resulting. His intimate knowledge of the issues involved, combined with the very close friendships that he has made with all his colleagues in Europe—in the E.F.T.A. countries as well as in the Six—together with the close association which he has kept throughout, with the help of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, with the Commonwealth countries, makes it right that he should place on record a full account of the final stages and his thoughts about the future.
Whatever may be the divergent emphasis which hon. Members have put upon this or that aspect of this great issue, I think that there can be no division of opinion as to the skill and diligence which my right hon. Friend has shown throughout, aided by a devoted team of officials.
I will not disguise from the House, as I have not attempted to disguise from the country, the deep disappointment of the Government and, I think, of the whole nation, at the turn of events. As I have already made clear, I do not believe that there is a simple alternative, in the sense of a sort of ready-made plan, which is better than the one we have been pursuing. There are, indeed, measures which we can and will adopt, and action which we can and will take. Meanwhile, it would be right for me, first, to give some account of the effects of the breakdown in the negotiations upon the Commonwealth economy, on that of our E.F.T.A. partners, and on our own. There
944
were clearly some very substantial gains for some of the Commonwealth countries in the terms negotiated by the Lord Privy Seal.
First, to take an important example in Asia, both India and Ceylon depend for their earnings of foreign exchange very largely upon the export of tea. The sale of tea represents £91 million, or 47 per cent., of the total of Indian exports to Britain. In Ceylon, the figures are £84 million and 90 per cent. of total exports to Britain. It had been agreed that instead of the tariffs now operating in the Common Market countries, which will shortly be at a uniform 10·8 per cent., there would be free entry to all Europe—that is, the Six—from the date of Britain's acceptance.
This would not only have safeguarded exports of tea to the British market, but would have opened up the markets of the Community as a whole, and when we realise what a high proportion tea represents of these countries' exports and, consequently, of their earnings of foreign exchange, we realise the full measure of these lost opportunities.
In the case of those manufactured goods which are of special importance to India, Pakistan and Hong Kong, we had hoped, by the negotiation of comprehensive trade agreements, to inaugurate in Europe as a whole a move towards those advantages which we in Britain have given to these Commonwealth countries, often at very great sacrifice to ourselves.
Let us turn to Africa and the Caribbean. The Lord Privy Seal negotiated an agreement for association should they wish to take it, under which almost all of their raw materials and tropical foodstuffs would have entered freely to this great European market. Most of the new African countries were unwilling, for political reasons, to accept association. But I feel sure that as the years had gone on this process would have developed. Already, some of the West Indian countries have seen the advantages of association and some, undoubtedly, would have accepted it from the beginning.
As regards the old Commonwealth countries, perhaps the most important question facing Canada, Australia and New Zealand in the field of temperate foodstuffs is the hope of being able to negotiate world commodity agreements.

945
It is clear that our absence from the Community will weaken the forces working for reasonable prices and limiting artificial stimulation of production, and this will make commodity agreements correspondingly more difficult. On other items, too, while there was to have been, of course, a gradual disappearance of the preferences and some products which now enter this country free of duty would gradually have become dutiable, it should not be thought that all free entry would have been eliminated.
Many of the most important commodities of Commonwealth producers, such as wool and jute, would still have been duty free. Where items become subject to duty, the loss of the duty-free entry into Britain would have been compensated—perhaps more than compensated—by the reduction of duty in the whole European market. These were the direct benefits. Moreover, all the Commonwealth countries recognised, and made clear at our conference that they recognized, the necessarily limited character of the British market. They accepted the advantage of strengthening the wealth and resilience of that market over the years as well as seeking new outlets elsewhere.
Considerable difficulties must follow for some of the E.F.T.A. countries. The case of Denmark is a particular one because of the character of her food exports, divided between Britain and Germany. The case of Austria also presents a special problem. Yet, broadly speaking, in spite of the difficulty of taking care of every single individual interest, the E.F.T.A. countries were looking forward to entering into the Community with us. I think it right to underline these advantages, not merely for Britain but for the Commonwealth and the E.F.T.A. countries, which would have followed a successful negotiation.
Having said that, let us now turn to the future. First the Commonwealth. In our discussions over the last eighteen months I think that we have all studied with greater precision than ever before the character of Commonwealth trade. It is sometimes argued that some form of free trade or common market could be developed among the Commonwealth countries. Even sixty years ago, when these ideas were first put forward, when the independent Commonwealth countries were confined to very few, and
946
Britain was solely responsible for all the Colonial Empire, such a plan was found to be impracticable and unacceptable. Far more so today.
The Commonwealth cannot be a single economic unit in the sense of any other trading community like, let us say, the United States or the Common Market. It is not only the mere separation by distance; this could be overcome. It is quite a different sort of obstacle. The different stages of industrial development, and the different sorts of trade which meet the needs of individual Commonwealth countries, make it impossible for them all to be unified with us in a free trade area.
Some have very high tariffs, some very low. Some are at the beginning of their industrialisation, some are far advanced. Some are determined to protect—as they have the perfect right to do—their nascent industries with high protective tariffs, and would not for a moment accept what they would call being flooded by cheaper products from Britain. This is true of Australia, Canada and, to some extent of New Zealand.
That is not to say that trade between Britain and the Commonwealth countries cannot be extended. It must be. It is only to say that a uniform system cannot be applied between the Commonwealth countries because of those variations which, on the political and moral side, represent the strength of the Commonwealth. This is an attitude which is shared by all the Commonwealth countries. It means, therefore, that neither an immediate Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference, nor any other conference, could devise, either in their interests or in ours, a substitute for what we had hoped to obtain, for us and for them, from Europe. It is for this reason that it does not seem right at this stage to suggest a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference.
This view is shared by Mr. Menzies and Mr. Holyoake, and I think that it would be accepted by most of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. What we must do in the Commonwealth falls into two categories: first, individual consultation where special arrangements are under review, or there are trade agreements to be made or renewed; secondly,

947
general consultation for any problem in which we can play a joint part. With regard to the first, I shall have an opportunity to see the Prime Minister of Canada at the end of this month and I hope that Mr. Menzies, and Mr. Holyoake will be able to come over soon.
As regards the second, that is where we could have a co-operative approach, there is a special field in which we could work together and that is the approach to some of the problems presented by the various world agreements. The main hope which we now have in this field is in making effective the so-called Kennedy Round. We hope that this can soon begin. We have, therefore, proposed a meeting of Commonwealth Trade Ministers shortly before the time of the coming ministerial session of G.A.T.T. It is hoped that the G.A.T.T. session will take place in the early summer.
We have suggested that this Commonwealth meeting should be held in London and it will provide an opportunity not only for discussing questions in relation to the Kennedy Round, where we can all, I hope, get together, but other economic matters of common interest. I have sent those messages and so far as I have seen the replies there seems to be general hope that such a conference may meet. In addition, this conference will enable us to carry on discussions and negotiations on an individual or bilateral basis. I hope that we shall be able to arrange this conference. It is, of course, in line with the recent statement of Mr. Diefenbaker in the Canadian Parliament and, I think, with the thinking of all the Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
We in Britain are prepared to play our part fully in reducing our own tariffs if we can get comparable benefits for our export markets. As exporters our main interests are in the field of industrial products. The Kennedy Round will be concerned not only with the duties of industrial products, but also, we hope, with trade and agricultural products of no less interest to the Commonwealth.
International trade in temperate agricultural products is at present affected not only by tariffs, but also by a variety of protective devices which are themselves the reflection of various policies of protecting or subsidising domestic producers in both exporting and importing coun-
948
tries. These policies, combined with technical advances in all the producing countries, have aggravated the problems of the trade in temperate agricultural foodstuffs.
In our new situation we have, of course, to be particularly careful from the balance of payments point of view and conscious of the economic disadvantages of uncompensated price increases. This turns upon the degree of compensation in the negotiations. Also important are the obstacles to trade of less-developed countries, and, here again, it is not merely a question of tariffs but also a question of quantitative restrictions and revenue duties which inhibit the growth of trade not only in primary tropical products, but also in manufactured goods.
Commodity agreements to avoid excessive price fluctuations are, as we all know, a great hope which we had, and still have, for benefiting the economies of these countries. Since the war we have worked for international agreements on particular commodities—wheat, sugar, coffee, tin and now, we hope, the cocoa agreement will be completed. The Kennedy Round will be of crucial importance. We must work with enthusiasm to make it succeed. This means good will, as well as skilful negotiation. The United States, the Community and, indeed, all countries will have to accept, in spite of all internal pressures, the reduction of tariffs on a wide basis, if we are to succeed.
Turning to E.F.T.A., there is to be a Council meeting on 18th February, and the House will not expect me to go into detail. As the House knows, E.F.T.A. has two broad purposes. It already offers a wide area of reduced tariffs among an important grouping of trading nations. Beyond this, we have always seen it as a step towards a fully integrated European market. These objects are not inconsistent. In practice, the E.F.T.A. countries have pursued them simultaneously.
Let us look first at the broader objective. A fully integrated European market could be attained in one of two ways, either by the establishment of a free trade area embracing the countries of E.E.C. and E.F.T.A., or by the negotiation by the individual member countries of E.F.T.A. of arrangements for

949
membership of the Community or association with it.
So far, these efforts have proved abortive, in 1957 and 1958, as the House knows, because of the exclusion of agriculture, and now because of the breakdown of the Brussels conference. Nevertheless, the E.F.T.A. countries will seek to extend their trade and develop their association together on the lines provided in the Stockholm Convention. At the same time, they will no doubt seek to increase their exports to the countries of the Community as well as to other countries. We must, by all practical means within our power, preserve and strengthen the fabric of European trade until such a time as the obstacles preventing the establishment of a market, fully integrated, are removed and in this task the support of our E.F.T.A. partners will be of the greatest value.
I should like to say something, if the House will bear with me, about another of the problems which we have been discussing so much in recent months—that of home agriculture. Everyone will realise that this part of the Treaty of Rome presented great difficulties, both as regards our problems here at home and, of course, those of the old Commonwealth countries. It is no good discussing now the details of various approaches which either had been agreed or might have been agreed to resolve them. Nevertheless, the problem remains as regards our own country.
I think that the whole agricultural community recognises that whatever may be the different views about the so-called managed market, towards which we could have worked had we joined the Six, the present system of open-ended subsidy on a number of items, combined with free entry often at far lower prices, has serious drawbacks.
We must try to cure these defects without losing sight of our main purpose—a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, a strong and prosperous agricultural industry, and also, may I add, one which is ail the time improving its methods both as to production and as to distribution. The record of the industry since the war is, indeed, remarkable. Improved agricultural techniques and the
950
considerable inflow of capital into agriculture have, of course, benefited the industry and they have also been the foundation of one of the best of all our exports—the agricultural machinery industry.
However, it is the object that matters, and the methods must be looked at, of course, from time to time. The mere fact that the Common Market negotiations have failed does not relieve us of this responsibility or the need to fit our agricultural policy into overseas trading arrangements. We have been saying for some time now—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has said it on many occasions—that, whether we join the Common Market or not, some changes in our support system are inevitable. The amount of agricultural support, particularly the Exchequer's open-ended commitment, must be brought under greater control.
My right hon. Friend the Minister will be ready, beginning at this year's Price Review and continuing thereafter, to discuss with agricultural representatives what can be done, in the full spirit of our pledges, to work out new and constructive ideas. Many of these steps will, of course, involve special consultation and special agreements with our overseas suppliers, including the Commonwealth countries.
Turning to the effect of the breakdown of Brussels upon the general British economy—
Mr. John Morris Mr. John Morris (Aberavon) rose—
The Prime Minister: I have a great deal to say and would prefer not to give way at this point.
Turning to the general effect of the Brussels breakdown upon our British economy, I know that some economists have differed as to the value which we should obtain or would have obtained by entering the Common Market. Nevertheless, I think that most economists, and certainly the mass of business opinion in this country, had no doubt about the balance of advantage. Some feared certain pressures upon the balance of payments which might develop from an increase in the cost of food imports. Others feared a corresponding increase in the cost of British industrial products. But, broadly speaking, the great majority were looking forward eagerly and enthusiastically to this new adventure.

951
We shall not now obtain automatically the larger market for which we had hoped. At least, we shall not obtain it on the favourable terms for which we had hoped. But that certainly does not mean that we cannot win it by our own efforts. Our sales to Europe have shown very remarkable increases, and that in spite of the tariff. We have already leapt over the wall and if, as we hope, the collective decision of the Six keeps the tariff reasonably low, then it should not be more insurmountable than in the past. But it will be there, and we must, therefore, face that fact and try to reduce our internal costs by all possible means.
We must enlarge our own home market by all the measures of expansion which can increase consumer demand without undue pressure upon imports. I will not embark today on the great economic problem of how to expand without inflation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—but, whatever may be the views of hon. Members, there is, undoubtedly accepted by all serious students, one vital condition for a lasting solution. That is to adopt in principle and make effective in practice a reasonable incomes policy. At any rate, we must now try to increase consumer demand as the basis for the export demand.
We shall have to do it in conditions where we shall not have the competitive stimulus of European exports into this country which the open, free competition would have provided, and we must, therefore, provide the stimulus ourselves. This can be done partly by modernising the structure of industry and partly by encouraging a general climate of competition at home. In addition, it is becoming more and more recognised that the old concept of every man starting in one industry and spending his whole life in the same industry may have to be changed as industries and techniques change—
Mr. E. Shinwell: It is changing.
The Prime Minister: It has changed and is changing and this brings the need for plans based on a wide scale to deal with the need for workers to move from one industry to another. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has
952
already made certain proposals for industrial retraining. This is only a start and I believe that we shall be able to develop wider schemes especially in those areas where some radical changes must be faced in the character of industry.
But success or failure will depend more than ever on the future of British exports. On the whole, at present British prices compare not unfavourably with the general European level. If we can expand at home without destroying this equilibrium, our exports should have a fine chance of going across the tariff barriers, wherever they may be, in the Six, or the United States, or in the Commonwealth, or indeed, in any other country in the world. Since we now have to carry rather more burdens than we expected, at least in Europe more than we had hoped for, we must not handicap ourselves unduly in the future.
It is natural that in the present situation we should look again at the whole question of export incentives. I must warn the House that this is a very difficult and complicated matter. So far as direct subsidies are concerned, we have spent a long time trying to get agreements between the main trading nations against export subsidies in any form and in this we have been remarkably successful. Since we depend so much more heavily on exports than do others, it is clearly in our interests to maintain and strengthen this policy.
The same is broadly true of tax relief. Nevertheless, it may be possible to find methods of helping exporters which do not conflict with the undertakings into which we have entered and done so much to persuade other countries to accept. Meanwhile, we have made a tremendous improvement, even during the last eighteen months or so, in the flexibility of our export credits system. What has been done is shown by the volume of orders obtained by British firms with the support of the export credits system. By 1959, they were running at over £600 million. By 1962, they had risen to nearly £900 million.
Of course, our export drive must be made from a sound internal base. Tremendous changes have been brought about by technical development. This has involved a shrinking of some industries and an overall expansion of new industry. Nevertheless, it would be

953
a mistake to suppose that the older industries have no prospects before them. Apart from other measures which may be taken, great improvements have been made by the best-organised shipbuilding firms and there are signs of much better co-operation between employers and trade unions and, what is equally important, between the trade unions themselves.
There are also quite new techniques just ahead of us. The House has taken much interest in the prospect of a nuclear merchant ship. We have always been anxious, not merely to build a nuclear engine which could propel a ship—that, of course, can easily be done —but the Atomic Energy Authority and its experts have been concentrating on how to get a nuclear reactor which is economically attractive. We are now getting 'very near to this point. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will very soon be discussing with all those concerned the arrangements for the construction, ownership and operation of such a vessel.
To sum up on the economic side. First, we have proposed a conference of Commonwealth Trade Ministers. Secondly, we shall work for close co-operation with the Commonwealth, the United States, E.F.T.A. and we hope the Six, for the Kennedy Round. Next we shall maintain our E.F.T.A. association. We shall work for world commodity agreements. At home we shall work for an expanding economy, without inflation, based upon an incomes policy.
Finally, we will accept and encourage changes in the technique and structure of industry while paying particular attention to areas of temporary unemployment. If the breakdown of this long negotiation is a serious set-hack, it is one which, as so often before in our history, we are confident we shall be able to overcome.
Mr. Harold Davies: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. From this plan for the expansion of trade, on which hon. Members on both side of the House will agree, I have noticed one omission. That is a reference to the economies of Africa, Asia, China, Eastern Europe and the rest of the Communist world, which are expanding whether we like it or not. What plans have the Government for
954
a new and dynamic approach to these new countries, which have awakening expectations? We have heard not a word about that.
The Prime Minister: The discussions which I have called the Kennedy Round are among the members of the G.A.T.T. We have tried to do, and have also done, a great deal to expand our trade with various Communist countries which do not trade in our way but trade by barter agreement—Poland, Russia and, to some extent, China—and that, where possible, we shall continue.
I now turn to a consideration of some of the political conclusions which one might draw from what has happened. We do not need, in my view, at any rate, to reproach ourselves about the manner in which the present phase closed. It is the end of a chapter, though not, in my view, necessarily the end of the whole volume. The negotiations did not break down, as they might have done, on a long-drawn-out series of detailed bargains.
If the European vision has been obscured, it has not been by a minor obstruction on one side or the other. It was brought to an end by a dramatic, if somewhat brutal, stroke of policy. As I said in my broadcast the next day, the end did not come because the discussions were menaced with failure. On the contrary, it was because they threatened to succeed. That the French Government, in their hearts, had long feared success I do not now doubt, but I had always hoped that they might be animated by two considerations: first, by the underlying good will that undoubtedly links France and Britain. This friendship is very deep between our peoples, and the links have been forced in the purging fire of war, twice in my lifetime, during terrible years when Britain and France suffered side by side.
Secondly, I had hoped that the French Government would be unwilling to place themselves in the public position of opposing the will of all their colleagues in the Community and, indeed, of disappointing the hopes of every country in the free world. Of course, they may have hoped that the responsibility for this decision would not have to be placed upon their shoulders. They may have felt that the British Government would

955
not be able to carry their policy forward, either through their party or through the assent of the Commonwealth, or through the House of Commons. But when these expectations began to fail the head of the French Government decided to act.
Even so, there was some confusion in the method. So many different reasons were given for Britain's exclusion—that she is an island; that our people were not sufficiently European-minded; that we do not accept the Treaty of Rome—a statement wholly incorrect; that the Nassau Agreement on Polaris was a sudden and unexpected blow—equally incorrect. It was clear that none of these reasons was the real one.
It was common knowledge that the whole French Government had every expectation that the negotiations would be carried through successfully. M. Pompidou, the French Prime Minister, was reported in the French Press as having told a group of journalists as late as 11 th January—that is, three days before the matter was brought to a sudden close—that France desired to see Great Britain join the Six and accede to the Common Market. Other French Ministers had given us similiar assurances in private discussions at much the same time.
The French Government have taken their decision and it would be wrong to ignore the division of purpose which has grown up between us—for a time, at any rate. Of course we wish to continue close relations with France, but it is right that it should be clearly understood that we will do all we can to secure that the Community develops liberal and outward-looking policies and that we shall sustain the efforts and determination of our friends in the Community to work to this end. We have, therefore, to bear in mind the loyalty that we owe to the other nations of Europe which have stood so firmly by us and on whose continued strength of purpose the hope of Europe must now largely depend.
I ought perhaps to refer to the decision to advise Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret to cancel her forthcoming visit to Paris. We here at home are so used to our Head of State and the Royal Family standing scrupulously aloof from day-to-day political affairs that we tend to forget that abroad other considerations obtain. There is no doubt that foreign
956
countries regard royal visits as having a political significance, and, indeed, it is natural that they should. Although this particular visit was, in the main, of an unofficial nature, it was bound, in the circumstances, to assume a semi-official character. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] So soon after recent events a Royal visit and entertainment at the Elysee seemed hardly timely just at this moment. Apart from any question of possible embarrassment—
Mr. Frank Bowles: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Prime Minister or any other hon. Member to bring the Royal family in to support an argument?
Mr. Speaker: It is quite in order to discuss the reasons for the decision, for which apparently the Government are accepting responsibility, in that it was taken on their advice. I do not think that the Prime Minister has done anything more than was necessary for that purpose, as far as I have heard at present.
The Prime Minister: Apart from any question of possible embarrassment, such an occasion must have been given a significance which would have been misunderstood, both in France and in the countries of Europe. Now that the entry of Britain into Europe has been barred by a decision of principle, a decision which, I think, in all common fairness, might have been taken long ago, not after fourteen months of negotiation—
Mr. Harold Wilson: We shall deal later with the petty and peevish decision to cancel the Royal visit. Will the Prime Minister, now that he has said that the reason was the political effects of such a visit, kindly tell the House why the Government put out the statement last week that it had nothing to do with that and was a question of maintaining an adequate number of Counsellors of State in this country?
The Prime Minister: I think that it was in full accordance with diplomatic courtesies and usages to use that form of words.
We have now been barred by a decision which I think in fairness might have been taken fourteen months ago. We cannot hide from ourselves, therefore, that a situation has arisen more serious and with deeper implications than the

957
mere breakdown of an economic plan. It would be wrong not to express frankly to the House and to the country some of the apprehensions which we feel. There have always been two ways of looking at European unity.
There are those who felt that the continental countries, which were so battered by the war, should get together primarily with a view to their reconstruction, and that was natural. It is true that, had it not been for the generous American aid under the Marshall Plan, all these ambitions would have come to nothing or been much delayed; but by the help of the allies in their policies towards the defeated countries—for instance, in the constitution of Federal Germany and, as I have said, by generous outside aid—the first emphasis was, naturally, upon internal reconstruction.
On the Continent, the founders of the European movement were, among many other distinguished men, Dr. Adenauer, Signor de Gasperi, M. Schuman, M. Spaak, M. Monnet, and many others. Nor did Britain stand apart. The British Foreign Secretary of the day, Mr. Bevin, gave every help, including the signature of the Brussels Treaty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) took himself a leading rôle in the movement and played a dramatic part.
At the beginning, Europeans were, naturally, in a sense obsessed by their own problems. For many years France depended upon outside aid and her adverse balance of payments had to be supported by monetary arrangements with her partners in the European Payments Union. Her technical and industrial recovery and reconstruction were largely due to the work of M. Monnet and his team.
As Europe's revival began to succeed, the European outlook began to widen. There were some—there are some—who have kept the narrow view, who still seem to regard a united Europe as a restricted or autarchic community on a protectionist basis; in other words, they would like a community which would retain all the errors of high protectionism which had often been the policy of some of the constituent nations. That is not the vision of the European movement as a whole. It is not, happily, the view of the five countries which have stood so loyally by
958
our side. It is certainly not our view. It is not the view of our E.F.T.A. partners. It is not the view of the older Commonwealth countries. And it is certainly wholly contrary to the interests of the younger Commonwealth countries. In spite of the long tradition of protectionism in the United States, it is not the view of the American Administration and the forward-looking people of the United States. This narrower concept is, therefore, in a true sense a reactionary view.
One of the main reasons why there was such universal support for our entry was the belief of our friends, as well as many of our critics, that Britain, added to this company, would give as well as take, that she would contribute to the tradition of outward-looking development. If the French Government object to us as an island, it is also as an island that we bring this rich heritage to the world.
So much for what I would call the economic philosophy. I am convinced that in spite of the disappointments, which none of us can conceal, what we have done in the last years is not and will not be in vain. There is, as a result of these negotiations, a far greater understanding between European countries, certainly between the Five and ourselves. There is, as a result of the day-to-day contact with the Commonwealth countries, a more accurate and a more balanced view of the economic possibilities, both the difficulties and the prospects. The same is true of the E.F.T.A. countries. All this is good and, at least, some compensation.
Here, I think, it would be right to pay a tribute to the German, Italian, Dutch, Belgian and Luxembourg Ministers, who worked so hard and so persistently and were frustrated by the veto and by nothing else. As a result of this experience, there is, I believe, a greater degree of understanding and sympathy than ever before. I found it so in Rome when I was there the other day. I believe that German opinion has never been so universally on our side in this matter as it is today, and here, perhaps, I may be allowed to make a plea for the future.
It is natural that there should be lingering in our country a certain reserve—the memories of two wars are not lightly wiped out—but the German people are also sensitive over this, and in my view great harm can be done by ungenerous

959
attitudes, whether in the Press or among any of us. Curiously enough, I have observed that this feeling is often strongest amongst people who have taken the least active part in these great struggles.
I remember very well the doubt expressed when a German regiment was coming over for training in Wales. In fact, it was received, as might have been forseen, by ordinary people with good will and friendship. The truth is that just as good Anglo-French relations and a close co-operation between us and the people of France are fervently desired here, we also recognise that the fruitful development of Anglo-German relations should be one of the props on which the unity of Europe must depend.
With the peoples of the Benelux countries we have long and historic links, and the memory of troubles shared is poignant and strong. They were particularly anxious for Britain to join, and to join in time. This was not merely because of our mutual friendship, but because it corresponds to what throughout history has been their deepest interest.
Why have the Five Powers shown such anxiety and such emotion? Partly, perhaps, because of their genuine sympathy and wish to work in with Britain; partly because they share our economic and political point of view about the future of Europe, and, therefore, thought that the Community would be strengthened by our adhesion. But there are other anxieties, and deeper anxieties, in the political field that also trouble them. First, there is the suspicion that one of their partners wants to unite Europe on a sham basis. They and we have had enough of this idea that Europe could be united by a single nation or a single man, not on a basis of agreement, partnership or co-operation, but on a basis of power.
At present, European institutions—and, indeed, all the institutions we have created—depend in their early stages on unanimity, although later on, in many respects, a different system of voting is developed. At present, the strength of the French Government's position depends on the veto—the principle that one black ball excludes. So, in negotiations undertaken by the Community, whether at G.A.T.T. or elsewhere, there is a dan-
960
ger that the position of stalemate may be repeated.
Another aspect of French policy has equally alarmed the old world and the new—the tendency to treat the N.A.T.O. Alliance with a certain selectiveness, to say the least. Of course, during the great difficulties of France and Algeria, which are happily dealt with, everyone understood that, but now there have been very many other cases. France's refusal to let her navy play any part in N.A.T.O. plans and, still more important, in a way, her refusal to join in N.A.T.O.'s air defence arrangements, has left a serious gap in that system.
As I say, some of these aspects of French policy we can understand, but they are continuing, and they may develop. It is, therefore, inevitable that people are beginning to wonder whether these are not indications of a policy which, if it were pursued, would bring the whole Western Alliance into great jeopardy, if not collapse.
In the great balance of actual power today we all know that the nuclear strength of America is and must remain essential, but a common alliance must be based on mutual respect. Naturally, 'the great countries of the old world which, at different periods of their history, have held unique or commanding positions, sometimes suffer from a certain nostalgia. As regards our own country, it is a sentiment certainly inapplicable today as, indeed, it was in most of the most inspiring periods of our history. But this feeling represents what is really a weakness and not a strength of human nature. It is curiously similar, this jealousy—for it is only that—to that emotion which makes many people more able to forget an injury than to forgive a benefit.
I do not want to exaggerate these tendencies, but it is because of them that we in this country must do all we can to range ourselves and the influence we have on the right side. We have, partly as the result of the outcome of Brussels, partly because of the growing anxiety in Europe, the great majority of the countries of Europe in one way or another ranged on our side in this matter. These anxieties do not merely affect this island, or Europe, or even the whole of the N.A.T.O. Alliance.
For the European nations, whether in or out of N.A.T.O., and those on the

961
periphery—above all, the Scandinavians —anything that threatens the Western Alliance, and particularly its organisation in N.A.T.O., must be a source of deep alarm. No countries have more reason to fear than these should there be an agonising reappraisal of the American position. No countries have more to lose should America, under any Administration, be almost forced into isolation by the slighting attitude of Europe and European statesmen.
With regard to the old Commonwealth countries, Canada has a leading and powerful rôle in N.A.T.O. Australia and New Zealand, however great the contribution they are able to make to their defence, must, in fact, depend for their safety on the co-operation between Britain and America—and indeed, these two countries have entered into their own alliance with the United States.
These assets are fundamental and we shall try by all means to keep them alive and thus to rally European opinion for the future. I do not mean that we look forward to an early resumption of these particular negotiations for Britain's entry into the Community. That is impossible. This is not a kind of business deal that, if it fails one week, can be taken up the next. It is, for good or ill, a great historic event. It cannot be disregarded, but its importance and, perhaps, its permanence, must not be exaggerated. While it would be absurd not to recognise with our heads that Britain's entry is not now capable of early realisation, we should surely strive to keep the vision in our hearts.
These, then, are the major lessons to be learned from what has happened in the political field, but until the day comes—and we pray that it may come some day —when the great gulf between East and West can be bridged, the fundamental principle of our policy must be summed up in a single phrase, "On the strength and unity of the Western Alliance depends the peace of the world".
4.30 p.m.
Mr. Harold Wilson: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"has no confidence in the ability of Her Majesty's Government to formulate or to carry through a programme which would bring about the necessary changes in our policies for international trade and for economic and
962
political co-operation; and does not believe that it has the capacity to arouse in Great Britain the sense of urgency and national purpose so necessary to meet the situation created by the breakdown in the negotiations in Brussels".
No words of mine could be more eloquent in support of that Amendment than the speech which we have just heard.
I do not intend to spend a lot of time on it, but what does the Prime Minister think that he has achieved by that speech? He got a lot off his chest about President de Gaulle. We understand that, but the speech did not provide a breath of justification for his policies over the past eighteen months and gave no indication of a Government with either the ideas or the capacity to chart a course out of this Sargasso sea in which they have found themselves becalmed. Looking for any positive policies and for any inspiration, the nation, when it comes to study his speech, will find nothing but defeatism, a certain amount of peevishness, and a complete policy vacuum.
There were one or two parts of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which I think the House will have found interesting. There was his appeal on behalf of an understanding for Dr. Adenauer. I find it hard to give the right hon. Gentleman the support for which he asks in that direction. We have read Dr. Adenauer's speech this weekend. He does not want us in because he calculates, rightly, that at the next General Election this country will go Socialist. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, with no confidence in their own ability to stop it, now look to Europe to stop it. Dr. Adenauer went on to say, and on this occasion he was wrong, that at the next election this country will go neutralist. We shall not.
I was moved also by the right hon. Gentleman's reference to Commonwealth trade. Quite early in his speech he said that during the last eighteen months the Government have studied with greater care than ever before these problems of Commonwealth trade. What were they doing for the ten years before that? No doubt during those eighteen months they were studying Commonwealth trade with great care, but for what purpose? For the purpose of entering into agreements that would have destroyed a great part of it. There was plenty of care. Oh,

963
yes! It was the same care with which an intending burglar studies a house. I think that it is called "casing the joint".
At any rate, I will say for the right hon. Gentleman that this afternoon he did not try, as in his broadcast, to evoke a Dunkirk spirit. I am glad that he did not, because it does not lie in his mouth, the man who fought the last General Election on a materialist Never had it so good" philosophy, the man who has preached the doctrine and whose Government have encouraged other people to follow the precepts of an "I'm all right, Jack "philosophy. In any case, I should remind the right hon. Gentleman, although I am sure that he does not need reminding, that the success of the Dunkirk appeal from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) was due to the fact that that right hon. Gentleman had no responsibility for the state of affairs that had led up to Dunkirk.
There is, at any rate, one central theme which was clear again this afternoon and which is already passing into the corpus of Conservative mythology. This is the idea that the Government were within an ace of achieving a satisfactory agreement only to find the prize snatched from their grasp by an intransigent Frenchman. Let this myth be nailed once and for all. Even ignoring the long list of unsolved problems—from the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement to New Zealand butter, the association of Commonwealth African countries, the price level for food and agricultural prices, transitional provisions for British agriculture and, still more important, a permanent settlement for British agriculture; quite apart from all these unsolved issues, the fact is that the terms which have been negotiated, the accumulated totality of vital national and Commonwealth interests already surrendered by the Government, already constituted a national humiliation.
We on this side of the House had laid down a series of broad conditions and detailed requirements which we felt must be met if this country could reasonably be asked to enter into the Community. We were agreed on them and we believe that the country supported them. Again, I ask the House now: where was the greater realism to be found and the greater sense of national interest shown—
964
in Brighton, or in Llandudno? When we debated the state of the negotiations and the outcome of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in the two-day debate on 7th and 8th November, we moved an Amendment saying flatly that the terms obtained up to that time were not acceptable. Since that time, there have been unacceptable concessions on agriculture, on net tariffs, and a total collapse of what should have been our position on voting rights and on the extent of the veto. We therefore utterly reject this account of a satisfactory agreement sabotaged by President de Gaulle.
The right hon. Gentleman spent a lot of time on President de Gaulle. What we should have liked from him would have been more information on his meetings with the French President. It would have been interesting if the veil could have been lifted on the tête-à-tête at the Chateau de Champs and at Rambouillet. Last May we warned the right hon. Gentleman against throwing a cloak of respectability over President de Gaulle's nuclear ambitions in return for help in b gettina into the Market. No one—not even the Prime Minister—can now be in any doubt about what the French nuclear go-it-alone, do-it-yourself policy means either for the unity of the Western Alliance or for worldwide hopes of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. But it is now becoming very clear from President de Gaulle's disclosures last week that the Prime Minister last year not only condoned French nuclear plans, but encouraged them.
When the right hon. Gentleman, to the defence debate a fortnight ago, spoke of fighting a General Election on the line that Labour's policy would mean that France would be the only nuclear Power in Europe, and when the Leader of the House dutifully took up the call in a speech in East Anglia, and when, no doubt, the printing presses at the Tory Central Office are already grinding out propaganda material on this theme—we can trust the Leader of the House to see to that—do not hon. Members apposite ask themselves who, above all others in the alliance, were responsible for encouraging France in becoming an independent nuclear Power? They have only to look at President de Gaulle's comment on that to find the answer.

965
What is much more important now than who was responsible for the breakdown is the total failure of the Government to produce any plans for the future. All we have been able to deduce from the Prime Minister's speeches and actions since Brussels is that the only concrete reaction, the one dramatic piece of policy following the new situation, is the petulant cancellation of a Royal visit to Paris. When I interrupted the Prime Minister to ask him about the misleading statements which have been put out, he said that it was in accordance with the usual diplomatic courtesies to tell lies.
If that is his idea of diplomatic courtesies, it is about time that someone else was in charge of diplomatic courtesies. At any rate, I will say this for the right hon. Gentleman. We are quite used to getting two accounts put out by the Government. We usually get the true one given to the Press and a false one given in the House. What we have had this time is a false one given to the Press and the true one given in the House.
This highlights how serious the situation is, for we have had from the Prime Minister no plan and no proposal either in the world economic field or in any measures at home to reassure our sense of national purpose in domestic economic policy. Why? Why is it that no preparations were made long in advance of the possibility of the Brussels negotiations breaking down? It was certainly not for want of advice. In every debate on the Common Market that we have had my hon. Friends and I have stressed the need to prepare alternative policies: first, to strengthen the Government's hand in the talks—because negotiations without a credible alternative are liable to lead to unconditional surrender—and, secondly, simply as a measure of prudence, to prepare for the situation which would arise if the negotiations broke down—the situation with which we are now faced.
I will not worry the House by repeating the warnings, proposals and alternative policies we put forward in debate after debate. If any hon. Member doubts that we did so, I can give him a full list of references—from HANSARD, articles and speeches in the country—which will indicate exactly what the Government
966
were told. But the Government—the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends —were so convinced that we had no alternative but to go into Europe that our warnings went unheeded.
We remember the Foreign Secretary asking in another place, on 22nd June, whether we could afford to stay out, with only one answer in mind. We can remember speech after speech which the Prime Minister made and that broadcast of his last September in which he wondered what would happen if we did not go in but stood outside. We should not be able to develop our true strength, he said, or be able to compete in a world of giants.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that as a true description of the position in which we find ourselves now? In that broadcast the right hon. Gentleman went on to discuss the economic reasons for our going in and he described the products which British industry was capable of producing. Would we be able to sell those goods either to the Europeans in the Common Market area or outside in other markets in the world against competition? How would we sell them in the home market which is only a quarter the size of theirs? That was his argument in September. Really, have we now no hope of selling them? The right hon. Gentleman, in that broadcast speech, said:
"I know that there are some people, however, who talk as if there was an alternative system to the Common Market."
and, in the rest of his broadcast, he went on to prove how foolish and shortsighted they were.
Then we had the pamphlet issued to the nation, or Conservative conference, a week before Llandudno, a somewhat undignified proceeding, one would have thought, for the Prime Minister. It contained one idea: that if we did not go in, we were finished. No wonder the Prime Minister was so defeatist this afternoon if that is what he really thinks. What has collapsed is not only the Common Market talks, but the whole system of Government policies based on them. From July, 1961, onwards the whole complex of economic, trade, defence and international policies revolved around entry into Europe. It was meant not only as an electoral ploy—and the Prime Minister made no secret

967
of that—but an economic solvent as well, to call Europe into existence to redress the balance in British industry, to enforce the pay pause, to solve the industrial problems which the Government had failed to solve—and so, with the breakdown, the whole edifice of Government policy collapsed.
I do not intend to say much more about the Government's record over the last eighteen months. It would be easy for me to go on, and, I must confess, it would be tempting to go on, but where the Government have so manifestly failed leads my right hon. and hon. Friends and I to accept that we not only have a right but a duty to say what we believe should now be done. What we are putting forward we are not going to call an "alternative". Much of it—such as the need for more dynamic policies at home—has been, and would have been, equally necessary whether or not we entered Europe. Again, the same applies to world commodity agreements. These would have been necessary irrespective of whether or not we joined the Common Market.
What we are really discussing today is not a packaged alternative to the Common Market, but a plan for the future of Britain in world trade and economic affairs. To approach this we must get the facts clear. First, the Prime Minister was a little nostalgic as to whether or not the talks were on or off. They are off. We had better understand that. While we are not slamming the door to proposals to advance European unity—indeed, we do not rule out the possibility of further proposals on this—we must understand, agree and resolve that we cannot hang around in European antechambers for a further period of months or years in the hope that the Brussels temperature will become warmer.
We certainly do not rule out the possibility of further negotiations in Europe at the right time and under the right auspices. [HoN. MEMBERS:"Oh?"] Hon. Members opposite should be a little more patient. I intend to say what they are. In any further negotiations in Europe we cannot again allow ourselves to get into the posture of suppliants. It was in that posture that the Six regarded us, even if we did not
968
so regard ourselves. If at any future time we enter negotiations in Europe we must not start from the catalogue of concessions granted by the Lord Privy Seal which, we felt, went far beyond any authority granted by the House of Commons, and which, in our view, would have been rejected by the country.
Secondly, we must get clear which markets are and which are not affected by the breakdown in Brussels. The markets of the Six? Yes, undoubtedly these are affected, though we are selling there today and we are selling in the United States, despite a considerable domestic tariff. The Commonwealth? Our trade with the Commonwealth has received a merciful reprieve. Harm has been done—great harm, in our view—not only by the clear willingness of Ministers to sacrifice their interests to the scramble to get into Europe but, no less, by the whole manipulation of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference, the calculated leaks by Brutish Ministers to the Press—and the guiltiest of the lot, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, whom, I see, making notes—designed to isolate and, even on occasions, to discredit individual Commonwealth leaders. The whole sorry history of this was given in the debate on 7th November last by Hugh Gaitskell and has never been answered or denied by the Government.
Because of this we certainly need a new Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference to restore confidence, but we must ask whether the Government have not gone too far now to have any hope of success. Nevertheless, there is good will in the Commonwealth countries despite all this. Despite the efforts of our export, and apart from the fact that some Commonwealth countries have already redeployed their trading arrangements because of what they thought we were going to do in Europe, the markets are there.
The dollar areas? Our trade with them is unaffected completely by the breakdown. E.F.T.A? Our links there remain and, as I think the Prime Minister tried to indicate, these links can and should be strengthened—certainly until something better comes along. The third countries? From Latin America to the Far East these markets are unaffected for our exports. Eastern Europe—EastWest trade—remains open to us.

969
Indeed, we have escaped a twofold danger which was presented in the talks, as we warned: first, adoption of a common European trade policy, which would have limited our freedom to complete trade agreements with Eastern Europe; and, secondly, the effect of the Market's agricultural policy of placing penal import levies on agricultural imports from Eastern Europe, which would have prevented those countries from buying engineer mg and chemical plant from us.
There is scope for East-West trade, and we are now free to develop it. While not exaggerating the prospects—the House will recognise both the possibilities and the limitations—we can now achieve a substantial increase above all in those products of heavy industries where orders are so urgently needed to get back to full employment in our northern industrial areas. Nothing would be further from the truth than for the idea to get about that our export trade is finished or that we face an inevitable decline. We do not. The upward trend of our exports is, as it always was, a matter uniquely depend-dent on our own endeavours.
One thing further is that we no longer face, as some of us felt we faced with the concessions which the Government had made, a choice between the Commonwealth and Europe. Nor are we faced with a choice between Western Europe and some of our partners in E.F.T.A. There is no ground for defeatism provided that we seize the opportunities presented to us.
What about the political position in Europe? The position here is undoubtedly more sombre. Our task, avoiding all bitterness and recrimination, is to ensure that existing political relations, and, in particular, the Western Alliance, are not further endangered.
What, then, are we to do? I begin with Europe. Our European initiative should be on the basis of an area of Europe wider than the Community, wider than the Six. The Six, E.F.T.A. and we in any such initiative should leave the door open for other countries, such as Yugoslavia. We shall make more progress, whether in economic or political co-operation, the less we aim at federal or supranational solutions, the more we work within an inter-governmental framework.
In our view, O.E.C.D. provides an adequate forum for this. We should take
970
the initiative in O.E.C.D., making clear our willingness to discuss any proposition which covers the whole European area of O.E.C.D. The position is obviously too fluid to have any hard and fast plans about what is to be done, but we ought not to rule out an idea which was put forward from this Box four years ago —the idea one day of a free trade area in which the Six would join as one integrated country.
The main reason for the failure of the Maudling Committee was the feeling of the Six that we were working in the hope of destroying the unity and integrity of the Six. Readiness to accept the Six as an integrated unit might create a new and more favourable climate—I do not know, but it is worth trying and it is better than sitting down and criticising what President de Gaulle has done.
We should be quite ready, too, to examine any French proposal, if such there be, for an industrial free trade area. I do not know what gold backing there is to this proposal and there would certainly be difficulties about an industrial free trade area—Denmark is one. However, I thought that the Lord Privy Seal rejected the idea rather too hastily. It was a fortnight ago and we could understand his feelings at the time —heaven knows that we could understand them—and I certainly would not have excessive hopes that this would be a satisfactory solution.
But at any rate let us keep an open mind and, if they are willing to talk about an industrial free trade area, let us have a look at it, provided only that we are not to be kept hanging around again and provided only that such discussions do not exclude action on all the other fronts, including the Commonwealth and including the Atlantic area, with which I shall be dealing.
On the political side in Europe, so far as the alliance is concerned, we must base our stand fairly and squarely on N.A.T.O. Cynicism and bitterness about the recent French action must not be allowed to endanger N.A.T.O. still further. As we urged in the defence debate, a great initiative is open to us by taking the lead and improving the effectiveness of our conventional contribution to N.A.T.O. There is equal urgency about proposals which have been made from this side of the House for

971
strengthening the political arrangements and the political control of N.A.T.O.
However, that is not the whole answer, of course. Some of our friends are not in N.A.T.O., including Sweden and Austria. They are not in W.E.U. That is why I am rather doubtful about the Prime Minister's first thoughts of working through W.E.U., which, I gather, he indicated last week. We must realise that we are considering a number of possible courses of action in Europe. It is not yet clear which of them, or which combination of them, will be the right ones, but at any rate we should consider these.
We could show our determination not to turn our backs on Europe and we could show our desire for greater European unity of an acceptable pragmatic kind if we made a formal proposal for regular meetings of heads of Government of all the countries of Western and Northern Europe, not with the idea of imposing a federal constitution or common foreign and defence policies on the basis of majority decisions, but to get the widest measure of agreement possible on international questions.
This is not a dramatic proposal, but some of the most significant advances in international co-operation began far less dramatically. In the present condition of Europe, we might have to be content with a step at a time. But in our negotiations and groupings and in all we try to do in Europe we must be constantly looking outward to wider horizons; and this brings me now to a subject touched on by the Prime Minister—the trade and tariff negotiations on an Atlantic scale—indeed, wider than Atlantic; on a two-oceans scale.
For many of us, one important test of the Brussels negotiations was whether the resulting Community at the end of the day would be restrictive and protectionist and inward-looking, or whether it would pave the way for a wider zone of freer trade—the Prime Minister expressed the same thought this afternoon. President Kennedy's Trade Expansion Act was directed to this very end. As the House knows, President Kennedy was given power in the negotiations with the enlarged Community, including Britain, to reduce any tariff by 50 per cent. and, in the case of commodities where the en-
972
larged Community plus the United States accounted for 80 per cent. or more of world trade, to negotiate with full powers to reduce the tariff to nil, a provision which realistically took account of the fact that under G.A.T.T. any tariff concessions mutually agreed in bilateral negotiations had to be extended on a mostfavoured-nation basis to all other signatories of G.A.T.T.
We have been pressing for some time —we said this in the debate in November and again in December—that we should not regard any breakdown in Brussels as a disaster, but that we should go forward with the Kennedy Round. We know that the United States legislation specifically refers to a state of affairs in which Britain is in the Common Market. The Douglas amendment was accepted by the Senate and, in the conference which followed between the two Houses, it was clearly said by the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Mills, that if Britain did not get in the matter could be put right quite simply by an amendment.
What is now required, as we argued in December, is the same negotiations as were already planned, the Kennedy Round, but with a different table plan. Instead of a confrontation with the United States on one side and the enlarged Community, including Britain, Norway and Denmark on the other, we should have the Six on one side—as soon as we can get them to sit down together again—and the United States, Britain, our E.F.T.A. partners and the Commonwealth on the other. It may be that the United States will insist on Latin America; so be it.
Talks on these lines should be pressed urgently. I was glad that the Prime Minister appeared to feel that this was the right course and I hope that when Mr. Herter was over here last week, talking to the Government, the Government gave him the green light for these talks to go ahead. There are some who may say that these talks, too, will founder on the rocks of French obstructionism, but if we are to initiate nothing because of those fears the outcome is certainly predictable—we shall achieve nothing.
Now, the problem of Commonwealth trade. The Prime Minister said very little about this. He told us that the Trade Ministers were to meet together

973
before the G.A.T.T. Ministerial meeting. But is not this common practice? Has it not been the position all along, wherever there is a Ministerial meeting in the G.A.T.T., in the International Monetary Fund, or whatever it may be, that the Commonwealth Ministers get together first? It always used to be so under the Labour Government. Has it changed, or is the Prime Minister just taking what is normally common form and scratching it together to make something to put into his speech? I say frankly that, after the handling of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference, we shah need something more than a routine meeting to restore confidence.
I come now to specific measures to develop Commonwealth trade. We have been urging these measures for ten years, because we simply do not accept the relative decline of Commonwealth trade as a historically necessary secular trend. Commonwealth imports have not been falling; they have been rising sharply during the past few years. I gave the figures in our debates last year and I shall not repeat them now. What has fallen has been not Commonwealth imports, but Britain's share of the trade going into these markets. We have lost ground year after year to Germany, the United States and Japan, despite our preferential advantage, simply because we failed to demonstrate a willingness and ability to seize the trading opportunities which are open to us.
We have lost ground, also, because of Government policy, the systematic dissolving of the links of sterling area interdependence, destroying, in the interests of speculative commodity markets, the system of long-term contracts and bulk purchase which, in my submission, did more for Commonwealth trade than the preferential system ever did. Government policy bears a heavy responsibility for the relative decline in our trade with the Commonwealth. During recent years, the heat of Government policy and exhortation which has been turned on to British exporters to trade with Commonwealth countries has not been a tithe of 1 per cent. of the heat directed to trade with the dollar area or trade directed towards Europe.
What we now suggest for Commonwealth trade is not an alternative to
974
O.E.D.C. or to the Kennedy Round, It can go on simultaneously; there is nothing incompatible. I suggest that we begin by sitting down with Commonwealth Governments and their public purchasing agencies and discussing their development plans in detail. I do not mean only with the under-developed countries. In 1949 Board of Trade officials, special missions appointed from industry and the Government spent months sitting down with the authorities responsible for, for instance, the Ontario hydro-electric scheme and the Toronto subway, seeing where we could help and considering what could be done to channel major equipment orders to this country.
There was the Snowy River scheme in Australia. There were vast development programmes in New Zealand. More recently, under this Government, we abdicated from the Canadian coast-tocoast pipeline project without a struggle. There is the Volta River scheme and a score of lesser projects in Asia and Africa. These projects are going on all the time in both advanced and under-developed countries.
Despite the grave harm done during the past eighteen months, there is still enough good will so that these countries would welcome our representatives sitting down with them and getting down to cases to see where we can help. These things could lead to quite spectacular orders, but, or course, they involve obligations upon us as well. We must, in return for a greater willingness to take our products, be completely forthcoming in our willingness to buy, on a long-term basis from them, guaranteed quantities of Commonwealth primary products.
This will mean—we must face it—interference with speculative markets. It will mean bulk purchase or equally effective alternatives. We cannot afford to let ideology stand in the way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members opposite are not interested in getting these orders from Commonwealth countries, I pity them. I am telling them how to do it. What I am saying may or may not be ideological, but it will get the export orders. It did last time, and it will next time. The method of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite has failed.
I remind the House that, in the days of the Anglo-Canadian bulk purchase wheat agreement, which many hon.

975
Gentlemen opposite viciously criticised but which was one of the finest bargains ever recommended to the House, the Saskatchewan Wheat Board was the best ambassador for British exports to Canada that we ever had. These things could happen again. Commonwealth planning of this kind would have another implication for this country, too. We must ensure, by purposive economic planning at home, that we expand those sectors of our industrial system which are needed to supply the particular types of development capital needed.
We shall not do this on the basis of a laissez-faire, soft-centred, speculative, hire-purchase, advertiser-controlled, stop-go, three-year freeze and a false thaw every election year, sort of economy. We have had a lot of experience of this now. We must have the changes in our industry which are needed to meet these markets. Hon. Members opposite know perfectly well that these markets are there, and the reason why we are not getting them is that we have not created the industry capable of meeting their requirements. If that is not true, why have we not been as succesful as other countries, when we have had the preferential advantage, in getting into these markets?
Sir Cyril Osborne Sir Cyril Osborne (Louth) rose—
Mr. H. Wilson: No, I shall not trouble with the hon. Gentleman. He should not think that I am afraid to give way to him. I have done it too often in the past, and it has inevitably meant wasting the time of the House.
What this all means is not only a national plan for Britain—hon. Members opposite are supposed to believe in this now—a target of 4 per cent. or whatever it is every year, but the means of enforcing that plan, not just a global financial plan but detailed industrial expansion plans for the sectors which have to expand to meet Commonwealth requirements and the requirements of world trade generally, for transport, for earth-moving equipment, for irrigation equipment and the rest. This will require a whole range of action on the part of the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), if he catches your eye tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, will deal with that.
976
It will require tax incentives. It will require State-guaranteed orders. Hon. Members opposite should not scoff at this. I can tell them of cases under the Labour Government when business firms or consortia came to us with world-beating inventions, but were afraid to go into production because they thought that the markets might not be there. They asked us to provide a guaranteed order, that the Labour Government would buy any which they failed to sell. We gave that guarantee, and what they then produced has been one of the finest of our lines in the export market ever since. Sometimes, the Government must give guaranteed orders to private enterprise so as to get the production forthcoming.
It will mean more than this. It will mean State initiative in building, equipping and running factories to fill the hard-centre gaps in our economy. We must have State factories, too, to provide some of the goods which the Commonwealth will want.
Finally, I turn to the measures—[HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."] I think that I may claim to have said, in half the time, a little more than the Prime Minister said. I can well understand the nervousness and giggling of hon. Members opposite. After all, this is the third debate in three weeks in which they have had to listen to a tale of humiliation from their own Front Bench.
I turn now to the measures on a world scale which will be needed. Again, most of these are not alternatives. They are certainly not panic measures thought of after Brussels. First, measures with regard to world liquidity. We all agree now on the urgency of means to ensure that world trade does not seize up through a shortage of the necessary monetary lubrication.
World commodity agreements. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman gave his blessing to this. It is a new thing for the Government. One would have thought, when the Six proposed this as a means to enable the Government to escape some of their Commonwealth commitments, that no one had thought of it before. But, of course, the Havana Charter negotiations, largely on the initiative of the British Government, prepared a complete chapter of agreed enabling provisions. Year after year we have pressed for them both as a Government

977
and an Opposition. The Prime Minister is now converted to this idea, yet only last year, in G.A.T.T., his Government voted against commodity agreements when the proposal was made on Commonwealth initiative in Geneva.
One of the difficulties has been that there has been United States opposition to the idea of commodity agreements. Now, for the first time, we have an American Government in active sympathy. They see, if others do not, the futility of beggaring the primary producing countries of Africa and Latin America and then having to spend millions of dollars on military means to fight the Communist threat there. This question of stability and security in primary cereal crops is absolutely vital to these areas. All the advanced countries today, all of us, have painfully raised our total contribution of economic aid to the underdeveloped areas to a total now of almost 3½ billion dollars. The whole of this and more was wiped out by the fall in the purchasing power of the recipient countries through the fall in commodity prices over the past two years.
Thirdly, and linked with this, is the problem of surpluses. It seems to be a political law of advanced countries that our concern for our own agricultural producers is such that, taking advance countries as a whole, there is a permanent endemic surplus of agricultural goods and, of course, the Brussels agricultural programme will swell this surplus still further. In food production we are no longer affluent societies; we are surplus societies. Commodity agreements for temperate foodstuffs must provide machinery for channelling the overspill of our advanced countries into the hungry countries on the lines of the World Food Board proposed years ago by Lord Boyd-Orr. I led a delegation to a four months' conference to examine that. That scheme did not go through because of a peculiar post-war condition, but times have changed, and it should be revived as an essential proposal in the world after Brussels.
But why food only? There is a surplus of steel in many advanced countries, and in this country the steel mills are working at 60 per cent. capacity. We all want to help India and a score of other developing countries. Apart from money, why not send them a million tons of ingot
978
steel? We might go further. Our railway workshops stand idle through a combination of Government ideology and the end of steam as a means of locomotion. But those of us who have had to deal with the problems of developing countries know that the biggest bottleneck in many of them is rail transport, and for them steam is not obsolete. Why, then, should there not be international plans for mobilising some of these workshops in Britain and elsewhere to produce the locomotives and the rolling stock? Why not mobilise the steel mills to produce tracks?
Next year the United Nations is holding a conference on world trade and development. I should like to see the Government propose that that conference be advanced a year—held this year—and that at that conference proposals for the mobilisation of surpluses of food, steel and rolling stock, and the rest, be considered and put into action. Of course, the other priority on a world scale is that of providing markets in advanced countries for Asian, and later African, manufactured goods. This was one of the issues on which the right hon. Gentleman had a lot of difficulty in Brussels.
Britain, as Lancashire and Cheshire hon. Members know, takes more than her fair share of Asian textiles and other manufactured goods. To talk of world development and then to refuse on an international scale a planned access to our markets is hypocrisy. That is why not only the Six, whose record in the matter is abysmal, but all advanced countries should agree on quotas to allow a reasonable flow of these goods into their markets. The George Ball proposal is one that we should support.
I have not dealt in detail with the implication for British economic and industrial policy of the post-Brussels challenge because, as I said, my hon. Friend will deal with that matter tomorrow. But I must emphasise the need to maintain intact our foreign exchange controls, and, if need be, to strengthen them. We know that this would have been impossible under the Treaty of Rome, and we have frequently expressed our anxieties about this. Doubts and uncertainty at any time may lead to sudden and perilous flights of capital, including British capital, from the City of London.

979
The breakdown of the Brussels talks, with the certainty now of a discriminatory tariff against our exports to Europe, may well increase the number of firms seeking to establish plants in Europe. In such cases this will be of value to our balance of payments, but it is essential that full control be maintained case by case. It is appropriate in every case to use exchange control.
Nearly two years ago, when we produced our statement "Signposts for the Sixties", we said that whether we went into Europe or not the case for a purposive plan for economic expansion was equally strong. If we did not achieve such an expansion the only choice was between being a backwater inside Europe or a backwater outside Europe.
I think that the events of the past few weeks have underscored that warning. The veils have been torn away. One thing is clear. Our future lies now clearly in our own hands, on our sense of purpose, of dynamism, of self-discipline, of sacrifices, if sacrifices there must be, fairly shared. If this failure of the Brussels negotiations has brought this home to us as never before, I thank God for it, because this is the first condition for reasserting our national strength and our national independence.
What has been brought home in these past few weeks with almost sickening clarity is the total incapacity of the Government to produce the policies capable of mobilising the energies of Britain in the 1960s. The right hon. Gentleman's speech today was one of abdication on behalf of a whole Government. The recovery of Britain's lost dynamic is a task that must and will now pass into other hands.
5.19 p.m.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I once told the House that listening to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) was one of my favourite and least expensive pleasures. I am particularly glad today that no gate money is charged, because I should certainly be minded to ask for it back, though, I suppose that in all fairness my claim might be met with the defence that though the right hon. Gentleman had not spoken very well he had at least spoken very long. In particular, I missed the usual galaxy of brilliant extemporary jokes with which
980
the right hon. Gentleman regales us, can quite understand that recently he has probably not had much time to make them up.
I regret that this has been made the occasion for censure, even though I think that the right hon. Gentleman has not censured the Government very successfully. This is an occasion which, as was suggested by an admirable leader in The Times this morning, calls for constructive thought and a forward view. It is an occasion when, in the classic formula, the House should have constituted itself into a Council of State to devise—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If this high consideration does not appeal to right hon. and hon. Members opposite, there is a more mundane consideration which may find more ready access to their minds and hearts. Their attitude may prove to be bad tactics, because they have lived in glasshouses in this matter. I do not refer to the fact that they had divided views. We on this side of the House had divided views and there is nothing wrong about them if they are sincerely held.
What I do criticise is the fact that for so long so many hon. Members opposite appeared to have no views at all on this great and vital matter. For many months, their thinking seemed to be conditioned more by electoral preoccupation than by the well-being of the country. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Look at the Brighton conference, in October, 1962."But I say, "Look back to 1961." There was no clear and clarion call from the Opposition then. There were only muted and equivocal pronouncements spoken with that minimal dignity and conviction which come from a seat on the fence.
I do not regard the breakdown of these negotiations as a disaster. What would have been a disaster would have been entry into the Common Market on the wrong terms. It would also have been gravely detrimental to continue protracted negotiations which would have led to frustration in the end. Better the surgical operation now than a long and wasting disease.
Nor do I regard this as a defeat or even as a setback. I regard it as a turning point which can, and should, lead us to greater heights and to broader endeavours. I am concerned, therefore, with future action and not with the past,

981
and, with the House's indulgence, I propose to address myself shortly to the three main questions which demand answer at this time: first, what, in present circumstances, should be our attitude to Europe; secondly, what action should we take to make a firm base at home for an initiative overseas; and, thirdly, what form should that initiative take what action can we take to promote the economic well-being of Britain and to enlarge and improve the contribution which collectively the Commonwealth can make to the well-being of the world?
First, our attitude to Europe. I am glad that we have not gone into the Common Market, not because of any hostility to the Community, as I have tried to make clear all along, but simply because, as things are and as they are likely to be, the Common Market is no place for us. This is true whatever the result of the present struggle for power. Kennedy does not want a Europe dominated by de Gaulle and de Gaulle does not want a Europe dominated by Kennedy, and I must say that I agree with both of them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know that it is unfashionable to say anything good about both of these eminent but controversial gentlemen in a single sentence.
Now that our application to join on the terms on which we were willing to join has not been approved, the question arises: what should our attitude be towards further negotiations in the hope of better terms? My answer to that is clear: we should be receptive of suggestions but not active in promoting them. For eighteen months our thinking has been dominated by Europe, and we must not allow any continued or nostalgic preoccupation with Europe to obscure the vision of wider endeavours which are open to us.
Our application having been rejected, the right and dignified course is to let the initiative pass to the Six. The time may come when they are willing to modify their structure so as to meet our conditions. In that case, let them say so. We have heard much about the good will of the Five, and we are grateful to them for their kind words and benevolent intent. If it be the fact, as we are told, that they think that the Common Market would be the better for our presence, we are flattered and
982
obliged. But none of this is in the realm of action. If the time comes when they speak with deeds as well as words, then they will make an initiative to us which takes account of our special position, of our sovereignty and of the Commonwealth.
It is human to hope for that, but it would be foolish to count on it. Meanwhile, action in regard to the Six would be impracticable, and solicitation would be humiliating. To ask once and be refused may he painful, but it is not humiliating. To persist in the absence of a change of circumstances would be importunate and unworthy of our position, and it would damage those wider endeavours on which we must embark. We should now be paying our addresses in another quarter, and one cannot qualify a proposal couched in the language of love and affection by saying, "Of course, all this is conditional on the first addressee not changing her mind. "That is the language neither of true love nor of good sense. No girl of high spirit would entertain so hesitant or half-hearted a suitor.
This is not a principle which holds good Only for courtship. It holds good also in international co-operation. If we are to succeed in our wider endeavours, we cannot afford a long, lingering look behind. I found my case on very high authority indeed, on the third chapter of the Epistle to the Philippians, the 13th and 14th verses:
"… forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forth unto those things which are before. I press toward the mark …".
I would summarise what should be our attitude to Europe in these four short propositions. First, we should seek association but not integration at the price of sovereignty or the Commonwealth. Secondly, such association must be weighed in the balance of our wider endeavours in the world as a whole. Thirdly, the initiative for the time being must pass to the Six. Fourthly, we should preserve the utmost friendliness and good will towards Europe but should make clear that Britain is a friend and a well-wisher, not a suitor or a suppliant. In the popular phrase, we should not turn our back on Europe. We should look her in the face with friendly mien, but with posture erect and head held high.

983
I come to the second main question, our action here at home. Time obviously forbids any detailed reference to this, but it would be wrong to ignore it, because without timely and appropriate action at home to assist and invigorate the economy we cannot hope to initiate successful action overseas. The truth is that international arrangements, whatever their nature, will not solve our domestic problems for us. If anything, the converse is nearer the truth. The worst reason for our going into the Common Market was that it would impose from without measures to force us to be competitive, just as the worst reason for staying out would have been the hope that thereby we could avoid such measures.
I touched on these arguments in my speech to the House in August, 1961. I said then that competition is not for us a matter of choice, but something imposed by history, geography and inescapable circumstance. The necessity of competition is reinforced in the conditions of a fast-changing world by new techniques and new competitors. It applies especially in this country, because one thing which remains unchanged in a changing world is our position as a small and crowded island, dependent upon imports from overseas for half our foodstuffs, most of our metals and many of the raw materials which we need to keep the wheels of industry turning at home.
That position conditions our choice of remedies as well. It is, in fact, one of the prime arguments against Socialism. It is possible to operate a siege economy based upon a Socialist policy in a great land mass like the Soviet Union, insulated by a gigantic home market from the shifts and shocks of changing world conditions, but that cannot be done where one is absolutely dependent upon world markets. You can bring controls and compulsion to bear upon the home market, but you would not bring them to bear upon the markets of the world.
To reject Socialist controls, however, is not to say that there is not scope for Government initiative and action. I will mention by way of illustration just three examples with which I am particularly concerned. The first is restrictive practices. Seven years ago, I spent long and
984
laborious days in helping to put the Restrictive Trade Practices Act upon the Statute Book. I believe that it was a good Act and that, within limits, it has done what I then claimed for it. It has helped to make the economy freer and more flexible, more vigorous and more vital. I saw it, however, only as a first instalment. There is the whole field of monopolies. There is the companion problem of restrictive labour practices with virtually nothing done, a monument to the traditionalism of trade unions and the timidity of politicians.
My second example is taxation. We need a review and revision of the whole tax structure with the dual object of reducing to a minimum the burden on productive industry and avoiding so far as possible disincentive to individual endeavour.
The third need is a keen and objective look at Government expenditure, including defence and social services—the lot. Indeed, if a Royal Commission to examine the haphazard structure of our social service finance had been set up two years ago this month, when I originally asked for it, it would be well on the way to reporting now.
I cite these three examples not as comprehensive or exclusive, but as illustrative. These are matters amongst others in which inquiry and action should be initiated now. We cannot hope, in this modern world, to earn our living, much less to give the leadership that we can and should, if we do not have our house fully in order here.
I come, then, to the third main question, our action overseas. I start from the position that there has been no major Commonwealth initiative in economic affairs since 1932. We must not miss the opportunity now. We must start with a Commonwealth initiative, but in no narrow or exclusive spirit. I want to associate E.F.T.A. as soon as possible and to bring E.F.T.A. into the Commonwealth trading arrangements wherever practicable. After that, from the basis of increased strength, we can open our negotiations with the United States, the Community and the rest of the world.
Here again, time forbids detail, but I am fortified by these two considerations: first, that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and I, as long ago as last June, published our

985
pamphlet "A Call to the Commonwealth", including a good deal of detailed thinking and practical proposals; and, secondly, that a group of my hon. Friends under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton) have more recently given detailed study to these problems, the heads of proposals having been promulgated last week.
Let me, however, make this clear. We do not expect a Commonwealth common market or Customs union on the tightly institutionalised pattern of the European Common Market. There are two considerations which prevent it, one political and one economic. The political consideration is that such a common market involves substantial surrenders of sovereignty, and the Commonwealth is an association of sovereign States. The economic reason is that the great diversity of the Commonwealth—in my view, one of its sources of political strength and influence—prevents a full Customs union or total internal free trade, at least for the time being.
The fact that we cannot have those should not, however, be any reason why we cannot have the looser but still beneficent association which we ought to have. Circumstances and the operation of the G.A.T.T. are leading to a loss of that. The G.A.T.T. imposes a common obligation on its signatories to accept the same treatment save only in cases of Customs unions and free trade areas. As the Commonwealth is neither of those, it does not share in those benefits.
It is true that at the time of the signing of the G.A.T.T., a reservation was made in favour of the continuance of existing preferences so long as they are not increased; but one may neither increase preferences nor introduce new ones. It is easy to see the effect of that in a world characterised, on the one hand, by new products and new techniques and, on the other, by a good deal of inflation. The effect has been to erode the value of preferences and, at the same time, the value of the preferential system.
We are told that the preferential system is not the whole of the Commonwealth; and that is true. But it is certainly an important part of the economic cement which binds the whole structure together. If that system is to
986
be made effective in the conditions of the modern world, two things are necessary: first, an amendment of the G.A.T.T.; and, secondly, a revision of the Ottawa trading agreements in the light of it. I know that there are those who regard any suggestion to amend the G.A.T.T. as the laying of sacrilegious hands upon the ark of the covenant, but to them I would respectfully make two submissions.
First, G.A.T.T. is not the ark of the covenant. It is, in fact, in part at any rate, rigidly drafted and lacking in pragmatism; and it reflects the economic conditions of the immediate post-war years, the dominance of the United States and the relative weakness of the United Kingdom. Secondly, it is not a question of denouncing the G.A.T.T. altogether. It involves, I think, an amendment of probably only two Articles out of many.
Therefore, I say that the amendment of the G.A.T.T. and the revision of the Ottawa agreements must be put into the very forefront of the agenda of the Commonwealth economic conference. With respect, I would agree with my right hon. Friend and Mr. Menzies that we do not want a Prime Ministers' conference. With no disrespect to the high office of Prime Minister, what we need is a working conference or a series of conferences, because there is so much to do and so much to discuss. I want to see the Commonwealth Economic Consultative Council made an effective body in continuous operation. It has led only a shadowy existence since its inception in 1958, and the time has come to give it substance.
Other matters which I would like to see high on the agenda are a Commonwealth Marketing Board; a Commonwealth Populations Board; a Commonwealth Technical Training Scheme; a survey of Commonwealth resources on the lines of the Paley Report in the United States. There are these and many other measures, including, certainly not least, measures to safeguard and promote capital investment in the Commonwealth, so important in the context of the underdeveloped territories, providing, I would hope, for some sort of Commonwealth capital guarantee department to insure the risks of capital investment on the sort of lines on which export risks are now

987
insured by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. Of all these matters my hon. Friends and I have made some study, and we shall continue to do so, so far as private citizens can. But, basically, they are matters for the Government, and to Government I commend them.
I conclude, therefore, with two very brief observations. First, it may be said that these things are difficult, agree. Most worth-while things are difficult. But if it is said they are impossible, then I join issue absolutely. We must not in this country get into the way of classing as impossible things which are in the British tradition of achievement and which can redound to the strength and well-being of Britain and the Commonwealth.
I think that in this one respect we can take example from President de Gaulle. I do not like his methods; I deplore the subordination of Parliamentary government in France. In this country we like our great men to be of the stamp of Chatham and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir. W. Churchill), men whose results are obtained and whose miracles are wrought within the framework of Parliamentary democracy.
But though de Gaulle's methods do not appeal, he has shown greatness in his resolution and determination in his refusal to regard as impossible the things which he believes will serve the interests and greatness of France, So let my right hon. Friends also reject the affirmation of impossibility, glorying in difficulty as demonstrating the value of the task.
My second observation is this. It may be said that these suggestions are mainly economic. This, of course, is true. But the Commonwealth is far more than economic. This, of course, is true. But the formal links of the Commonwealth are necessarily economic. Strengthen those, and we strengthen the whole. Strengthen those, and we strengthen the great purposes which the Commonwealth can serve. Because there still are great purposes today. The mission of the British people is not ended in the second half of the twentieth century. Britain still stands at the heart and centre of
988
the Commonwealth, with all its healthy diversity and unconscripted unity.
There is a mission still, to give leadership without dictation and guidance without coercion. The task and the challenge lie before us. Let my right hon. Friends assume the burden and respond to the challenge.
5.45 p.m.
Mr. John Dugdale: With much of the last part of the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) I would agree, though certainly not with his last words, but I would take issue with him very strongly over the first part. Would he have said what he said if the situation had been the other way round—if the Labour Government had failed to get into Europe? Of course he would not. I do not think many of his hon. Friends would. We shall see about that when that happens if it ever happens, but I hope it never does.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Opposition had no views of what we should do now. In fact the Opposition have perfectly clear views and have stated them over and over again. We have said that we would go into Europe only if the terms were right. From what we knew of the terms we thought them not right. We said so constantly. That is our view and we think that we should not have gone in on terms which appeared to us at that time to be those which the Government were likely to accept.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman did say one thing with which I agree most heartily. He said it was no disaster that we did not get in. I certainly agree with him, and I think everyone on this side will agree with him wholeheartedly about that.
I want to turn now to the Prime Minister's speech. The Prime Minister's speech was—let us face it—a funeral oration. It was not only the funeral oration of the Common Market but its was his own funeral oration. I have never heard a man sound so depressed as he was. And small wonder, because when Prime Ministers take office they have certain ambitions. They do not just want to become Prime Ministers; they have certain plans they

989
want to carry out. The one thing which the Prime Minister wanted to do was to go down in history as the man who took Britain into the Common Market.
I am not at the moment saying whether that is right or wrong in itself. Some may have thought it a noble ambition. But it was the right hon. Gentleman's ambition, and he has failed in it, and it is too late now for him to have another ambition, now that that has gone. He has failed miserably, and so I say that, undoubtedly, his speech today was his funeral oration.
However, I do not think that this is en occasion for a funeral oration. I think that what we have got to do now is to do what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, East was doing—and I will follow him in some of the things he said—and that is to see where we go from here and how we can best develop the Commonwealth now after having failed to enter the Common Market. It is on those lines that I want to speak this afternoon.
The Commonwealth today is like a garden: it has to be cultivated, and if we do not cultivate it, it will wither away. The Prime Minister has failed to cultivate it during these years. He has paid too much attention to other people's gardens in Europe and too little attention to his own in the Commonwealth. I think that we have got to turn our attention from Europe now and towards the Commonwealth.
I would ask first of all, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) asked, what preparations have been made for just this situation? Was the Prime Minister so certain that we were going to get into the Common Market, so certain that there would not be a failure that he thought that it was not worth while to make preparations in case there was a failure? He made none at all, and today, when he was asked what was going to be done, he gave no answer. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us when he winds up the debate, but so far we have heard nothing at all about the alternatives in the situation which the Prime Minister must have envisaged as being at least possible.
What are the advantages possessed by the Commonwealth? I think it is just as well that we should remember them.
990
First of all—let us face it—it is larger than Europe; it is larger than the United States; it is larger than the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. It has size. It has enormous populations. I know they are spread very far apart, and I know that the distances are great, but, after all, distances today are not what they used to be, because people can move about very quickly. We have only to see how fast Her Majesty has moved from one part of the Commonwealth to another now to perceive how close the parts are to one another, and how perfectly possible it is to develop the Commonwealth, widespread though it be.
Above all, we have also a most tremendous amount of good will in the Commonwealth. That may sound stupid or sentimental, but I believe that good will exists not only in the countries of English extraction—Australia, Canada and New Zealand—but in other countries. I was impressed recently when I attended a debate in a university about our going into the Common Market. A Pakistani stood up and said, referring to Britain, "We remember our parents with gratitude and do not want to be separated from them." There is that attitude among people in Asia and among some people in Africa, though admittedly not all of them, and we have that in our favour.
We also have the absolutely priceless gift of having the same language, a tremendously big thing and something which does not exist in Europe. If we had entered the Common Market we should constantly have been in the difficulty of our all speaking different languages. But in the Commonwealth the basic language is English. Indeed, many people of different tribes who cannot speak to each other in their tribal languages can speak to each other in English. That is a very great help.
We have a great similarity in law. Even today there are countries in the Commonwealth which still appeal in the last resort to the Privy Council. This basic system of law is of immense benefit.
We also have, by and large, a general liking for democracy. I know that there are some countries in Africa and Asia which are not as democratic as others in the Commonwealth, but, by and large, we stand for democracy.
Lastly, as was vividly proved at the time of the discussions before South

991
Africa left the Commonwealth, we all stand for racial tolerance.
Those are some of the very big things which we can say we have as links and which are useful in starting any kind of organisation.
To turn for a moment to the future, we have heard from the Prime Minister that there will not, apparently, be a Prime Ministers' conference. As I understand it, all that will happen is that one outgoing Prime Minister will meet another one. That may be an advantage to both of them—I do not know—but it will not be of very great advantage to the Commonwealth. I hope that there will be conferences, not necessarily of Prime Ministers, but at a lower level—conferences of Ministers of Trade, Ministers of Education and Ministers of Health. It is most important that such conferences should take place.
We should try also to develop some kind of Commonwealth civil service. Of great advantage is the fact that the civil services of many parts of the Commonwealth have been trained by methods produced in this country. They have the same ideas, and they could meet and usefully discuss many important problems. We should ascertain whether it is possible to have a civil service working for the Commonwealth which will operate in between the times when the conferences I have suggested are going on. A start has been made in that direction, but it is a very small one. I hope that very much more will be done to develop that idea.
I hope, too, that we might be able to develop inside the Commonwealth many Commonwealth services. We already have the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board, which is an example of what can be done. In this connection, I only wish that the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board had a scheme like the United States Telstar scheme. I hope that it can develop something very much like it later on.
I should like to know whether it would be possible to have a Commonwealth health service and a Commonwealth education service. I appreciate that the people of India have a much lower level of health service than we have and that the people of New Zealand have a very
992
high one. For all that, I believe there must be a possibility of something in that direction being developed.
In Africa there is the Flying Doctor Service, which has been very useful. Doctors have been going from one country to another regardless of frontiers, so that one country might help another in certain circumstances. There could be a joint Commonwealth health service that might begin to bring some help to the countries which most need it. There are today services such as the Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind and the Commonwealth Society for the Deaf, both of which do that sort of work in the Commonwealth, but they are voluntary organisations. Much more could be done if there were a definite Government organisation responsible.
The Commonwealth Scholarships Scheme is a very great step in the right direction. I certainly would not underestimate the work that our Government have done to get it established, but I believe that much more could be done along those lines towards the development eventually of a Commonwealth education service, and I hope that will happen.
I turn to finance. What can we do about that? Today more than 50 per cent. of the world's trade is conducted in sterling, and that means mainly Commonwealth trade. We should consider the possibility of the formation of a Commonwealth Bank. There is already the World Bank. Why should not a Commonwealth Bank be established? I believe it is possible for this to happen. In the sterling group we might even be able to include Canada, for, after all, Canada very nearly came into the sterling area when Sir Stafford Cripps was Chancellor. It could happen even yet, though I think it is less likely now than it was previously.
What about trade? I do not want to weary the House with a great many figures, but it is fair to say that a very large amount of our export trade is done with the Commonwealth, and a very large amount of our imports come from the Commonwealth—I am sure that this could be greatly extended—and two-thirds of our imports come in British ships. That is very important for us, and I hope it will continue. But we could do very much more to develop Commonwealth trade if the Prime Minister and the

993
Government—or some other Government—would give half as much time to it as they have done to trying to develop trade with Europe. I hope that they will do this.
I hope that there can be a Commonwealth free trade area. If I am told that it will be against G.A.T.T., I would ask whether it would not have been against G.A.T.T. if we had gone into Europe. I think we should have found ourselves in grave difficulty in that respect if we had joined the Common Market. If we were going to face that in order to join the Common Market, why should we not face it today in order to produce Commonwealth free trade? I hope that we can have a system of Commonwealth free trade, perhaps starting with a lowering of tariffs even from 20 per cent. to 10 per cent. That would be a beginning, and I believe we could do it.
Above all, I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton in hoping that we can very greatly develop bulk purchase with guaranteed prices in the Commonwealth. That was one of the finest things done during the war and continued during the period of the Labour Government. It made prosperous countries which otherwise would have been bankrupt. It saved the West Indies. It did an enormous amount for West Africa. It would do even more if we could initiate it again today.
I quote the words of the Assistant Director-General of the International Labour Office in this respect:
"The whole economic development in some areas of the world depends on the stability of commodity prices … In countries where plantation production constitutes a high proportion of the exports, instability of commodity prices leads to general social instability and, in particular, to unemployment, loss of earnings, privation and misery for a large proportion of the population …"
He said that that happens when one has a free market without any bulk purchase and when commodity markets are dominated by people whose only interest is to make a profit out of them rather than ensure full development of the economic structure of their countries. I hope that we can do a great deal to extend the system of bulk purchase with guaranteed prices.
But it is all very well to talk about what we must do for the Commonwealth. The rest of the Commonwealth must do
994
something for us; if we are to buy a large quantity of wheat or cocoa, or other commodities, there must be a system by which those countries of the Commonwealth from whom we are buying agree to buy from us.
Mr. Austen Albu: Oh.
Mr. Dugdale: My hon. Friend may laugh, but it is very important that this should be done. I know that it is difficult, and the Government alone cannot do it, but they can work towards it, and it appears more likely to succeed than has the Government's effort to join the Common Market.
All these things require a totally new approach. According to the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, a new approach to the Commonwealth has not been made since 1932, and do not let us forget that the majority of the time since then has been under a Conservative Government. I believe that that new approach will not come from this tired and decrepit Government who are disillusioned with their attempts to get into the Common Market. But within eighteen months, and I hope sooner, there will come a new Government, and that Government will take up the challenge and will succeed.
6.2 p.m.
Sir Cyril Osborne: Many appeals have been made in the House for ten-minute speeches so that more hon. Members can take part in the debate. I will try to make a ten-minute speech, provided that I am not interrupted. I shall make a few very brief comments almost in shorthand style.
First of all, since General de Gaulle says that Britain must choose between being either a satellite of France or a junior partner of America, I support the Government in choosing America. I would rather be a poor relation of America than live on sufferance at the pleasure of General de Gaulle, for I believe there can be neither prosperity nor peace for the free world if the English-speaking peoples are permanently divided.
Secondly, I believe that we deceive ourselves and mislead people outside if we pretend that the Five outside the Six, or America, or E.F.T.A., will do anything to help us to their own detriment. They will not. If we are to be saved economically, we have to save ourselves.

995
Thirdly, I say to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), for whom I have a high regard and whose speaking ability I envy so greatly, that the Commonwealth group, headed by Lord Beaverbrook, hypnotise themselves if they believe that the Commonwealth is anxiously waiting to buy more British goods, or that closer Commonwealth trading relation will of themselves solve our economic problems. They will not.
Over the last twelve years, Canada has every year sold to this country over £100 million of goods more than she has bought from us—and there is a 40 per cent. tariff in Canada against our goods. Over the last twelve years, since this party has been in power, the adverse trade balance in Canada's favour against us has totalled £1,700 million. Why? This was the question which I wanted to put to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), but he was frightened to give way. The answer is that the Canadian people prefer American goods to British goods, because in their opinion American goods are either cheaper or better than British goods. I think that Lord Beaverbrook—if I may say so to my right hon. and learned Friend—should first of all convert the Canadian people before preaching at us.
The Russian people have a point of view. They rightly regard the Common Market as the economic arm of N.A.T.O. They fear that the leader ultimately will not be France but will be Western Germany, and they fear the re-emergence of German militarism which would demand, to begin with, unification with Eastern Germany and ultimately a return of the lost provinces from Poland. Let us make no mistake, in Russian eyes that would mean war.
Mr. Khrushchev has made it clear recently by publicly quarrelling with the Chinese that he wants, if possible, peaceful coexistence with this country. Anglo-Soviet trade is only £70 million a year each way. I think that it could be ten times greater, and I ask the Government whether we could not do more to increase East-West trade instead of leaving it as something rather distasteful, with right-wing Members of both parties turning up their noses at it. I should like to see our Ministers go to Moscow
996
and Warsaw as often as they go to Paris and Bonn.
Fifthly—and I hope that I shall keep to my ten minutes—our economic problems can be put into simple terms. This is what the country and the House will not face. Britain has to import 50 per cent. of its foodstuffs and nearly 100 per cent, of its raw materials. In order to pay for them, we must sell abroad roughly 30 per cent. of all we manufacture. In the manufacture of these goods, roughly 60 per cent. represents direct or indirect labour costs. Nobody can make the foreigner buy British—and this is something which the right hon. Member for Huyton will not face. If our goods are too dear or not of good enough quality, we cannot plan our exports—and 5 million jobs depend on exports. This is the challenge which both sides of the House ought to face; how do we get our costs down and how do we get the quality of our goods up? We shall not do that by playing party politics in the House.
Sixthly, I regard Brussels as a great defeat—as great a defeat for us as was Dunkirk. The question is, shall we get the same sort of response now as we managed to get after Dunkirk? Will our people face the harsh, bitter and cruel economic dangers which I believe beset us, and have we the will to work in national unity to overcome them? It is not politics or long speeches which will save us; it is sheer hard work. That is the story which we ought to put out to the people outside the House.
No one put it better than did a right hon. and learned Gentleman for whom I had deep respect, although I opposed him politically—Sir Stafford Cripps. In 1949 he said:
"Any worker by hand or brain who goes slow, or is an absentee, or demands more money for no more output, is in fact doing his best to put up his own household bills and to put somebody—quite possibly himself—out of a job."
That is what Cripps said in 1949. If organised labour would not believe Cripps then, will they believe a Wilson or a Brown today? I think not.
The Opposition claim that they will overcome our difficulties by planning. Let me ask them to face this honestly: how can they plan without direction of labour, and are they prepared to enforce that? How can they guarantee full

997
employment when 5 million jobs depend on exports and they cannot force the foreigner to buy the goods which these 5 million men make? How can they get down our prices and increase the quality of our goods? These are the questions which face us.
I believe that they are incapable of doing these things, and because of that I shall vote against them. I shall vote against the motion of censure, moreover, for a personal reason: ultimately this is a motion of censure on my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal and on the work which he has tried to do in the last eighteen months. I believe that he rightly commands greater trust and respect than any other hon. Member, no matter whom hon. Gentlemen elect next Thursday.
6.10 p.m.
Mr. F. Blackburn: If I answered in detail the policy of despair of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), I am afraid my speech would be longer than would be approved by him.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) complained about the lengthy speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). Actually it was much shorter than that of the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister rose to speak I had a clean sheet of paper on which to make notes which might be of some value when I made my speech. At the end of his speech my sheet was still virgin white. I do not think that I need make any further comment on that.
The hon. Member for Louth said that he was not going to vote with us tonight. I do not think that anybody on this side ever expected that he would, but I wonder whether he has read the Motion for which he is going to vote. In fact, I wonder whether any hon. Gentleman opposite has read it. They are asked to express
"full confidence in the determination and ability of Her Majesty's Government …";
they are asked to give a vote of confidence to this Government at the moment when everything is collapsing about their ears. Their economic policy has collapsed, and we have an unemployment figure of well over 800,000. Their defence policy has collapsed, now their
998
Common Market policy has collapsed, and we are asked to give them a vote of confidence.
I have never been either violently anti-or violently pro-Common Market because I could not work up the same enthusiasm for or against the idea as some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Gentlemen opposite have done. I felt instinctively against the Common Market, but I would have been prepared to go in on my own terms, which are quite different from the terms which have been negotiated by the Lord Privy Seal. My chief concern was for the Commonwealth, not that I thought for a moment that we could work out an economic unit of the Commonwealth, but because I believe that this association of free peoples, unique in the history of the world, is one of the greatest forces for peace in the world, and I should hate anything to happen which would reduce the effectiveness of the Commonwealth.
I do not make a habit of trying to prophesy, but when the Government came before the House and said that the House should approve their negotiating to enter the Common Market and laid down their three conditions, I said at that time that if the Government were sincere in the conditions which they had laid down the question of our entry into the Common Market would never arise because they would not accept us on those conditions. But the Government have hedged on their terms. It is very significant that a few weeks ago in one of these debates, when the Lord Privy Seal was challenged about the conditions for entry into the Common Market, he said:
"Of course we stick to our three conditions"—
but he added these significant words"—
"consistent with the Treaty of Rome."
That, of course, put an entirely different reading on the promises they had given.
The Prime Minister was wrong in his broadcast, and he was wrong again today when he said that we were nearly reaching agreement. We were far from reaching terms which were acceptable to this House. We were certainly far from reaching terms acceptable to this party. If we had gone in, the Government would have broken faith with the Commonwealth. They would have broken faith with E.F.T.A. They would have broken faith with British agriculture. They would

999
have broken faith with this House, and they would have broken faith with the people of this country. I believe that if there had been a free vote in this House on the terms which had been so far negotiated the House would have rejected them.
I do not for a moment underestimate the skill, the hard work, and the patience of the Lord Privy Seal, but to me it has been humiliating that this country should have been going with a begging bowl to countries which we either liberated or defeated in the last war. I regret that we did not take the initiative instead of waiting to be kicked out, because it was quite clear that if the Government really meant what they said in the first place it was impossible to negotiate entry. We have been turned out through the inordinate conceit of General de Gaulle who at this moment thinks La France c'est moi, and no doubt hopes some day to be able to say L'Europe c'est moi.
I am astonished that anyone is surprised at what has happened, because we had already been warned. In November, 1961, M. Couve de Murville said:
"Britain is a European power but at the same time a World Power. When she presents herself to the Common Market, she presents herself in both these roles. If she enters the Common Market without the Commonwealth, then the Commonwealth would be finished, and no one wants that—least of all France. But if she enters it with the Commonwealth, the Common Market would be meaningless."
I cannot understand why anyone should be surprised at what has happened. The warning was fully given.
I think that the Government ought to be very grateful to General de Gaulle, for he has saved them from being accused of bad faith, and I hope that if ever the question arises again of our joining the Common Market we shall not go cap in hand. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East—let the initiative come from the Six and not from ourselves.
One can feel sorry for the Government in the predicament in which they find themselves. They are now back in square one. They are back where they were before ever the negotiations started. Let me quote what the Prime Minister said when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer:
"I do not believe that this House would ever agree to our entering arrangements which
1000
… would prevent us treating a great range of imports from the Commonwealth at least as favourably as those from the European countries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1956; Vol. 561, c. 37–8.]
He went on to say that we must continue free to maintain the volume of preferential imports from the Commonwealth. What has been negotiated is not in accordance with that.
The present Chancellor of the Exchequer said on 12th February, 1959, when he was Paymaster-General:
"… I cannot conceive that any Government of this country would put forward a proposition which would involve the abandonment of Commonwealth free entry. It would be wrong for us and for the whole free world to adopt a policy of new duties on foodstuffs and raw materials, many of which come from underdeveloped countries, at present entering a major market duty-free. …
"Finally, we must recognise that the aim of the main proponents of the Community is political integration. We can see that in Article 138 of the Treaty, which looks towards a common Assembly, directly elected. The whole idea of the Six, the Iron and Steel Community and Euratom is a movement towards political integration. That is a fine aspiration, but we must recognise that for us to sign the Treaty of Rome would be to accept as the ultimate goal, political federation in Europe, including ourselves. That, as I have said, does not seem to me to be a proposition which, at the moment, commands majority support in this country. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1959 Vol. 599, c. 1381–2.]
Why did Government policy change? Was it because of pressure from America? If so, I find the position humiliating. Or was it because of the economic crisis of 1961? I am sure that everybody agrees that we cannot export our economic problems to any organisation. Whether we are inside or outside the Common Market, our salvation depends upon ourselves.
It has been said that we should go into the Common Market because the great competition there would bring a breath of change in our own industry, and would stimulate it. If the adherents of the Common Market are correct in saying that the competition we would find would give an impetus to our industries, surely the fact that we are staying outside and losing the great advantages which we would otherwise have had will provide an even greater stimulus.
Even among the greatest adherents to the Common Market idea there is no despondency. I have found disappointment but not despondency. This is a challenge which we must meet together.

1001
We cannot afford inefficient management, or unofficial wildcat strikes, or a Government which believe in expansion only during an election year. Much of last Monday's economic debate is relevant today. What we need is dynamic leadership, which we are not being given. Our unemployment figure of 815,000 shows that we are not in a healthy state to meet that challenge. The Government must drop some of their inhibitions and complacency. There must be leadership to which the whole nation will respond, and a really dynamic export drive.
I give credit to the hon. Member for Louth for having preached the question of exports for a long time. Our manufacturers must scour the world for markets. When I was in the Far East, on more than one occasion I was asked, "Why do not your industrialists send out more of their top people in order to find out exactly what we want, instead of sending us what they think we want?" We have to set about the job of increasing exports in a dynamic way.
The Government can help with extended credits. I am sure that some way can be found, within the framework of international agreements, to provide export incentives. There is no need for any of us to be despondent. We have plenty of friends, and I am sure that we are not turning our back on any of them. It is not our intention to turn our back on the continent of Europe; we are not turning our back on the Six or on France. The fact we are not a member of the Community does not prevent our trading with it. Our trade with the Six has been increasing, and I see no reason why it should not continue to increase. Our trade with E.F.T.A. has been increasing, and I am confident that there can be a greater upsurge of our Commonwealth trade.
The Prime Minister has said that we will not have a Prime Ministers' conference. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), I take the view that we should have a number of Commonwealth conferences, eventually with one at Prime Ministers' level but perhaps preceded by conferences of the various economic, finance and trade Ministers. I would like to see a conference of the leaders of the Commonwealth and America—a country
1002
which still might have been in the Commonwealth, but for the ham-fistedness of some of our predecessors—and of E.F.T.A. If they all worked together, something might be evolved.
We have friends all over the world, in the Commonwealth, in E.F.T.A. and in America—and America is likely to look upon us with a much more kindly eye, now that we have been kicked out of the Six, than she would otherwise have done. I deprecate the amount of anti-American-ism that exists in this country—an anti-Americanism chiefly due to the fact that the Government have given the impression that we just do what we are told by the Americans. We cannot afford that. Some of the most violent anti-Americans are also the most violent anti-Common Marketeers. We cannot exist by being anti-everything. There are opportunities in other parts of the world, such as in South America, and opportunities for East-West trade, if only we are given the leadership to set about these things. The world is our oyster. What has happened is not a setback but a challenge, but we shall not solve that challenge merely by a vote of confidence.
6.26 p.m.
Sir Hamilton Kerr: Having promised, like my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), to speak for only ten minutes, I must link my few remarks to one theme. I have the honour to be the chairman of the all-party Angio-French Committee, and no one regrets the quarrel with France more than I. Hon. Members on both sides of the House love France, and we have often followed with admiration the career of the President of the French Republic. When we think of him, we remember his brave and lonely stand in 1940; we remember that he was the only man who was able to solve the Algerian problem; we remember his superb speech in Westminster Hall, three years ago. We also remember that he has performed the greatest of services to France not only by restoring her greatness but by giving her back her self-respect.
Our difference with him amounts to this one point. We think that his idea for Europe is too small. Some years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) made a speech defining British foreign policy as three intersecting circles, none of whose

1003
interests conflicted—first, the Empire and Commonwealth; secondly, the United States, and, thirdly, Europe. I deliberately give them in that order. It was in this spirit that we began negotiations to enter the Common Market.
We believe that the French President's idea for Europe is too small, for three reasons. I do not think that it is oversimplification to say that in the modern world power derives from three sources. First, there is military power, expressed in terms of divisions, ships, aircraft and, above all, atomic power. Second is economic power, expressed in terms of output of coal and steel, and the possession of a large labour force, but, thirdly, there is moral power, expressed in terms of the loyalties and beliefs of the peoples concerned.
In these last two—economic and moral power—the Six are strong. Their production is great and growing. They are likewise the seat of the ancient Christian civilisation, which has had such a tremendous impact on the world. But in terms of atomic power they are virtually non-existent. Walter Lippmann tells us that our contribution in atomic power is about 2 per cent. of that of the United States. If that is so, the French contribution must be very small; indeed it is only a tiny fraction of ours.
The simple truth—and the fallacy of General de Gaulle's argument—is that at the moment Europe cannot be defended without aid from the United States. Secondly, it is surely not offensive to say that the General cannot live for many more years, and when he passes it seems certain that power will pass to the Western German Federal Republic. It says a great deal for the people of Western Germany that they asked us into the Common Market. They doubtless realise that Europe no longer wants to be dominated by one Power, but by a concert of great peoples.
Lastly, the choice the President placed before us of the Commonwealth or Europe was surely a very false one. We can never forgo our loyalties to the men who fought for us on every battlefield in two world wars and who fought for France. At the same time, we need the Commonwealth in the general framework of the cold war today. Can we imagine India left to China, or the rich resources
1004
of Africa and South-East Asia passing from us? For all these reasons, the General's idea of Europe is too small. But I think we delude ourselves if we believe that opinion will change in France or that the President will change. I believe that the best information shows that about 80 per cent. of the French people support him at the moment. So what can we friends of France do in this House? We can carry on as best we may; maintain all the personal contacts we can between our two Governments and collaborate in such ventures as the Concorde or, if necessary, the Channel Tunnel.
The President seems to think of the United States and the Commonwealth as Anglo-Saxon partners. It is true that the Americans speak English but they derive their system of Government from the French political philosophers of the eighteenth century. Also, since the nineteenth century there has been a huge population in the United States which is not Anglo-Saxon. America has derived her civilisation from Europe. For this reason I feel myself today a citizen of the Atlantic Community.
How can we play our part inside that Community? I was rather amazed last year by the reaction of this country to the speech of Mr. Dean Acheson when he said that this country was no longer a great Power and did not now know where it was going. I believe that had that speech been made a hundred years ago, in 1862, it would not have been greeted with rage but with roars of laughter. We knew that we were a great people and we knew where we were going. I believe, therefore, that The Times was so right this morning when it said that the crisis of the moment is not pre-eminently economic or military, it is a moral crisis.
During the 27 years in which I have had the privilege of being a Member of this House I have been lucky enough to see many parts of the world. Instead of growing more cynical I have returned from other parts of the world with a greater belief in this little country of ours. I believe that we are one country which has always believed that character is the foundation of national greatness. It possesses great moral resource. At the moment the national character is not as great as it might be. I believe that we lack faith in ourselves and in our mission.

1005
I am as shy, as most other Englishmen, when speaking of great issues. But I think the time is right to say that what we need today in this hour is a moral and religious revival.
We have all been to blame in the past, labour and management and every class. We have shut our eyes to the realities of the present day world. I was fascinated by a story which I heard about Lenin when in exile in Switzerland. Some well-wishers came to visit him before the revolution in 1917 and said to him, "We agree with you; we are working for the same thing in our own ways." In reply he said, "Gentleman, I do not ask you for your weekends. I ask you for your lives". We must all try to carry this idea out in our own lives. That is why I welcome every move in the country and abroad which restates the great moral truths of the past and rebuilds our national character. I welcome the meeting of the churches in Rome, and movements like moral rearmament, whose healing work I have seen in many parts of the world.
How can we help in the world today? We can do it by seeing clearly the present defects in our country, but, at the same time, seeing her as she could be. I remember the words used by Lord Rosebery in his great "Life of Lord Chatham". He wrote of him:
"He loved England with an intense and personal love. He believed in her power and her glory and her public virtue till England came to believe in herself."
Perhaps each one of us, in our small and humble way, can follow the example of that great man.
6.35 p.m.
Mr. Desmond Donnelly: I hope that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr) will not think me discourteous if I go straight to the speech of the Prime Minister.
During the last Presidential elections in the United States I had the good fortune to visit the State of Texas. When I was attending a political function there I was assured that all speeches in Texas were known to be rather like the head of a steer, with a point here and a point there and a terrible lot of "bull" in between. This afternoon the right hon. Gentleman gave us the finest definition of a Texan speech I have heard for a
1006
very long time, The speech of the Prime Minister amounted to a declamation of a Government who had found that their policy had failed and had no real idea of what alternative policy they should adopt and were meanwhile marking time.
The conditions which led us to apply for membership of the European Economic Community still exist, and the problems which we would have faced had we joined the Community are still the problems to which we must address ourselves. These are the two sides of the same coin, and perhaps I may say a word or two about each side. First the external side—if hon. Members like so to term it.
There have been a number of cataclysmic changes in the world's history in the last eighteen years. There has been the liquidation of the British Empire and the reversion of this country from being a great imperial centre to a small, crowded island of 50 million people, but which is still nevertheless, temporarily at any rate, a potential nugget of political power. There has been the emergence of the United States and Russia as the super-Powers. The development of modern technology has made a nonsense of all of our defence concepts. There has been a change in the whole scale of things which has meant that small nations can no longer develop industrially or militarily or politically in the same way as once they were able to do.
This is not a new development. Small nations have had to drop out of the industrial race before. It is a question of the size of the base. The extreme illustration and the reason why there is no aircraft industry in Andorra, or no Lord Nuffield in the Falkland Islands, has nothing to do with the indigenous capacity of the people it is due to the size of the base. Belgium and Holland have had to drop out of this kind of race, and now it has reached the point where the 50-million nation is not a wide enough base.
These are the sort of changes which have taken place in eighteen brief years and within the recollection of nearly one-third of the hon. Members of this House. They are changes more drastic than any since the fall of the Roman Empire, and the major debates in this

1007
House of the past few months, such as the defence debate the other day, the debate today have been, and all major debates which may take place in the future will be, about the specific issue of these great changes and how this country must adapt itself to them.
Perhaps I may now say a word about how we should face this situation. In my judgment, we stand today in a more perilous position than at any time in peace-time in the history of this country, in respect of our foreign relations for the last three years, because of our isolation and impotence. This again is a specific problem. It falls into two sections. There is the economic side and the political side. I wish first to say a word about the economic side.
We have been the custodians of the sterling area for a long time. This comes to us by history, by tradition, and now by sentiment, because we are still nominally the centre of the Commonwealth and, broadly, the Commonwealth constitutes the sterling area. I wish to pose the problem to the House—because it is a very specific problem about which we shall have to make a judgment, not necessarily in the next few months, but certainly in the next year or two—what are we to do about the sterling area.
In the N.A.T.O. Journal of December, 1962, the American economist Mr. James Burtle expressed some pertinent opinions. He pointed out that between 1954 and 1961 the imports of the sterling area, excluding the United Kingdom, increased substantially from 11·4 billion dollars to 16·6 billion dollars, while exports increased from eleven billion dollars to 14·2 billion dollars. In other words, exports have not offset imports. At the same time, he pointed out that the general reserves of the area declined, while the reserves of the United Kingdom slightly increased.
It would have been possible to have faced this situation without economic difficulties if the imports of the area had come largely from the United Kingdom. But there has been a revolutionary switch in the way in which the sterling area has been importing its engineering and manufactured goods. This poses a very real problem. Mr. Burtle quoted the British National Institute of Economic and Social Research to show that between 1954–55
1008
and 1959–60 imports of manufactures in the overseas sterling area increased by 28·2 per cent. while imports from the United Kingdom increased by only 5·2 per cent. Imports from the Common Market countries increased by 61·1 per cent., from Japan by 74·5 per cent., from the United States by 52·5 per cent. and—to name one specific country in the Common Market—from Germany by 90·7 per cent.
This poses a very real problem, because it means that the burden of sustaining the sterling area here in London, acting as the bankers of the sterling area, is a severe inhibition upon our economic growth. From it, of course, stems a great deal of political influence in the world. The question I pose—and I do not pretend to answer it, for it is a very great issue about which there has to be a very broad, balanced judgment and a great deal of consideration—is: what do we do about the sterling area?
Having said that about the economic side, because it is very, very important, I come now to the political side. We have had a good deal of recrimination heaped upon President de Gaulle's head today. The political problem is specifically that we now have to seek to exercise the kind of influence on Europe and on the world that we would have been able to do from inside Europe. It will be infinitely more difficult but this must be the target of our policy. How do we set about it?
I do not propose to indulge in any kind of recrimination about President de Gaulle. I say only that anybody who has read his memoires will be impressed by the concept he advances. I hesitate to use the analogy, but it is the second time this century that someone has set down, in temporary retirement, the kind of political policy he would follow if he had the power. President de Gaulle has consistently followed this policy since 1958, when he came back to power. The substance, as hon. Members know, is the Europe of Napoleon followed by a rapprochement with Russia, with the concept of Europe advanced to the Urals, Anglo-Saxons, of course, being excluded.
There are several fallacies in this. There are obvious ones, but I will quote two specific ones. First, the idea of Europe from the Channel to the Urals has never been and never will be a geopolitical unit. Secondly, his assumption

1009
is based upon a misconception, of the doctrinal nature of the cold war. Mr. Khrushchev pointed this out clearly the other day. It amounts to the fact that the cold war began in 1917, actually reached a point of world challenge when the Russians had an industrial and military base strong enough to pose a challenge on a world scale, and it will continue until there are gentlemen in Moscow and then Peking who have given up the concept of world domination. In the present concept, the only kind of rapprochement is that of surrender.
Mr. K. Zilliacus: No.
Mr. Donnelly: I wish it were otherwise. When they talk of making peace they mean our giving in.
Mr. Zilliacus: They do not.
Mr. Donnelly: Of course they do. I have argued with my hon. Friend many times, and I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say that he has not the slightest limited concept of what the cold war is really about.
Mr. Zilliacus: Unlike my hon. Friend, I have spent half my life officially in keeping in touch with Soviet affairs as a League of Nations official. I think I have forgotten more than he has ever learned. I know perfectly well that the Soviet challenge is ideological and economic and not a military threat.
Mr. Donnelly: I did not say that it was a purely military threat. I was saying it was an ideological challenge. I thought that was the whole basis of my remarks. If I did not make it clear to the House, I apologise. This is a religious crusade, but it is backed by every appropriate means available.
Mr. Michael Foot: The Protestants and the Catholics came to agreement.
Mr. Donnelly: They did. But the Crusades went on for quite a long time with the infidels, did they not?
The assumption of President de Gaulle's attitude is based essentially on a misconception of the possibility of a rapprochement. Of course, if hon. Members think otherwise they can join the Gaullists. But my hon. Friend the Member for
1010
Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) would have some difficulty in getting back into France.
What are we to do about this isolation from Europe? First, we must address ourselves to the existing institutions of which we are members and from which the French cannot exclude us. First, there is N.A.T.O. Secondly, there is O.E.C.D., which arose out of the Marshall Plan. In both of these bodies the overwhelming voice is that of the United States. Thirdly, there is Western European Union, which is really the Six plus Britain. Finally, there is the Council of Europe, which we have tended to underrate and which has now become a very important political sounding board in Europe. All these bodies involve two things. First we have to get rid of our anti-Frenchism. Secondly, we cannot afford the luxury of our anti-Americanism.
The hon. Member for Cambridge referred to the speech by Mr. Dean Acheson. I thought that was an extraordinary affair. Particularly did I think that the letter to the Institute of Directors, even if one had had a good dinner in advance, was a most extraordinary statement of drivel from a Prime Minister. We cannot afford that kind of nonsense.
Nor can we afford our anti-Germanism either. West Germany is one of the keys to this situation. The Prime Minister referred today to Germans training in my constituency. Perhaps I may be permitted a personal word on this. I did not make the decision, and I was astonished when the German troops arrived. But not only is it silly of people to go prancing down there demonstrating against these troops—against the wishes of the local people—but it is something which is no longer in our national interest. I hope that we shall not hear any more of it in the future. It is absurd from now on.
In all these paths we must seek to exert an influence which has to be more sensitive, more appreciative of the requirements of both sides of the Atlantic, and recognise that this island, for good or ill, is anchored off the shores of Europe. We cannot take it to the Indian Ocean or put it in a sleeping car and take it to Sweden to be part of a Scandinavian bloc. We are twenty miles from the shores of Europe and the wild billows of

1011
the Atlantic beat on our western coast. We have to live and die in this island trying to act as a bridge between the two. It is going to be a very difficult task indeed. The extent to which we are able to do it will depend very largely on how we order our affairs here. Something has been said about the weakness of Britain. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said during a television broadcast the other day, one does not like to talk about this, but we have to face the facts.
The Prime Minister appeared today as presiding over this assembly of the sick men of Europe—almost as if he were a representative of the Ottoman Empire and not a descendant of some Scottish clan. That is not the Prime Minister's fault. It is not the fault of the right hon. Gentlemen who temporarily occupy the Treasury Bench—that is over-rating their efficacy. It goes back much further. Broadly, the British economy has been stagnant for more than forty years—ever since 1918—and, except for a brief period during the war and the post-war reconstruction, that stagnation has been a deep malaise.
This is something far bigger than can be dealt with just by the adjustment of Government policies on a short-time basis. There must be very radical changes. The hon. Member for Cambridge spoke of a moral purpose, but there must be a sense of national purpose in these changes, which must take account of the whole nation and not of any one limited section of it. We have to determine our priorities first of all, and they must be nationally acceptable.
Obviously, the first priority for any Government in any country—and I cannot Burke this, because it would be intellectual dishonesty to do so—must be defence. By definition, it is the sustaining of the apparatus of the State. It need not be the over-riding priority but it must be the first one—indeed, it should not be the over-riding priority.
Then comes social investment or industrial investment. Here we have to give a virtually over-riding priority to industrial investment, and included in that investment in machines I would put investment in people. Here we need a refurnishing of our basic industries on a major scale that has never before been
1012
undertaken by a Parliamentary democracy. It has been done in the Soviet Union. In forty years they have pulled themselves up to their present position. We have to do it by consent.
This is our major challenge, and it will call for great maturity, and great leadership from the Government of the day, too, because it means recognising that the consumer goods and social services will have to take second place to industrial investment. I bitterly regret that, because I am a supporter of the Welfare State, but we have to recognise that before we can get the hospitals we must have the factories—because that is the way in which to get better hospitals in the end.
In the same way, we must have the factories before we can have the consumer goods and the "never-had-it-so-good" policy. We must never again have from a Government that kind of cynical approach to electioneering. The ballot box is not a slot meter, not something stuck on a railway platform into which people put their votes in order to get some kind of candy floss—although I appreciate that to be the constitutional concept of some right hon. Gentlemen who shall be nameless. We must never go back to that situation.
Next comes education. There has been a great deal of speculation in the weekend Press about the 45 universities recommended by the committee set up by the Labour Party under Lord Taylor. This is the sort of bold approach I support. We shall soon have the report of the Robbins Committee. But there must be much more to it than that. We need more education and we need a big improvement in the education we now have. We need more teachers, but we also need better teachers.
I believe that it must work in two parallel sections. First of all, we have the expansion, which obviously must take place as the major drive. There will be mistakes and there will be considerable problems, but it is better to get the drive started than never to move at all. Secondly, we must try to improve the standards of what we now have. We are not doing nearly enough about the techniques, including television techniques, that might be deployed—I will not go into that now, but I hope to talk about it on

1013
some later and more suitable occasion—to raise the standard of education as well as to expand its extent. But the watershed must be the raising of the school-leaving age to 16. It is ridiculous that a great industrial nation like this does not already have a school-leaving age of 16.
This will call for very great sacrifices by the British people, and let us make no mistake about it, we must go to the country and pose what is a virtual attempt at creating the mass Athenian democracy; an attempt to govern by consent and to get support for restraint. There must be national incomes and wages policies that may appear to bear harshly but which must be carried to the people by the leadership of the Government of the day. This is a democracy—it is our proud claim. It must be done by consent, again, by the Government of the day, which is an even bigger test of leadership.
All these things involve the greatest challenge in our history, far more difficult even than resistance when attacked, but the hope of the future is this. We have a chance, it is a slender chance, I would not put it higher than that—I am not being defeatist but I am aware of the practicalities and magnitude of the problem—and this House of Commons has been faced with this challenge. We can succeed, provided we have the courage to dare the new, the compassion to help the wretched of other countries, and the vision to see what men can really be in the society of our dreams.
6.56 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: Had we been successful in entering the European Economic Community we should have had a home market with a firm base of some 240 million people as opposed to the 50 million people in this country, a market bigger than the United States, hitherto unchallenged as the greatest single market and the richest nation in the world.
An example of what this would have meant was sent to several hon. Members some time ago. The firm concerned produced certain technical equipment, the total development charges of which amounted to some £145,000. Total sales in the United Kingdom amounted to about £100,000, but export sales, particularly to Europe, amounted to £860,000. As soon as the Common
1014
Market reduced its tariffs within the Community and raised them against this country, quite obviously those other countries would be able to undersell us throughout Europe. The only thing that the firm could do in order to remain competitive was to transfer its main production plant to Europe. As we know, several firms have done that already. The only alternative for us is to cut costs, increase production and find markets elsewhere, but how are we to increase production with so many people asking for more pay for less work? An example of the result of this was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) in an excellent letter to the Daily Telegraph only the other day.
In the last seven years, our exports have increased by only 28 per cent., but Germany's increased by 156 per cent., Italy's by 180 per cent., the Netherland's by 92 per cent. and Switzerland's by 67 per cent. World exports show an average total rise of 50 per cent. We failed because our export prices increased by 10 per cent., Germany's by only 2 per cent., while those of the Netherlands fell by 1 per cent, and those of Switzerland by 4 per cent. Therefore, we are faced today with a gigantic task and we cannot survive as a nation if we insist on more pay and less work.
We can no longer afford the luxury of unofficial strikes, wildcat strikes, working to rule, go-slow, and sending people to Coventry because they work too hard, and all that sort of nonsense. All sections of the community are fed up with them, including the unions themselves. All sections of the community feel that the system must be wrong somewhere whereby a handful of men, in defiance of their unions, can inflict so much damage to their country and distress and hardship on all sections of the community.
Behind all this, sabotaging the country is the Communist Party. Haw often have we read of its responsibility for fomenting industrial unrest. Its leaders proudly proclaim:
"In Great Britain during the first nine months of 1962, 4 million workers, as against 639,900 for the corresponding period of 1961, went on strike for a total of 4 million working days."

1015
Unless something is done, there will be more and more sabotage as surely as the Red Flag flies over Moscow. And the hon. Member opposite who smiles had better go and join his fellow-travellers. Lord Citrine blames the Communists for an atmosphere of apathy, suspicion and hostility. Mr. Carron said,
"Subversive elements played their part in the Pressed Steel strike"
and he added that
"They are doing all they can to wreck Britain's economy."
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister once said that the real threat to the life of this country was not military but economic. I also remember him saying in the House that next to being defeated by the enemy and living under the heel of a conqueror, the worst catastrophe was uncontrolled inflation. Chancellor after Chancellor and Government after Government have fought against this evil, but the trouble is that the road to national bankruptcy is quite pleasant. Controlled inflation is enjoyable to a great many people as long as it is controlled.
The Government are sometimes criticised for not placing the facts before the people. What nonsense this is. All Governments have warned the people of the dangers of inflation. Not least of those who warned them was the late Leader of the Opposition, but not all his charm, nor all his eloquence, nor all his tears had any effect on the miners. His warnings bounced off their heads like tennis balls off a concrete wicket. Sir Stafford Cripps did his best to warn the nation time after time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Louth said, he did so in the House in 1949.
Speech after speech is made on this subject, but nobody listens. Reports of warnings by all Governments are not published in the national newspapers. If they are published they are put on a back page. We cannot blame the newspapers, because to remain in business they have to print what the people want to read, and nobody wants to read bad news. As the situation gets worse and inflation gets really serious, no Chancellor can say so, because that might involve a run on the £. And all the time the deadly canker of the Communists is at work, occupying more and more key positions. There are fellow-
1016
travellers everywhere with the sworn objective to destroy our economy.
What can be done? There is an increasing feeling among all sections of the community that it is wrong that a free people should have to suffer periodical tyranny from an irresponsible minority. This has been described as not democracy but anarchy, and it is our duty to stop it. A people who have not the determination to protect themselves from the abuse of their own liberties are going down the hill and deserve all they get. This country may not survive if something is not done about this.
There is a Motion on the Order Paper which recommends that a Royal Commission should be set up to inquire into the causes of disputes and into the part played by both sides of industry in producing the conditions out of which disputes arise. We are all glad that the Motion mentions both sides, because it is the bad employers who create the conditions in which Communist agitators can do their deadly work. I hope that if such a Royal Commission is set up it will report as soon as possible. There is not much time left.
In the meantime cannot we anticipate the findings of the Royal Commission and start thinking of what action might be taken? The situation in the country is that the Communists can do exactly what they like, provided that they keep within the law. Everything is made easy for them. Instead of making conditions as easy as possible for them to operate, cannot we make things as difficult as possible? We do not tolerate traitors in time of war when we are fighting for our lives. Why should we tolerate them in time of peace when we are working for our very existence?
Mr. Drew Middleton, that great friend of this country who was here throughout the war writing for the New York Times, made a farewell broadcast on leaving these shores. I was fortunate enough to hear it. He said how happy he has been here, what a wonderful country it was and what a wonderful people we were. But he felt that one of the great virtues of the English people had now become one of their greatest weaknesses. This was tolerance. It was tolerance carried to such an extent that we allowed the Communists to get hold of the trade unions and other key positions and sabotage the country. What amazed him

1017
even more was the complete indifference with which people in all sections in this country recognised this fact. Nobody seems to care any more—if anyone ever did. He described our attitude as madness when we adopted a play fair attitude towards Communist politics and the trade unions.
Have we not learned that these traitors will stop at nothing and that to retain power they rely on bullets instead of ballots once they are elected? Why do we not consider some of the American methods of dealing with them, without adopting the methods of McCarthy? Surely the Americans who have contributed towards outlawing the Communist Party in the United States cannot be described as McCarthyites when the list includes Franklin Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Adlai Stevenson, Chester Bowles and Ralph Bunche. Prominent members of the trade unions in the United States have co-operated 100 per cent., and behind it all, giving further support, have been learned justices of the Supreme Court such as Frankfurter, Black, Douglas, Jackson, and Hand.
What steps might we consider? I say only "consider". At governmental and legislative level the Communist movement might be declared illegal. The Government might declare that no Communist should be employed by the Government or in local government. No defence contracts should be given to any firms which employ Communists. Perhaps our unions would co-operate, just as the unions have co-operated in the United States. In America some unions prevent Communists from holding any position of responsibility in the unions and, indeed, some unions ban Communists altogether.
I have one other important suggestion—and this is often said to hon. Members by their constituents. It is that strikes should be decided by ballot. Something must be done, and the only thing that is always wrong is to do nothing. If the Government take bold and decisive action they will get the overwhelming support of the vast majority of people in this country. But if nothing is done, if these traitors continue to sabotage our industries and if the nation goes on permanently demanding more and more pay for less work, and getting it, here lies the road to ruin.
7.11 p.m.
Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) told us that he intended to speak for only ten minutes, and he gratified us greatly by keeping to his promise. We have just had the explanation as to why it was possible for him to keep his promise; he obviously handed part of his notes to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport), who was seated behind him, so that he could read out that part of his speech. Anyway, we prefer to have such a speech in two instalments, and I must say that the latter part of it which we have just received from the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford was not directly relevant to today's debate. The hon. Member proposed large-scale measures of suppression to deal with the Communist menace. I have always thought it rather strange that the same people who propose to deal with Communism start by behaving like Communists.
I will deal with the question before us, however, and refer to the speech of the Prime Minister. We were told a few days ago in another place by the Foreign Secretary that this was not an occasion, at the end of the Brussels talks, for new decisions and that there must be time for a pause. One verdict which can be passed on the Prime Minister's speech is that the pause continues. No one would take seriously that part of his speech in which he outlined the measures the Government would take to deal with this critical situation.
The Prime Minister was obviously more interested in turning to the other part of his speech, the political side. He purported to give some account of what had led to the crisis in Brussels and he reflected on the future of Europe when commenting about General de Gaulle. It seems to me that the Prime Minister, however he might disown attempting to do this, in every statement he has made since the conclusion of the Brussels talks—and this goes for many of the statements made by other Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations—has striven hard to make President de Gaulle the scapegoat for everything that has happened.
We have had the development about Princess Margaret, which was the first sign of the Government's reaction. The

1019
second line of Government policy in their second reaction was to say that we must consolidate still further the American alliance and prove that we can be even better allies of the Americans than we were before. These are the two deductions the Government have drawn, and one can say, therefore, that their reaction to the Brussels situation is a combination of pique and pusillanimity—the two worst foundations for any foreign policy.
Why did President de Gaulle take the action he did? It is worth remembering that, however we may dislike many aspects of his policies—and he has introduced an authoritarian constitution which may mean that when he dies the situation in France may be serious indeed—it would be foolish to dismiss General de Gaulle as a megalomaniac, an awkward anachronism or a Napoleon the Little. Even while we may dislike some of the things he is attempting to do, there is usually a reason or a purpose—or even a vision—in what he does, even while a part of that vision may seem distorted.
Thus it would be foolish for us to think that General de Gaulle has acted merely out of pique. As he has shown throughout his life, he thinks in terms of distant goals and there have been at least two occasions in his life when he has succeeded in reaching those goals, although many people at the time of his proposing them had thought them unattainable. For these reasons we should examine very carefully—certainly far more carefully than has so far been done—why General de Gaulle took the action he did and what was his motive.
We may be able to do this by looking carefully at his speeches, for I do not think that the Prime Minister has made General de Gaulle's reasons clear. The General declared at a Press conference in Paris that one of the reasons for his action—although it has all been smoothed over—had something to do with Cuba and the deductions which he drew from Cuba. We should not dimiss everything he says. He is a man of substance and we should be ready to consider what are his deductions about Cuba from the point of view of France and Europe.
He says, in effect, "In my opinion what happened in Cuba is this"—note, he was not protesting against the action of the American Government—"The action
1020
taken by the American Government in Cuba and in the Cuban dispute shows that they will act by themselves and not necessarily in accord with the interests of the whole alliance." We must bear that part of General de Gaulle's conclusion very much in mind.
If General de Gaulle had any doubts about that, there were many statements issued afterwards by President Kennedy regarding the Cuban affair. Some of them have appeared in the British Press, particularly those made at the beginning of this year when President Kennedy stayed at Palm Beach and thought about what had happened in Cuba. So when people talk about one man ruling Europe, President Kennedy's pronouncements would indicate to some people that one man might wish to rule the whole of the Western world. The Times Washington correspondent—in my view, the best informed correspondent in that part of the world—wrote that America's performance in Cuba could be
"… now seen as a text book example on how to deal with enemies and allies alike".
That was the Administration's conclusion. There was also the report from Mr. Worsthome in the Sunday Telegraph who, having seen President Kennedy and others in Washington, wrote:
"President Kennedy is determined to make all the vital thermo-nuclear decisions. At moments of thermo-nuclear drama, the only meaningful division will not be between Americans and British, or Americans and the French, but between those in the White House and those outside."
President de Gaulle can read these things as well. He takes the view that if America is determined to insist on being the complete arbiter of everything that happens in the Western Alliance, he is not prepared to agree.
It may also be that he was influenced by the speech of Mr. Dean Acheson. That speech was not properly read in this country. President de Gaulle had no reason for thinking that Dean Acheson's speech was not the view of the American Government, because a few weeks before the speech Dean Acheson had been sent to France during the Cuban crisis as the spokesman of the American Government. The most important part of that speech had nothing to do with Britain's rôle in the world. The most important part occurred when Dean Acheson said that in his view Germany was the steadiest ally

1021
of the United States. He went on to outline a programme for dealing with the Berlin and German situation, giving what amounted to proposals for creating a Cuban crisis in Germany and rolling back the Russians in East Germany. This was all in Dean Acheson's speech, but it went unnoticed in the reports in this country—it was not put in exactly those words, but the meaning was there and I do not think that anybody would dispute it.
However, surely President de Gaulle read that, too. He would have said, "The Americans say that they are to make Germany their steadiest ally; it so happens that West Germany is my steadiest ally and I will not have any interference with that." He could also remember for himself where the instigation for Britain's entry into the Common Market came from.
Many of us made the accusation during the period of the Common Market negotiations that the chief pressure for getting Britain into the Community came from the United States. That was pooh-poohed in many quarters at the time. We were told that we were exaggerating and that these were old fears which we had always had and which could not be true. But when the Common Market negotiations collapsed, in a matter of hours we were told that this was the destruction of a primary purpose of American policy. The explosion of American wrath within a few hours of the collapse of the Brussels negotiations was in a sense a vindication of the charge which President de Gaulle had made beforehand.
Has anyone tried to discover objectively the reasons why President de Gaulle has reached this conclusion? We have not been provided with reasons by the Government. We have been told that President de Gaulle has been guilty of a grave breach of faith, that he is just a twister or one man who wants to dominate Europe. Those are not satisfactory explanations, particularly when they come from those who were lauding President de Gaulle only a short time ago when he was committing much more serious offences, such as the partial suppression of French democracy. At any rate, they do not explain the facts.
Anyone who has studied the situation must conclude—and this is important for the future—that President de Gaulle is
1022
a rebel against American leadership. Some of us who are also rebels have some sympathy with him on that account. However, he is an old-fashioned nationalist and an old-fashioned European and he has expressed his rebellion against American policy in these terms. When he goes on to express it in terms of saying that he intends to have his independent nuclear deterrent, I think that he is pursuing a dangerous absurdity, just as hon. Members opposite are when they pursue the same will-o'-the-wisp.
However, the conclusions which the Prime Minister draws from this situation are quite inapposite. De Gaulle is seeking to wrest some of the power out of the American hands in Europe—surely that is not overstating it—and will continue to do so. He has been alone many times before and he will not be diverted from his course because the British Government does not like it, or even because the American Government does not like it. The more the American Government denounces him, the more will he be strengthened in his point of view, and he may think that the more he will get others to agree with him.
There are many reasons why people in Europe will agree with him, particularly if it is the case, as has been suggested, that one of his long-term aims is to secure a settlement between East and West in Europe. He shows more knowledge of history, certainly of geography, than some hon. Members opposite who have spoken today, because he understands that the frontiers of Europe do not end at and are not confined to the frontiers of the Common Market. One of his wise actions was the recognition of the Oder-Neisse line some years ago. He may be saying, "Eventually we must make an agreement with the Russians and it is better that it should be made by Europeans than by Americans." He may have some grounds for that, because the agreements or disagreements made by the Americans have not been so wise.
For all those reasons, in my opinion we are witnessing something much bigger than the collapse of the Common Market negotiations. The whole world picture is being changed. It is not easy to arrive at certain conclusions from it, but one can be absolutely certain that the conclusions drawn by the Government,

1023
especially by the Prime Minister today, are wrong. The Prime Minister draws the conclusion from the whole affair that the only course of British policy is to dedicate ourselves even more rigidly, with even fewer qualifications, to the American alliance.
General de Gaulle can see that the American alliance as operated by the Americans today is something that Europe will not swallow. It is the old story from "Alice in Wonderland"—if one goes on drinking from the bottle marked "Poison", it is bound to disagree with one in the end. There are some policies which the United States has been pursuing in Europe and Asia over the last ten years which neither Europe or Asia will swallow. The major policy of the United States in Asia has been the ostracism of China. Does anybody think that that is a wise policy? It is a major policy, nevertheless. I am not saying that de Gaulle is all-wise, but no one can say that the ostracism of China for the past ten years has been wise. However, it is to be the leading policy to which the alliance is committed in Asia.
The major policy of the United States in Europe since 1951 or 1952 has been to build up West Germany as the most powerful State in Western Europe, standing athwart any idea of disengagement and détente in Europe. That cannot be denied. It has all been written out and the Dean Acheson speech has underlined it. Having made Germany such a powerful State, the American view, according to Dean Acheson, is that West Germany is now America's steadiest ally.
The Americans' policy in the Caribbean, their Cuba obsession, and their apparent determination to overthrow the Castro régime, either by force or by starvation, irrespective of the consequences that may follow for the United Nations, which I believe to be the hope of the whole world, is another example. It is another major policy of the alliance to which we are committed.
I take my final example from this debate. How was it that the United States Government exerted such influence to press this country to join the Common Market, using all their diplomacy in so many capitals to try to achieve this result, without finding out what was the effect on their most faithful ally? Apparently,
1024
the United States Government, like our own, could not discover what President de Gaulle's intentions were. What has our ambassador in Paris been doing all this time? We are told in the newspapers today that he was the person who advised that Princess Margaret should not go to Paris. I should not have thought that anyone would take the advice of our ambassador in Paris, because he might have told us, long before, what was President de Gaulle's view about the Common Market. Surely, also, the Americans might have found out. Instead, during the past eighteen months, the whole power of American diplomacy has been used to try to force, persuade or get this country into the Common Market.
Yet, when we examined the possibility, as we did in the House last year, what did we see? The late Leader of the Opposition objectively and faithfully examined it, as, I am sure, everyone agrees, and he saw that the only terms on which we could join would be deeply damaging to the Commonwealth, probably deeply damaging to British agriculture, and even more damaging to any possibility of planning in this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) outlined, at the end of his speech, some measures for arranging our priorities in this country in order to escape from our economic difficulties. With many of his proposals I agree. But we could not carry out those proposals in the Common Market. How does my hon. Friend think that he could have pursued all his proposals for ordering our priorities as he wishes in a Community where the economic policies would not be determined in this House and in this country? I do not think that even my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), who is such a passionate supporter of the Common Market, would ever have dreamed of saying that the proposals of his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke could have been carried out within the Common Market.
That was the situation. The consequences of joining the Common Market were found to be greatly injurious to the Commonwealth, greatly injurious to the planning of British agriculture, and, even more certainly, they would forbid all the economic planning measures which are so desperately required to enable this country to escape

1025
from its present position. Over and above that, they would have destroyed the independence in this country in its foreign affairs, and done so at this critical time. I have tried to describe the picture I see of the world. The whole situation is altering between East and West. The planet is trembling with alterations and differences in alliances and arrangements. I do not believe in the old configuration of the cold war which my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke described. It is out of date. It is five years, even ten years, out of date. The world is changing much faster than my hon. Friend understands.
I believe—this is certainly my hope—that the most powerful new influence in the world, alongside the power of the great nuclear giants, will be the great and growing power of uncommitted nations represented in the United Nations. This is the new power, the only hopeful power in the world, perhaps, although hon. Gentlemen opposite so often jeer at it and denounce it. It played a critical part in the days of Cuba. It played a critical part in the Congo. It can play a critical part in many other areas of the world.
Yet, if we had gone forward in the Common Market, our influence would have been injured at the very moment when we could help to shape affairs in this changing world, perhaps, more beneficially than for many years past. One of the reasons why I am passionately eager to see in this country a new Government who have no responsibility for the tragedies and errors of the past ten years is that I want us to have a Government who are prepared to look afresh at this changing world. This is what we must hope for. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, we must seek anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves. Therefore, so far from bewailing what has happened, as the Prime Minister did in his lugubrious speech, we may, whatever may have been his motives and reasons, thank President de Gaulle for doing for us what the British Government had not the courage and energy to do for themselves.
7.35 p.m.
Mr. R. P. Hornby: I find this a depressing day, depressing because of the situation which we are discussing and depressing because of some of the things which have been said during the debate.
1026
We start with the fact that France, as she was legally entitled to do, has exercised her veto and, as a consequence, Britain cannot go ahead with her negotiations, at least for the time being. We are excluded, here and now, from what has always seemed to me to be, in political terms, far and away the most promising development in the post-war history of Europe. There are, of course, other organisations to which we can refer, but this one, the E.E.C., had gone farther in the direction of enabling nation States to solve their differences and difficulties in an adult way to the benefit of them all than had any other single organisation developed in recent years.
As a result of what has happened, we face a problem not only of British political influence but of opportunities for the development of overseas trade affecting Britain herself and her dependencies and fellow-members of the Commonwealth in many parts of the world. Third, there are the effects on our own opportunities for the growth of wealth and the maintenance of our standard of living in this country. In all these respects, it seems to me, we have great cause to regret the consequences of the French veto.
We are not the only people with cause to regret what has happened. The other five members of the Six are today wondering whether they and France are thinking in precisely the same terms about the future of Europe. Hitherto, there has been a great spirit of compromise within the Six which has made it possible—I hope that it will continue to do so—to overcome the difficulties as and when they arose. But recent events have brought the spirit of compromise and co-operation within Europe very near to breaking point, and this we, as Europeans, must regret no less than the other members of the Six regret it.
America also, I believe, has had cause for considerable concern. America has spent a great deal of money, diplomacy and effort in the last 20 years or more, first, in coming to the rescue of Europe, second, in trying to set Europe on her feet again, and third, in trying to help Europe so to organise her affairs that dissensions within Europe would not break out again and ruin her. With all that this must involve for the defence of

1027
the West, America must be not a little disillusioned by the signs of a split in Europe, the split which the negotiations in Brussels were to heal but which might, conceivably, become permanent unless we can solve our problems in the next few years. Last, there is the, as it were, relatively parochial matter of the danger of a bitter chapter in Anglo-French relations opening. All these things seem to me to give great cause for anxiety today.
That being so, how should be attempt to face these facts? Hon. Members on both sides have referred to the economic challenge which we have to face. I agree that it is there, and the sooner we face it the better. It seems to me that the essential points are these. First, our own efficiency—or the lack of it—which, I think, may have had some effect on the negotiations. Every time we have to make some special plea or ask for a longer period for playing in or for helping a particular industry, that makes the business of collaboration with and entry into Europe more difficult. If we can improve our efficiency not only do we help to overcome our immediate difficulties but we also make it easier at some future date, which I hope will come, to get very much closer to the Six.
One of my hon. Friends referred to our high costs, our export problems, and so on. We cannot be tolerant about our efficiency when we read in a recent F.B.I. report that only one-sixth of British industry is working on a shift system of any kind—not working right through the night, but working even a two-shift system. Is it likely that enough expensive machinery will be installed if that is all the use we make of it? Is it likely that we shall be competitive in Europe and in the world unless we gear our technical education to a much higher level? Is it likely that our exports will flourish unless we become less inept in speaking the more frequently used languages of the world? We are very adept at the many abstruse languages of Africa and Asia but much less so in the more widely spoken languages of Europe.
Reference has been made to labour relations and to many other things, but I believe that efficiency in the conduct of our business is something from which we can not longer escape, and it must be the keynote, for all its inconveniences, of our domestic policy.
1028
Secondly, in our international trading policy, I believe that our objective must be to keep our trade as international as possible and to keep our tariffs as low as we can without setting ourselves at a disadvantage with people who refuse to do likewise. Thirdly, I believe that in our economic thinking in the coming months we should beware of doing things which will make the unification of Europe more difficult. I agree that for tactical reasons we must face the fact that for the time being negotiations are dead, but I hope that they are not buried. I trust that the time will come when this matter can be taken up again and that we shall have better success.
I wish to say a few words about Commonwealth trade. Nothing could be less true than the statement of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) that Commonwealth trade has had a merciful reprieve. Precisely the reverse is the case. What the right hon. Gentleman totally fails to realise is that Commonwealth trade is not solely a matter of the policy of this country in conjunction with the members of the Commonwealth. It is something much bigger and wider than that. It was precisely because we were enlisting the interests, support, investment and markets of a far wider area that the negotiations in Europe were of paramount importance to the Commonwealth, and I believe that that is being increasingly recognised, despite some of the initial protests, not unnaturally and very emotionally, made at the time.
I turn from the economic to the political problems. I am sure that the main point that we must emphasise again and again, and more specially now than at any time during the negotiations, is this. If, as we have said time and again, we value the unification of Europe and the prevention of old discords recurring, we must play our part to the full in the European councils open to us. In the military sphere, we must play our full part in N.A.T.O. Whenever we seem to be falling short in our commitments there, we are handing to our opponents in Europe and elsewhere weapons with which they can beat us.
Secondly, the suggestion was made in an article in the Observer yesterday, and it has been made by hon. Members in the

1029
debate, that O.E.C.D. is an organisation in which we must continue to play our full part. Particularly must we interest it to the very full in the development prospects of the less fortunate parts of the world.
Thirdly, many sharp things have been said from time to time about how much is said and how little is done at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. I believe that now more than at any other time great importance should be attached to the rôle played by Members of this House in the deliberations of the Parliament in Strasbourg. Presumably it is the intention of the French Government, having vetoed our entry into Europe, to justify their view that we are not mature Europeans at this stage. There is nothing to be said for providing President de Gaulle with ammunition to prove his point.
Lastly, on our links with Europe, a word or two about Western European Union. It has been suggested by some that this is a most suitable forum for close contacts with Europe. I cannot pretend to be an expert on the multifarious European bodies, but my reaction to this suggestion is that it is not, perhaps, the most suitable place at which to make our views best known. It seems to me that if we try to refurbish W.E.U. and make it something much more than it has been there is a danger that it will be said that we are trying to divide the institutions of Europe and trying to set up a rival organisation whose main effect would be to weaken the Six.
Nothing that we do in our relations with Europe should give strength to the argument that we are trying to weaken the Six. We are disappointed at our exclusion from the Common Market. We regret that France appears to see its development differently from ourselves and, apparently, the Five; but we certainly do not wish there to be any decline in the strength of what I earlier referred to as probably the most outstanding development in post-war diplomatic history.
Next, a word about our relations with America. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) referred to the reason why General de Gaulle wanted to exclude Britain, as the spokesman for American views, from the Common Market. In passing, I have heard of many strange bedfellows, but none stranger than
1030
the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and General de Gaulle. Amidst a good deal of violent anti-Americanism from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, there was, however, one point which seemed to me to have substance. The hon. Member pointed out that Europe—and France in particular—was touchy of the seeming disregard which American policy had for the views of her allies. In particular, he was referring to Cuba.
I entirely defend the attitude of the American Government over Cuba, although not for the reasons that the hon. Member gave. Short of an evolved and agreed machinery for consultation within the Western Alliance, America, as the leading member of it, sometimes has to act alone lest nothing should happen in defence of her interests. The right conclusion to draw is not General de Gaulle's conclusion or that of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale—namely, that what America has done once, every individual nation should start to do for itself—but that we should do far more to evolve the machinery of political consultation within the Western Alliance.
Finally, I refer to what I can best describe as our general attitude to what has happened. In the past, there have been dangers, to which we have sometimes succumbed, of seeing ourselves as insular, proudly nationalist and rather isolationist and taking a good deal of pride in such an attitude. We do ourselves great damage if we succumb to those temptations.
The danger in the world is that the individual nation States, with the weapons with which they can now arm themselves, will cling on too tightly to their sovereignty and be too little willing to pool their resources, their manpower and their willingness to debate with one another; and in the process they will go down, either as a result of action from their enemies or though sheer mutual self-destruction. That is what it should be our cause to prevent.
In doing that, we shall be helping ourselves, we shall be helping all Europe and we shall be helping our allies and Commonwealth friends overseas. I therefore hope that no action of impatience or spite will prevent us, here and now, from preserving those objectives and ultimately becoming a part of Europe.
7.52 p.m.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ton-bridge (Mr. Hornby) on his speech, which was reasonable, constructive, unembittered and contained definite proposals for the future. One could only wish that the Prime Minister's speech had had the same qualities.
For those of us, in all parts of the House, who have been passionately keen on the idea of European co-operation, today is a sad and distressing event. I remember the days when for a Liberal to get up from this bench and advocate that we should apply to join the Common Market was to invite howls of derision from both the major parties in the House of Commons. I remember when to call a Division on the issue of whether it was more important to go into the Six than to try to create E.F.T.A., or whether it was the moment, in consultation with the Commonwealth and E.F.T.A., to apply for membership and to negotiate terms, was again an occasion for howls of derision. To challenge the issue in the Lobby would go the mass hordes of the Tory Party on the one hand, and the Labour Party would sit sullen and abstaining on the other hand, with a handful of Liberals going into the other Lobby to face derision from both the other parties. At least, in those days, there was hope of conversion, and the Government were converted. Unfortunately, their conversion has come too late. As the hon. Member for Tonbridge has said, the negotiations are over and dead, and they must be buried.
The full significance of what has happened was outlined in the opening speech by the Lord Privy Seal on 10th October, 1961, when he made Britain's initial application to join. He said:
"There can be no doubt that the success or failure of these negotiations will determine the future shape of Europe. They will affect profoundly the way of life, the political thought and even the character of each one of our peoples."
Inevitably, there has been concentration upon the economic effects of exclusion. Many of the measures which must now be taken would have had to be taken whether we were inside or outside the Common Market, such as stimulating trade with the Commonwealth, E.F.T.A. and the United States, the possibility of bringing about substantial tariff reduc-
1032
tions through G.A.T.T., world commodity agreements as envisaged by the Six and certainly a new agricultural policy. Having heard the Prime Minister's remarks and remembering what he said to the National Farmers' Union in 1956, it is interesting to know when he suddenly found that the 1957 Act had the defects of which he spoke today.
It is, however, the political significance of our exclusion which is much more important. I agree with those who are opposed to the Common Market that it is primarily a political grouping. This is, indeed, why many people, ranging from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, on the extreme Left, to the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), on the extreme Right, have been opposed to the concept of the Community, because it is primarily a political grouping. It is on this issue that we are entitled to ask the Government what are their intentions, because it is on this issue of the political implications that the Government have been very shifty ever since the application for membership was made.
Britain has spoken with two voices. Abroad, there has been the voice of the Lord Privy Seal, starting with his speech of 10th October, 1961, when he accepted all the implications of the Bonn Declaration. One remembers the embarrassment of the Government when that speech leaked to the Canadians and they insisted upon full publication. We then had the speech to the Council of the Western European Union by the Lord Privy Seal in April last year. That was the acceptance abroad of the political implications of joining the Community.
At home, however, the Tory leaders have been saying very different things. At their last assembly at Llandudno, when they managed to generate the same excitement for the Common Market in 1962 as they had contrived to procure hostility against it in 1960, the First Secretary of State was heard to say:
"The present negotiations do not take into account questions of political union"
and the Prime Minister was saying:
"Close co-operation may be involved, but there is no question of a federal character of any sort involving sovereignty of the Crown. Government or people."

1033
It is true that the First Secretary has advanced—
Mr. Edward Gardner: Does the hon. Member not agree that we were negotiating upon the terms of the Treaty of Rome? There is nothing in the Treaty of Rome that deals with political association. That would need to have been the subject of another treaty.
Mr. Thorpe: The hon. and learned Member cannot have read the Treaty of Rome in its entirety. If Tory Members are still not aware of what the European Community is and is intended to do, it is high time that even back benchers in the Tory Party made the necessary researches. The Treaty of Rome intended to create a community which would achieve political ends through economic means. To quote Professor Hallstein's words, "We are not in business, we are in politics." The whole trend of Europe has been towards political integration—for example, the High Authority; Euratom, which we have applied to join; and the Iron and Steel Community, which we have not yet joined but are thinking about. The whole contest has been between those who hold the view of the Fouchet Committee, of a Europe des patries, and the Five, who wanted Europe with a supranational authority. Of course, the Treaty of Rome and the Community meant a political involvement.
Mr. Gardner: Not a political treaty.
Mr. Thorpe: If hon. Members take the view that the Treaty of Rome and the European Community and the acceptance of the Bonn Declaration of 18th July, 1961, did not involve political union, then perhaps the speeches which Ministers have been making in this country have been accepted, as it was intended they should be accepted, by the rank and file of the Tory Party; but in Brussels we had the complete acceptance of October, 1961, by the Lord Privy Seal of all the implications of the Bonn Declaration: we had the statement that we were perfectly prepared for all the political measures of Western European Union of April last year, the statement of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) that they would not conflict with British views. Clearly that is a political movement, and to suggest otherwise is flying in the face of the facts.
Mr. Peter Kirk: The point is that the negotiations going on at Brussels were not political negotiations. All the Government accepted was the Bonn Declaration which called for some form of political co-operation and led to the proceedings of the Fouchet Committee, but it was not in the Brussels negotiations.
Mr. Thorpe: The Fouchet Committee was an attempt by de Gaulle to water down the political implications of the Community. This is the whole point. The Five were not prepared for it.
Mr. Kirk: Unless we were in.
Mr. Thorpe: That would have been a matter for discussion.
But if the party opposite believes it was merely negotiating for economic purposes it is no wonder the negotiations broke down. What I am asking the Government is, what are their clear political intentions in regard to Europe? There is no doubt in the latest memorandum of the Commission for its next four-year programme from 1962 to 1965, the second four-year plan, that
"the existing Communities comprise economically and socially a political union."
I ask the Government, first, do they accept the significance of the political co-operation which has occurred in Europe? Are they prepared to support and further the aim of political integration? Are they prepared to consolidate the political gains, which, quite clearly, we have made in the eighteen months of our negotiations? Are they prepared to heal the political divisions which have now arisen?
I found particularly nauseating as an apologia for what has happened the article written yesterday in the Sunday Times by the head of the Conservative Political Centre, Mr. Goldman. He said that Mr. Anthony Nutting, a former Member of this House, had said that everybody had indicated that if the British had been in at the initial stages in 1950 when the Coal and Steel Community was first mooted we should have been able to get in on our own terms and we would have been leaders of that community. How right he was; and how equally this might be said of these negotiations.
But I hope we are not going to have the suggestion from the Tory Party that

1035
the failure of Britain to get into the Economic Community was exclusively due to General de Gaulle or that it stemmed from the Labour Party's isolationalism in 1950. It stems from the hostility to the Community shown right up until the moment that the Prime Minister got up at that Box and announced that we were to apply for membership. It stems from the bitter hostility of the Tory Party to the idea of going into Europe. There was the contempt which caused us to walk out of Messina where the initial talks were held in 1955. There was the hostility which caused us to create the free trade area and E.F.T.A. in an attempt to wreck the Community, and there were the feelers put out in the autumn of 1960 without consultation of the Commonwealth followed by the biggest drawing ever on the International Monetary Fund, a credit squeeze and pay pause, after which we reluctantly applied to join.
That is the party which has been shifting ground, and we are entitled to ask, what is its intentions? It is true that we have moved a long way since the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was saying in October, 1959, that "we never dreamed of joining the Common Market." We have come a long way from what the First Secretary said in October, 1960, that "the Economic Community would not be suitable for us." We have moved a long way from the election addresses of 1959 when the Prime Minister and the Lord Privy Seal and the First Secretary did not even mention Europe, still less the Common Market. I am prepared to accept that the leaders of the Tory Party are now coming round genuinely to the view of European integration.
Then I want to put one or two points to them. I believe first that the effect of exclusion upon Britain will be politically very serious. I believe that there is a grave risk now of Franco-German domination in Europe. I believe that there is even the possibility ultimately of a Franco-German deterrent, because the folie de grandeur, that one must possess one's own deterrent, is not exclusively the preserve of this Government. I believe it will make it far more difficult for us to achieve tariff reductions now. I believe there may be a run on sterling as
1036
foreign capital goes to Europe, and many firms in this country expand in Europe. I hope it will not be so but I believe this is a very real possibility.
I believe that in Europe itself there is an acute dissension. The Dutch Foreign Minister has already gone on record as attacking the authoritarian character of the French view and saying that this could lead politically and economically to a split in Europe. I believe that there is a very real risk, unless we take the initiative, that the European view will be the French view.
That, of course, would be the view which would be independent of the United States. That is clearly the French case. Here I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot). It would be independent of N.A.T.O. That is clearly de Gaulle's ultimate intention. It would therefore clearly be independent of O.E.C.D., which, of course, has America and Canada as full members, and independent of Western European Union, which, of course, hypothecates Western security, embracing countries outside Europe. In fact it would be a third force, and, more than that, that third force, of course, was the very idea behind the Community itself. That is the French view, and I believe that the pressures on the Four at the moment are very great indeed.
Are they going to be able to maintain an outward-looking community with a Commission which is really building up as a supranational force of international civil servants? Will they be able to create that sort of Europe? Or are they going to have to turn their backs on those who are in favour of an outward-looking Europe and in the process find themselves dominated by the Franco-German view?
This is a great risk, and I believe that, in this, this country has a tremendous part to play in deciding which way Europe has to go. I believe the Lord Privy Seal was entirely right and indeed to be congratulated in his first reaction, at the end of what must have been a gruelling session, when he said that we must not turn our backs and we would continue to be good Europeans. I must confess that I do not believe that cancelling luncheon engagements is a good way of making friends and influencing people or is indeed a substitute for a European policy. One can only wish that the Prime Minister had acted with more dignity and

1037
restraint. It is a very odd thesis in the Prime Minister's dictionary that it is diplomatically courteous to tell a lie on Friday provided a public confession is made in the House of Commons on Monday.
What, then, should be the political initiative of this country? I believe it is, first, vital to make clear that we do not intend to undermine the Community. Our efforts in the free trade area and E.F.T.A. must have been a lesson as to that. I believe it should be to try to put new life into the European idea, which should not be susceptible to the French veto. We should take careful diplomatic soundings and, ideally, it may very well be that a new political community should be created with a Council of Ministers and an independent secretariat—because there is the great weakness of W.E.U.—with no central executive, because that would get over the fears of a supranational body; a political community which can discuss matters of foreign interest, whether they be of foreign policy, or whether they be the balance of N.A.T.O., or whether they be the purely political effects of the defence of the West.
It may well be that all of this could be achieved through existing agencies. The N.A.T.O. Council could, perhaps, be expanded; Article 2 provides for economic collaboration and. Article 4 for political consultation. The speech of Professor Hallstein last November about the need to create an Atlantic "partnership" as opposed to "community" is something that we should look at afresh. I doubt whether it would be possible for the O.E.C.D. to be developed in this way because it is too much concerned with economic matters. The same applies to W.E.U., which is concerned primarily with defence matters and has no international secretariat.
But I am certain that what Great Britain must do is to show that we are prepared to co-operate politically with our new friends in Europe and to associate with those friends our old friends in E.F.T.A., the Commonwealth and North America. This would be a means of giving strength and encouragement to the Four, who are under very great pressure indeed.
Finally, I will say a word about the economic side. When we go to G.A.T.T., as we shall do shortly, we should be in a
1038
mood to make very generous tariff reductions. If the Prime Minister could have seen the effect that some of his free trade remarks had upon some of his protectionist supporters, he would have been very grateful that he was looking at this side of the House and had not to turn round. I believe that one thing we can do is to reduce our external tariff to the level of the external tariff of the Community, and we should do so. It would be ludicrous if we maintained tariffs higher than the external tariff of the Community.
I will give the Chancellor one or two ideas: photographic equipment, 40 per cent. United Kingdom tariff, 18 per cent. Community external tariff; motor tyres, 24 per cent. U.K. tariff, 15 per cent. Community external tariff; ammonium nitrate fertiliser, 16 per cent. U.K. tariff, 10 per cent. Community external tariff. This is something we ought to do as a matter of course. Thereafter we should make it plain that we are prepared to negotiate cuts of up to 50 per cent. in all our tariffs.
Let us go into G.A.T.T. with that initiative, and let us see whether we can get a really generous cutting of tariffs. After all, the Conservative Party is now a party of free traders, and this is a very great opportunity. I believe that we have to make a very great attempt through O.E.C.D., or a different alignment, to bring about agreement on world commodity prices, though I am bound to say that the Labour Party, particularly the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), who has been very adroit in putting Questions on the Order Paper, that this may well mean an increase in the cost of food in this country because it may well be that we shall pay a higher price for many of the tropical and, indeed, temperate foodstuffs which we import. Therefore, this is part of our responsibility to the under-developed nations. Let us be frank; an agreement on world commodity prices may well mean an increase in the cost of certain foodstuffs.
We have also to have a new agricultural policy. I have always believed that the 1957 Act was bust. The Government are, we know, tied to this until the next General Election, but we all hope that that will not be very soon. [Laughter.] I mean, we hope it will be very soon. Indeed, the sooner the better.
I believe that it was a great thing that the Government were, at the eleventh

1039
hour, converted to the idea of going into Europe. If only they had done so before, they could have been members of the Community before General de Gaulle came to power or was heard of politically. But they preferred to procrastinate and experiment with the Outer Seven and the European Free Trade Association, with all the arguments which we have heard put from the other side of the House.
What we have to do now is to take the political initiative in Europe. We must take the economic initiative in G.A.T.T. I believe that we can now influence the future of Europe. If Great Britain is prepared to pool her sovereignty and if she is prepared to co-operate with her European neighbours, I think this is the only hope we shall have of an outward-looking Europe and not one dominated by General de Gaulle, which in itself would be the very antithesis of the spirit and philosophy of the Community.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Denys Bullard: I must confess that when I learned that the Common Market negotiations had come to an end I was somewhat relieved. I am not disposed to put all the blame on General de Gaulle. My reason for saying that is that some time before the end I felt that there was a fundamental difference of view and that even if the negotiations had gone on further we should have come to a point at which we should have found it impossible to go further. On the other hand, I always approved very strongly of the Government's having undertaken the negotiations. I have never been an out-and-out condemner of the Common Market arrangement. I thought there was a great deal in it politically. I believe now that the dissensions which may arise in Europe can be very serious indeed, and I should be very sorry to see the European nations drift apart, and for that reason I hope that my right hon. Friends in the Government will maintain their point of view of not turning their backs upon Europe.
I wish this evening to refer to one or two economic matters, and particularly to some on the agricultural side. Now that the negotiations have failed, I hope there will be no tendency to "take it out", so to speak, to some extent on the
1040
farming community. I notice a slight tendency for that to occur. I hope that the references to this matter by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister do not indicate that this line is to be taken. The community as a whole has derived very great benefits from the expansion of our home agriculture, and when we are looking to increased trade and production I hope that we shall not ignore the tremendous contribution which the agricultural industry has made, particularly in the way in which it has provided markets for manufactures such as tractors, fertilisers and many other supplies which are immensely valuable to us. When I hear that we are to be forced to abandon our agricultural policy—as the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) said just now—I think that is probably a great mistake.
Mr. ThorpeI did not say that we should abandon the agricultural policy. I said that we must re-examine the 1957 Act. This is what the Prime Minister was suggesting in his speech. Whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with the Prime Minister on this or not, I do not know.
Mr. Bullard: When the hon. Member says that we must abandon the 1957 Act, I take it that he means the abandonment of the limitation, to 2½ per cent. overall, or 4 per cent. on any single commodity, of the reduction that can be made in the guarantees in any one year. What part of the Agriculture Act is he advocating abandoning?
Mr. Thorpe: The Prime Minister referred to the dangers of an open-ended subsidy. I suggest that in the case of the dumping of goods which would clearly come into this country freely under present arrangements as surpluses from Denmark and other countries which are exporters of agricultural commodities and are excluded from the Common Market, the subsidy bill could go to £600 million. I do not think that a bill of that size is one that a primarily industrial economy will be prepared to meet. Other arrangements will have to be made.
Mr. Bullard: I do not think that that is involved in the 1957 Act, but it arises out of the general principle of providing a guarantee. That principle emerged from earlier legislation.
Mr. Eric Lubbock: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why the Prime Minister said that we must get away from open-ended guarantees.
Mr. Bullard: I am not here to explain what my right hon. Friend said. Indeed, I am slightly taking issue with him for making a major point of the idea that we have to depart from our agriculture policy. I do so because I believe that that policy has grown up from necessity and that we shall be obliged, by dint of circumstances, to stick to the main substance of it.
I think that our policy has many great advantages, in not interfering with international trade by not putting undue restriction on it, which are of great benefit to this country. We should not abandon this policy until we have found something which gives a reasonable guarantee to home agriculture. It will be hard to find a suitable alternative. I believe that we shall get on much better if we try to modify our agriculture policy rather than continually suggest that we have to find an absolutely new one. It would be very difficult to find an absolutely new policy which has not some very great drawbacks.
The reason that I did not think we should be able to go into the Common Market in the end was my belief that the Common Market food price policy is fundamentally wrong. There are some aspects of it which worry me greatly, including the prospect of having to switch from wheat from the wide open spaces of the prairies and of Australia to European wheat at a greatly enhanced price. This seems fundamentally wrong. Nor could I understand why it would be a good thing to put an external tariff against the Argentine under the ægis of the Common Market when, apparently, it is such a bad thing to do under other circumstances. I have all along felt that the food price policy of the Six is fundamentally unsound. I believe that it will not work and that they will be forced to abandon it because it contains such a strong element of protectionism and artificiality. It is not a good economic arrangement.
I admit that the subsidy bill for our home agriculture is very large. I think that many people have concluded that it is too large. But I am not sure that it
1042
does not bring such considerable advantages to the community as a whole that a fair sized bill for farm guarantees cannot be stood by the community at large. When the economic advantages of going into the Common Market were so strongly urged, I always felt that those who were so anxious to get in were overlooking the advantages brought by our existing system in food prices.
I should like to get the amount reduced, and I think that the farming community is quite ready to make sacrifices if they are shown to be in the national interest. The trouble is that so many of the changes advocated in order to reduce the Bill would not, in the long run, be in the national interest. I think it is a good thing to look at some of the possibilities of reducing the bill. I do not want to deal with internal matters of policy today because this debate is about the breakdown of the Brussels negotiations. But I want to look at one or two matters of international trade in agricultural produce.
I think that the possibility of a world agreement is one which should be very seriously looked into. I do not know whose job it is to study these matters under our present arrangement. I suppose it is the job of the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade. I wonder whether there is not a task here calling for specialised treatment, possibly by a special Minister. I cannot think that the President of the Board of Trade, who is involved in so many matters at the head of such a huge department, can devote the major part of his time which the subject deserves to the question of international agreements on primary commodities. I should like this matter much more carefully looked into than at present.
I hear arguments that we should get rid of surpluses by giving them to underdeveloped countries, but nobody seems to answer the question, "Who is going to pay for this?" I am sure that there is something in the idea. I am sure that it is perfectly sound as a broad idea, but I think that the right way to help the under-developed countries is to get them growing their own food and producing their own goods. I do not think we would do very much for them merely by getting rid to them of surpluses from our own circle.

1043
All the same, this is a matter which should be looked at, because the fall in the world prices of primary commodities is at the basis of a lot of our troubles and also the primary reason why the farm subsidy bill is as large as it is. I therefore urge a more specialised study of the situation. It should be undertaken by a member of the Government. It may be, of course, that the matter is adequately covered by present arrangements.
The other matter I want to refer to is the question of the policy which we ought to follow now with regard to dumped foodstuffs. I am acutely aware that one cannot come out of these negotiations and go in for a policy of wholesale restriction of imports as an alternative. I believe that the fact that we are not in the Common Market means, as many hon. Members have said, that we must expand our international trade and attempt to remove some of the barriers to trade. I cannot think that it would be proper, as an alternative, to put a hedge of protective duties around ourselves as a means of achieving our aims. Indeed, I think that it would have the reverse effect.
On the other hand, I do not think that we can allow our agriculture system to be completely upset by the dumping of foodstuffs. As a livestock farmer myself, partially, I have a slight inclination to say that we should use cheap cereals if anyone is inclined to sell them to us at below world prices, but I believe that the disadvantages would be so considerable that we must tighten up our regulations about the dumping of foodstuffs. If other nations decide to run their high internal prices and allow their surpluses to spill over into our markets regardless of price, I do not believe that it will be possible to run an agricultural policy here, and I think we must do something about that.
I think that it is essential to attempt to expand East-West trade. On the other hand, it should not always be a foregone conclusion that we are going to sell industrial goods to countries behind the Iron Curtain and receive foodstuffs in return. There has to be a little variety in this trade, and I think that those who advocate it must be prepared for that. It must not be assumed that it will
1044
always be a case of agricultural goods coming in and industrial goods going out, because it will not work out that way. Such a policy can be very dangerous from the point of view of upsetting our agricultural policy.
Finally, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said, I believe that the time has now come for a great impetus to Commonwealth trade. I am aware that the Commonwealth and the Common Market were not the same sort of trading communities. I never thought that they were, but I think that the time has now come for an initiative, and I wonder whether it would be possible to say to some of the Commonwealth countries who want to supply us with food that we shall allow them to do so on very favourable terms, but they must in return take a greater proportion than hitherto of our manufactured goods.
The snag about Canadian trade—and I have made a study of the position during several visits to that country—is that they supply us with so much and take so little. This ought to be made much more of a two-sided bargain, but all the same I hope that Her Majesty's Government, having been forced to come away from the Common Market negotiations, will take the opportunity of making this an occasion for a great drive to increase trade with the Commonwealth.
8.32 p.m.
Mr. John Mackie: I hope the House will not think that this debate has taken on too much of an agricultural flavour. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) said, but I should like later to deal with agriculture.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to give us a policy which would help the next Government. This Government are pledged to the end of this Parliament to maintain the 1947 and 1957 Acts, and as we are confident that we shall be the next Government, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to help us, but he did not go very far with the new agricultural policy which obviously the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food think is necessary.
I hesitate to say anything about the political situation after the extraordinarily

1045
good speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) in which he pointed out why de Gaulle took this action. I think it was pretty obvious that the reason for his not wanting us in was political, because we would have helped him tremendously economically, as I am certain that he had his eyes on our food market. My reason for saying this is that not long before the negotiations came to an end he had brought to his notice the potential of French agriculture if it was developed in the way his advisers thought it should be, and there is no doubt that if that potential was achieved he would have to find another market, and ours was attractive to him.
The Prime Minister suggested that de Gaulle made his decision because the negotiations threatened to succeed. I do not think that that was his reason. He felt all along that the conditions which this Government promised to achieve, and which we insisted should be achieved, made it obvious that the Six would not accept us, and de Gaulle was not worried. But it was obvious that the Government were giving in all along the line and were not getting hard and fast promises about anything, and this is why de Gaulle decided to keep us out. I am certain that Adenauer agreed with him, but knew how instransigent de Gaulle would be, and therefore was not unduly worried about saying so, although he had said so on previous occasions. I think that if we had gone in we would have spent the next decade bickering with de Gaulle and Adenauer. It would have been a mad house, and we would have got nowhere.
Look at it from an economic angle. This is the first time that I have taken part in what may be termed a major debate on a subject outside my province. I know that a layman is not supposed to enter the field of economics, but although we have a few economists on this side of the House I sometimes wonder how much attention we should pay to them. When one starts to examine something, one may often come to the same conclusion as an economist, but in a totally different way, and certainly in a more simple way.
When the Common Market was first mooted I was in favour of it. I felt that this was an enormous decision which the House would have to take some day. I
1046
therefore made it my duty to find out as much as I could about it, and particularly about the effects it would have on the wide range of industries in the Lea Valley area of Enfield. I therefore invited parties of twelve industrialists at a time to dinner at my house. I have a good cook as a wife. I treated them well to loosen their tongues—this is not a bad way of doing things—and had an interesting series of discussions with them. I was amazed to find that opinions varied considerably among them. After listening to the late Leader of this party, I came to the conclusion, as he did, that there was only a 50–50 chance of success on the economic side and none on the political side, and I therefore decided that we were better off out of it.
That decision has been taken out of my hands now and I am forced to take a further look at what we should do in this country to improve our position—and, my goodness, it needs improving. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) has said several times that we never got off what he called a trap-door economy.
Let us take a look at this country and see what it consists of. There are 60 million acres—10 million of them being covered with bricks, cement and tarmac, leaving 50 million acres from which to feed ourselves. Eighteen million acres are rough grazing, and 32 million acres consist of arable land, with a good bit of that permanent pasture. We have a population of about 52 million. We have a healthy agriculture industry, and we have good supplies of coal and iron, and fair supplies of fish and minerals, but we depend chiefly upon our skills.
What, then, is our greatest need. First, we can feed only just over half our population. If we had super-efficient farmers we might be able to raise the proportion to 60 per cent., but we cannot expect our agricultural community to be better than the rest of the country. Our farmers produce more than half of what we eat by weight but less than half in value. We have to import more than half of our raw materials.
I have searched through the Board of Trade returns, and I find that we need to import almost two-thirds of our raw materials. Having discovered these facts I asked myself, as an ordinary person studying the matter, "Where can we get this stuff, and where can we get it

1047
cheapest?" That is not the angle from which economists look at the problem, but that is the way in which a normal person would react.
First, I considered that we could not afford to go anywhere but to the cheapest source for the food to feed the 25 million people that we cannot feed ourselves. Everybody wanted us to go to the Continent, but if we are going to buy half our food we must buy it where it is available. What is the position about food on the Continent? The figures that I have in this respect must be fairly reliable; they are taken from the Three Banks Review. Hon. Members opposite have great faith in what the banks produce. That Review got the figures from the 1960 Economic Survey of the E.E.C. in Geneva.
They show that we need to import 65 per cent. of our wheat. The E.E.C. needs 8 per cent., so they cannot supply any. We need to import 26 per cent, of our barley, and the E.E.C. needs to import 20 per cent. They cannot supply any barley. Here we have a fantastic situation. It is difficult to believe that we trade in barley with the Continent, but in 1960 we had ships from the Continent delivering barley to Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow, while lorries loaded with barley were going across the centre of the country to supply distilleries, and loading up with barley and going to the East Coast ports—Leith, Newcastle and London, from where the barley was shipped to the Continent.
Sir C. Osborne: Not the same quality barley.
Mr. Mackie: Yes, it was the same quality. The same barley was going both ways. A lorry driver from Glasgow had to take a load of barley to Stirling, and then he had to wait there to pick up another load of barley which he delivered at Leith. He really wondered what he was doing. So far as he was concerned it would have been much better to take the barley from Glasgow straight to Leith. When it was pointed out to him that it would be better still to send the ships direct to the Continent, he really thought that the country was going mad. That is the sort of thing that is going on, and is being used as an argument for joining the Common Market.
1048
To return to the figures—we need to import 75 per cent. of our sugar, whereas the Continent needs to import 6 per cent. They cannot give us sugar. We are almost self-supporting in eggs; we need to import 3 per cent. The Continent produces only 89 per cent. of its needs, so it cannot give us any eggs. We produce 10 per cent. of our butter requirements, and the Continent has a surplus of 1 per cent. which would not go very far. We need to import 55 per cent. of our cheese requirements, and the Continent just has sufficient, so we would not get any of that. The Continent needs to import 9 per cent. of its beef and veal requirements, and we need 43 per cent. The Continent produces slightly under what it needs in pork, and we need 40 per cent., so we would not get any of that. I conclude that the Continent is not a very good place from which to get our food. If anybody can refute my argument I shall be happy to allow him to do so.
Mr. W. A. Wilkins: Why, then, are our farmers so much opposed to entering the Common Market?
Mr. Martin Maddan: Would not the hon. Member's figures bear out the fact that our present tremendous food imports from the Commonwealth could continue even if we were in the Common Market?
Mr. Mackie: Yes—over a tariff wall. It would mean putting up the price of food in a manufacturing country, with no guarantee—as I said earlier, if the hon. Member had been listening—that France's potential would not grow and that she could upset all our considerations.
I consulted the Board of Trade figures again, and discovered that we import £4,500 million worth of stuff every year, divided fairly equally as between about £1,500 million each on food, raw materials and manufactured goods. That is a rough break-down, but it is not too rough. The figures for raw materials are important. They include hides, skins, oil seeds, rubber, wood, and cork, pulp and wastepaper and silk, although I suppose silk fits in with the Continent. But one finds that very few of these things are surplus on the Continent. I commend these figures to hon. Members because they are very

1049
interesting. One thing I cannot understand why we need to buy £10½ million worth of live animals of a kind not normally used for food—but that is beside the point.
Having gained some knowledge of what we need, I went on to the question of "where"? Last year I spent five weeks as the guest of the Commonwealth Association in Canada, and I was struck by two things, the first being the extraordinary loyalty of the Canadians to this country. I was quite touched by their loyalty and their anxiety to stay in the Commonwealth. I might describe it as almost bone-headed loyalty. They said, "If you people want to go into the Common Market and it is to your benefit, we do not see why we should stop you." There does not seem to be sufficient propaganda designed to counter that argument.
Sir C. Osborne: Did the hon. Member ask his Canadian friends why they had a 40 per cent. tariff against our goods?
Mr. Mackie: I was coming to that. It is amazing how hon. Members, if they wait, will get their answer.
Having gained this knowledge from Canada, I started to look at the resources of the country. The Canadians have produced an excellent book which contains an excellent account of statistics about production. We find that they have all the things which were mentioned in the previous list—wood, pulp, oil, grain—and not only that, but the country is developing. The population figure is low—although it is increasing—and I think that a link-up between this small country with its high population and Canada could be most profitable. A lot of our prosperity could result from a closer link-up with Canada.
Coming to the question of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), in the past Canada knew that we needed wheat, feed grains and everything else and she did not need to worry about a protective tariff because we had to buy in the cheapest market which was to be found in the Western Hemisphere and particularly with Canada. But times are changing. There is a potential threat from France. We get a lot of our meat from Yugoslavia and Canada is adopting a different outlook altogether. There is no
1050
question about that. Australia is coming into the market—
Sir C. Osborne Sir C. Osborne indicated dissent.
Mr. Mackie: The hon. Member for Louth must not shake his head at that because it is a fact.
I had a game of golf with a motor agent from Vancouver who told me that he was an agent for Vauxhall cars. He said that in 1961 there was a promotion programme with a lot of high power advertising and they sold 82 Vauxhall cars. After the tariff had been imposed to protect the Canadian economy—that is the capitalist way of doing it—they had another promotion programme and sold two cars. This motor agent was pressing for a better deal for the loyal Canadians who are particularly keen to buy British. The Canadians are worried about their balance of payments. They buy from America. In 1960—the last figure which I have, an enormous figure in dollars which I am sorry that I have not had time to convert into sterling—there was roughly 3,000 million dollars worth of goods exported to the United States and 3,693 million dollars of goods imported from the United States. There was an adverse balance of 693 million dollars.
They are in credit balance with this country. I was amazed by the things which they buy from America—things which we produce well, such as washing machines, clothes and refrigerators. They showed me the things which they had bought, and I know that they could buy them more cheaply—and as good—from this country. There is, therefore, a tremendous potential to redress that balance, which would help us and help them.
They are trying to change their attitude, but they will not change it if we continue to flirt with Europe. I read an article in the Toronto Telegram the day I left which predicted that there would be union with the United States within 10 years. It pointed out that one of the reasons was that Britain was flirting with the Common Market. We shall lose Canada if we continue to pursue this vision, as the Prime Minister described it, of getting into the E.E.C.
That is not to say that we should not deal with Europe. As the Prime Minister said, we are climbing over the tariff wall already. In any case, where else will

1051
France sell the millions of gallons of wine which we buy in this country.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) I know that the problem is not easy, and perhaps it is not as simple as I have suggested. I know and have studied the complications of international trade. I know that invisible trading figures must be taken into consideration. But it will not help us if we make a four-seater car like the Morris 1100 in Coventry, transport it to Bonn and set up sales and service arrangements there, and then bring back to this country a Volkswagen, which may be a little different—perhaps the doors shut a little better—but which can take only the same four people, in my opinion rather uncomfortably, from A to B. I do not believe that we should become wealthy by taking in each other's washing. We must link with those countries which have the goods that we need. Trading for the sake of trading is useless.
Mr. Arthur Holt: On this basis, would the hon. Member agree that there is no point in growing wheat in this country when we can buy it far more cheaply from Canada?
Mr. Mackie: I will not go that far.
I promised not to be too long, but I have been interrupted. Nevertheless, the interruptions show that there is a certain interest in what I have said.
Much of what I have suggested will have to be done with Socialist economics and not capitalist economics. That also applies to East-West trade. There are 160 million people in the part of Europe with which the Lord Privy Seal was dealing, but in the rest of Europe there are 260 million people. Could we not give a lead to the whole of that area? If de Gaulle does not want us in his part of Europe, let us take the 260 million people of the rest of Europe and lead them. Economists have suggested that the E.E.C. countries have tremendous reserves which they can use against us. Economics of that kind will get us nowhere. Hitler did not worry about reserves when he rebuilt Germany. I am not suggesting that we should follow his example, but I am suggesting that we need not be frightened about the reserves of E.E.C.
1052
There are three reasons why we must not forsake British agriculture. The first is that it produces £1,500 million worth of food, which helps our economy. Secondly, I am certain that the British people do not want again to have an agricultural situation such as existed in 1930—a countryside that they could enjoy, not one with bad and dilapidated houses and buildings and thousands and thousands of acres uncultivated. I am perfectly certain that the people are willing to pay to avoid that. The third reason was given by the Prime Minister, though it is not enough in itself. Our agricultural machine industry has exports amounting to £150 million a year, and before it can export on that scale it requires a developing agriculture behind it.
I agree with the hon. Member for King's Lynn that we want a new structure for the support of British agriculture. It should not be beyond the wit of a British Government to do that without over-subsidising the big farmer like myself and under-subsidising the small men in the west. I am glad that President de Gaulle has solved our difficulties for us and put us on our mettle, but the mettle will have to be shown on this side of the House, not that.
8.56 p.m.
Mr. John Harvey: I should like to try to follow the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie), but signals are being made to me about the amount of time I should take. I am therefore sure that he will forgive me.
In many ways, this has been a fascinating debate and, when allowances are made for all the understandable party political interchanges that have occurred, there has been an extraordinarily broad sense of agreement across the Chamber about where we need to go from here. In one sense, what has happened in the last week or two has been immensely unfortunate in that, for the time being at least, we see the entente cordiale put into cold storage, and the traditional friendship that has carried Britain and France through so many years of successful collaboration rather sadly and unnecessarily endangered.
Nevertheless, one cannot help feeling that all this was clear when General de Gaulle wrote his memoirs, and I should

1053
like to quote briefly from Volume III, 1954, in which he said:
"I intended to guarantee France primacy in Western Europe by preventing the rise of a new Reich that might again threaten its safety; to co-operate with East and West and if need contract the necessary alliances on one side or the other without ever accepting any kind of dependency; to transform the French Union into a free association in order to avoid the as yet unspecified dangers of upheaval; to persuade the states along the Rhine, the Alps and the Pyrennes to form a political, economic and strategic bloc; to establish this organisation as one of the three world Powers and, should it become necessary, as the arbiter between the Soviet and Anglo-American camps. Since 1940 my every word and act has been dedicated to establishing these possibilities; now that France was on her feet again, I tried to realise them."
We knew that those words had been written when we tried to negotiate, but, although I think that we were right to try, those words help us to understand how deeply the French President holds that view. It follows—and had I the time I should elaborate on this—that one of our principal efforts in the months ahead must be to play a very prominent part in ensuring that Europe shall be outward-looking, and not as inward-looking as the words I have quoted suggest.
If Europe continues along that path we shall have learned nothing from the lessons of history and we shall go back into all the old dangers which Europe has had to face so many times. It must be by looking outwards that Europe can play its full part in the new world, which all those inside and outside the House so much want to see it play. Whatever else they do, it must be by giving a lead in ensuring that Europe looks outward that the Government must play their part in the months ahead.
9.1 p.m.
Mr. Gordon Walker: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) and I am sorry for him that he had to contract his remarks. I congratulate him on packing into five minutes a great deal of very good sense with which I agree, and in the course of my remarks I hope to go back to some of the matters which he covered.
The Prime Minister's speech today was eagerly awaited by hon. Members and by the country—a country that was anxiously looking for a lead. I do not think that
1054
even the Prime Minister's best friends can deny that he fell very far below the needs of the time. It was a defeatist speech. The basic reason why it was a defeatist speech was that the Government have for so long felt themselves committed to the view that there was no future for Britain outside the Common Market. They have lost faith in the future of Britain outside the Market. There is plenty of evidence—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) quoted some of it—to show that it was the Government's convinced view that Britain had no future outside the Common Market. This ran through the Prime Minister's remarks today.
This is why the Prime Minister presents us with a second-best policy. He admits that it is second-best and says that there is no alternative as good as going into Europe would have been. This is why he indulges in these petulant and childish acts against France. This is the reason for the advice which he thought fit to give to Princess Margaret. He has lost touch with reality. I have not read or heard anywhere any defence of this act as being rational. The right hon. Gentleman said that political significance would have been attached to the visit. Nothing could have given it more political significance than the way the Prime Minister has handled it. This sort of pettiness and childishness against France makes Britain and all of us look silly and this attempt by the Prime Minister to isolate France diplomatically inside Europe is a very mistaken policy.
I was sorry that the Prime Minister was so anti-French in his speech. He devoted a great deal of the speech to an attack on the French Government because of his feelings of annoyance and anger, which I understand. But we have to consider what our main aim must be in this grave situation which the country is facing. This aim is sometimes described as not turning our back on Europe. I find that this is too negative a description of our aim. I would put it positively that we must pursue the aim of finding the closest possible relationships with Europe.
I have always thought this, and I have long doubted whether going into the Common Market was the best way of achieving it. It seemed to me that the

1055
attempt would frustrate its own purpose. But we must achieve the most intimate possible relationship with Europe. This must be the central guiding aim to which we must subordinate our feelings of childish petulance. I am talking about the whole of Europe. I am not talking only about the Six, and certainly not of the Five. It is important that we should foster our friendship with the friends we have in the Five, but we must not attempt, as the Prime Minister did, to lead the Five against France, and we must not make the error of identifying the Five with Europe. Even the Six is not Europe. The Five is certainly not, and to base a policy on the assumption that the Five is Europe is stupid and would be resented inside the Economic Community when it has settled down and has lost its present tension.
We should aim at the closest possible relationship with all of Europe inside the broader framework of an Atlantic community. This should be our guiding aim—an Atlantic community which itself must be outward-looking, seeking to expand its trade, and so on. To carry out such a policy we need to be clear-sighted and not misled by illusions regarding our own internal situation and our relations with various parts of the outside world. With the European Economic Community above all we must avoid wishful thinking. This has been the bane of Government policy in the past 18 months, for they have been super-optimists against mounting contrary evidence. They are still suffering from this wishful thinking; this new myth that the negotiations were on the point of success when this ogre came along and spoilt everything. This simply is not true.
As the Lord Privy Seal knows better than anyone, the negotiations were in a critical state before General de Gaulle held his Press conference. There had been a number of bombshells dropped in the course of the negotiations and there were still a large number of vital oustanding issues to be settled before General de Gaulle held his Press conference. I refer to such issues as the adjustment of British agriculture, horticulture—a vast subject of great importance—and nearly-nil tariffs. There had been no settlement about New
1056
Zealand's position, and the same applies to E.F.T.A. and the E.F.T.A. neutrals.
If the Government intend to persist in the view that the negotiations were on the point of success—and the Prime Minister repeated it today—they must equally admit that the logic of it is that the Government were on the point of surrender on these outstanding issues. They cannot have it both ways. Either the real issues would have to be discussed, and a long time taken over the discussion, or the negotiations were virtually settled, in which case the Government were going to surrender. That would have produced bitter controversy in this country.
The Labour Party, before General de Gaulle's Press conference, had declared that the terms were unacceptable and I know that many hon. Members opposite had said the same. I believe that a great deal of evidence exists to show that the majority of people in this country had already come to that conclusion. Thus had the Government surrendered in that way—and this is the only justification for the Prime Minister's view that General de Gaulle broke things up because they were on the point of success—then the agreement which they would have reached would, I believe, have been rejected in Britain and, probably, in the House of Commons.
Regarding the future of the European Economic Community and our relations with it, it is only right that we should wish the Community to continue and that we should wish it prosperity and success. After all, it is an important development in Europe and we must envisage negotiating with it in due course. But we must be absolutely clear that there can be no question of simply taking up the negotiations where they left off. That is impossible and it would divide the nation. There has not been a true meeting of minds even between us and the Five, and there is no indication that the Five were moving towards us on the important outstanding issues about which I have spoken. These issues were of great importance and needed to be negotiated.
Perhaps we shall be told that evidence can be produced to show that we were coming together on the question of the E.F.T.A. neutrals and on New Zealand;

1057
but there is no evidence of that. Many important things, like horticulture, have not yet been discussed, so I do not know how they could have been approaching us on these issues.
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): will deal in considerable detail with this tomorrow, but I must say at this stage that I could not possibly accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said. For example, he has just said that horticulture had never been discussed. Horticulture was discussed in these negotiations by two working parties, by three meetings of deputies and two meetings of Ministers. We were, therefore, ready to reach a compromise agreement on horticulture.
Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I should not have said, "not discussed". There was no approach to agreement. There had been some official discussions, but the right hon. Gentleman had not given the House any indication of an approach to an agreement. There were many other outstanding issues.
In all this we must start afresh. We cannot just take up things where they were left. This will take time. We first have to help to create an Atlantic community within which we can get an asociation with Europe, and then we have to find the closest possible relationships with the Community and the rest of Europe. We must not do this in a hurried way and we must not do it in a doctrinaire way.
I would not reject the idea of association. I do not mean technical association in the technical sense of the Treaty of Rome, for that would not be right. "Association" can cover many different kinds of relationship and I would not be against finding a satisfactory association between us and the E.E.C., inside the Atlantic Community, which was something less than membership. One can think of various ways. I am not very hopeful about an industrial free trade area, because the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer tried that and there were very good and logical reasons why France rejected it at the time. However, there are other kinds of association and we should certainly not shut our minds to them.
1058
The aim of getting the closest possible relationship with Europe inside the Atlantic Community implies a second related aim. It is that Britain must have the self-confidence that it can play a vital rôle in creating the conditions which are necessary to the achievement of this aim. First—and I found this lacking in the Prime Minister's speech—we must have the self-confidence that we can stand on our own feet.
The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) was rather depressing about our prospects of exports now that this situation has arisen. However, we have a certain advantage which we should exploit to the full and which is almost unique. It is the degree of the cheapness of our food and raw material imports, which gives us relatively low costs of production and a great advantage in exporting to third countries, particularly in competition with what now appears to be becoming a very high cost economic community. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was saying something along these lines the other day.
Of course, we must have economic growth, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton said, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) will develop at greater length tomorrow night. But, however important economic considerations might be, and they are important, fundamentally, as the leading article in The Times of today says, this is a moral question. There has to be a radical shake-up of many established ways of doing things in this country and we must put behind us all this "never had it so good" kind of philosophy.
It is not possible to see how the Prime Minister can do this, for he is the embodiment of that kind of philosophy. He won an election on that slogan. We have to concert our efforts with E.F.T.A. and the Commonwealth, and I still think that it is important and urgent to call a conference, if possible, a joint conference of the two. If we are to concert our efforts with E.F.T.A. and the Commonwealth, we have to have a new Government to do it properly. The present Government have alienated and affronted all the friends upon whom we must now most rely.

1059
It was very widely believed, and said, that Britain was prepared to abandon its pledge to E.F.T.A. [Interruption.] I heard it at the Council of Europe being widely said by responsible people. It was so widespread that it reached the headlines of responsible newspapers like the Guardian of 6th December, 1962—
"Britain may have to break E.F.T.A. pledge. Six rule out agreement with neutrals before 1964"
Certainly, if the Prime Minister is now saying that the negotiations were on the point of success, he must have been ready to abandon that pledge because very little progress—[Interruption.] We were told that the neutrals would not be allowed in until 1964. This was said. If that was so, we could not have had a quick solution, so quick that President de Gaulle was frightened that we might settle everything before he could have his Press conference.
Mr. Heath: The statements which the right hon. Gentleman is making are such monstrous distortions that they must be denied at once. The plain fact was that we could have reached our agreement because the undertaking we had given to the E.F.T.A. countries was that it would come into operation at the same time as their agreements. Therefore, there was nothing whatever to stop us reaching an agreement and for them to come later. Secondly, the Community has not said that the neutrals could not conclude their agreement by 1964 and would not be allowed in until then. What the Community said was that it could not, at that moment, see that the negotiations would be concluded by the end of the year; and we agreed to leave that until the negotiations took place.
Mr. Gordon Walker: The Lord Privy Seal is saying that we would have come to our agreement, that is, we could have said that we were going in, before we could possibly have known what the results of the E.F.T.A. negotiations were.
Mr. Heath rose—
Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. Gentleman will make his speech tomorrow. That is what he said. The other alternative is that we were not going in until 1964—no doubt, after a General
1060
Election. Very improbable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is not monstrous. The right hon. Gentleman said that we would come to our own agreement, that is, an agreement to go in. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then we would have come to an agreement in 1964, in which case President de Gaulle could not have held his Press conference because he was frightened that there would be success in the negotiations. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is to speak later this evening. I hope that he will not give us a lot of platitudes about the wonderful hope of the Commonwealth, and so on. That really would be adding insult to insult. Last September, he behaved in a way clean contrary to the duties of his office. He cold-bloodedly decided that we must abandon our pledges to the Commonwealth. He briefed the Press—I have quotations here—to say that Britain had made up its mind and that the other Commonwealth countries must lump it. He tried to play off one Prime Minister against another, and, at the end of the day, he could not get one Prime Minister, except the Prime Minister of Trinidad, to say that, in his view, our pledge to safeguard Commonwealth interests had, in fact, been kept.
I do not want to take time about the economic aspects of our future relation, ships with the Commonwealth because they have been dealt with very fully today. The economic value is not the only value of the Commonwealth. One thing which I deplore—it is one of the reasons why we are pressing our Motion of censure—is that the Government have given the impression that they do not regard as of any great importance the political value of the Commonwealth to us and to the world. In his speech today, the Prime Minister went to great length to explain that the Commonwealth did not really offer much hope, reinforcing the impression that he has already given, that he has lost interest in the Commonwealth since—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] —it became a multiracial association.
The Prime Minister wrote a pamphlet from which I propose to quote. On page 4 of it he produced one strong

1061
argument why we should go into the Common Market, and it was this:
"… the political character of the Commonwealth has been profoundly changed by the attainment of independence by our former colonies"
In other words, he was saying as clearly as he could that the Commonwealth was not worth very much any more and that it had changed its nature. Why did the right hon. Gentleman put forward this argument for our going into the Common Market? Why use these words in our name? These words were carefully chosen and written, not said.
I think that we must sometimes raise our eyes from Europe and look at some of the great problems facing us in the world today. With or without the Common Market, there is no danger today of a war between Germany and France. History has transformed the scene and shifted the danger points and points of challenge. These are not the things against which we have to guard today. The real problems of the world are the cold war and different sorts of challenge—world hunger, race and colour tensions.
Nothing could make a greater contribution to the solution of these real new problems facing us than a Commonwealth which has in it developed and underdeveloped countries, committed and uncommitted countries, and people of practically every race in the world bound together in a peculiar kind of intimate relationship. The political value of the Commonwealth is of immense importance and should not simply be set in the balance against a relationship with Europe. In an age in which Continental blocs may turn out to be more dangerous than sovereign nations have been, a Commonwealth which contains within it unique bridges between the continents can be of really great value in the world.
There is one respect in which I think we can most quickly and most effectively help to create the sort of Atlantic framework within which we can get the sort of unity with Europe that we want, and that is in defence. N.A.T.O. is, after all, the best expression of a very large measure of such a unity of Europe inside an Atlantic community and to reinvigorate, refurbish and reform N.A.T.O. is one of the best means we can quickly use for the achievement of our aim.
1062
In order to achieve this, we must treat N.A.T.O. as a single whole. I was sorry that the Prime Minister seemed today to be trying to rally the Western Alliance against France. It seemed to me that this was the meaning of a large part of his speech, although I must read it with care tomorrow. We must drop the idea, which the Government may have been toying with, of Europe and the United States as equal separate entities inside N.A.T.O. That doctrine would lead to the split of N.A.T.O. This idea, in its extreme form, of the European Economic Community as a sort of separate military alliance and the belief that one cannot have neutrals in it because it has all sorts of political obligations is the essential Gaullist heresy and error. This is what we must resist in all its forms. We cannot have a N.A.T.O. which is made up of two different separate things. This has in it the very dangerous implication of a European independent nuclear weapon. I shall not go over that again; we discussed it in the debate on the Nassau Agreement. This we very much oppose.
We must work for a single, indivisible N.A.T.O. within which the allies have the fullest possible share of control of policy and strategy. In my view, we will achieve that end better if we pay our subscription to the club in first-class conventional weapons and forces. That would give us influence in the Alliance and would enable us to have a real share in the control of policy and strategy, and would be a contribution which would be indispensable to the Alliance.
The problem of France has to be faced. Much graver than the French attitude to our entry into the Common Market is the French attitude to N.A.T.O. and its refusal to play its part or, indeed, accept the nature of N.A.T.O. We must set about reconstructing N.A.T.O. in any event and in a way that would enable France later to fit in as a proud and realistic nation. This policy is different from the policy, which I was attacking a little while ago, of trying to isolate France and trying to lead the Western Alliance against France. First, N.A.T.O. is vital to our own defence and, secondly, it is a step to creating the Atlantic framework within which we can get European unity and in which alone we can get the sort of unity with Europe that we want. Unless there is a vigorous N.A.T.O. there is, first, no defence of the West,

1063
and, secondly, the framework within which we can get unity with an outward-looking Europe would not exist.
The first aim is the need for self-confidence in the country, a new lead which will re-awaken the nation. We should stop whining about the blows of fate that have fallen upon us, we should stop trying to isolate France and we should stop wistfully looking over our shoulder all the time for things which might have been or which may be in the future but for which we will have to wait long and patiently.
The Government cannot pursue that sort of policy, because it has alienated our partners in E.F.T.A. They have annoyed our partners in the Commonwealth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Certainly. We, too, talk to Commonwealth Prime Ministers. The Government cannot awaken in the country the sense of national purpose to which we refer in our Amendment, because the fundamental trouble is that we have a Government who have lost faith in Britain and we have a Government in which Britain has lost faith.
9.28 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I hope the House will allow me to start on a personal note. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby), in a speech which was rightly praised on both sides of the House, said that the negotiations in Brussels were dead but that he hoped they were not buried. I share that hope. As one who took a part in the early days after the war in launching the European movement here and on the Continent, naturally I am deeply disappointed about the outcome of the negotiations in Brussels. The decision taken in Brussels does not, I feel, accord with the interests and sentiments of the people of Western Europe and runs counter to the whole trend of history. I therefore cannot accept that this decision is final or that it will long endure.
The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) complained that my hon. Friend the Prime Minister had given an impression that we are pursuing a course that is second-best. That is one of the most accurate things that the
1064
right hon. Gentleman said in his speech tonight. Of course, it is second-best. How could it be anything but second best? If we had not believed that entry into the European Common Market was the best course for Britain, why would we have been negotiating for eighteen months in Brussels?
The right hon. Gentleman said a number of things which certainly were very much lacking in accuracy. I am sure he did not wish to mislead the House, but he said among other things that we had failed at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference last September to persuade them to say that they were satisfied that their vital interests had been safeguarded. Of course they did not say that.
Mr. Gordon Walker: The Government tried very hard to get them to say it.
Mr. Sandys: Of course we did not try to get them to say it. How could we try to persuade them to say that their interests had been safeguarded when the negotiations were only halfway through? It would have been absurd to ask them to do that, and we certainly did not ask them.
The House will expect me to concentrate to a large extent on the Commonwealth aspects of this wide-ranging debate today. Throughout the controversy which has raged around this issue we have always refused to accept the suggestion that we had to make a choice between the Commonwealth and Europe. From the start we have been convinced that our entry into the European Community would not only be good for Britain and for Europe but also would be in the best interests of the Commonwealth, both economically and politically.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: On any terms?
Mr. Sandys: On the terms which we explained we were trying to negotiate. We made it perfectly clear all the way through that unless we got terms which were satisfactory and which safeguarded the vital interests of the Commonwealth we would not go into Europe.
This view was strongly challenged by a number of Commonwealth countries. On the economic side this was the expression of genuine and natural anxiety about the uncertain consequences of disturbing

1065
long-established trading arrangements. On the political side some of our oldest Commonwealth partners were worried lest Britain's closer association with Europe might result in loosening her links with the countries of the Commonwealth. However, I think it fair to say that as the months went by these differences in approach were progressively lessened.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said that the breakdown of these negotiations had been a merciful release. All I can say is that that has not been the reaction in the Commonwealth. I should like to quote two typical examples of newspaper reactions in the Commonwealth. New Zealand's Wellington Evening Post describes the breakdown as "a tragedy and a challenge". Similarly, the Sydney Daily Herald wrote that it had in the last twelve months become apparent that Australia's long-term interests might be better served if Britain were inside the European Community. This increased understanding was, I think, largely due to the intensive consultation which took place throughout this period.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton expressed surprise that we had not been studying Commonwealth trade more intensively than before during these last eighteen months. Considering the importance and urgency of the issues at stake, is that really very surprising?
I wish to express our thanks to the Commonwealth Governments for the time, effort and expense which they have devoted to helping us to understand their point of view and to work out methods to protect their interests in the Brussels negotiations. As a result of this continuous exchange of thoughts and ideas, which reached its peak at the Prime Ministers' Conference last September, there developed a growing realisation among Commonwealth countries of the important contribution which a politically stable and outwardly-looking Europe could make to the peace and prosperity of the whole world, and it became increasingly recognised that it was in the interests of the whole Commonwealth that Britain should have the opportunity to play her part and exercise her influence in the councils of this new and important European Community.
1066
The right hon. Member for Huyton said that the terms which had so far been negotiated were a national humiliation and totally unacceptable. The fact is that there emerged from the Brussels negotiations a whole series of specific arrangements which offered great benefits to Commonwealth countries. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to some of these benefits in his speech; for example, the duty-free entry into Europe for Ceylon and Indian tea, the offer of trade agreements designed to increase the export earnings of India and Pakistan, new outlets for their produce which association offered for African and West Indian countries and for most of our colonies; and the undertaking by the Community to negotiate world-wide commodity agreements, of particular importance to the primary producers in Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
There has been no rejoicing in the Commonwealth over what has happened in Brussels. Among other things, the Commonwealth Governments recognise that the hard economic facts which led Britain to seek to join the Common Market are still with us; they cannot be ignored simply because the negotiations have collapsed. The searching discussions which took place in the preparation for the Brussels negotiations have given us all a much clearer understanding of one another's problems and needs. They have brought home to our overseas partners, above all, the limitations and realities of Britain's economic position. In the first place, they have emphasised the close connection between trade and aid. It is now better understood that Britain cannot increase her overseas financial assistance and investment unless she can at the same time increase her earnings from overseas trade.
In particular, the talks between us have underlined the hard fact that the British market, whether for Commonwealth foodstuffs or manufactures, is not inexhaustible. I was interested to read in the Auckland Star a frank warning that the Brussels failure must not be regarded as a sign that New Zealand could hope to continue to sell ever-increasing quantities of her products to Britain. The rapid growth of British agriculture since the war, coupled with the continuing industrialisation of other Commonwealth countries, has profoundly altered the pattern

1067
of trade between us and obliged us all to develop new markets.
It is worth remembering the facts—the dramatic leap of Japan to first place among the purchasers of Australian wool; the great expansion of British exports to the United States and Western Europe; the vast wheat sales to China by Canada and Australia; and the growing exports of Australian and New Zealand beef to the United States. This process of diversifying the markets for Commonwealth trade started long before the Brussels negotiations, and it was quite clear that it would continue irrespective of whether or not Britain joined the Common Market.
We agree, therefore, with Mr. Menzies, who said the other day that the search for new markets must go on. Mr. Holyoake has stressed the same point. He warned his countrymen not to imagine that the breakdown had solved the problems of New Zealand's dairy producers. He said that in this new situation the countries of the Commonwealth had a particular responsibility, but the problems could not be solved by the Commonwealth alone.
I would like to say a few words about the plan or proposals put forward by the right hon. Member for Huyton. His main theme was that the Government have no plan. He said that he would take it upon himself to tell us what should be done. We had expectations of receiving something precise, something dynamic, something which would justify the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman announced what he was good enough to call "Labour's plan for the future of Britain". What did this plan amount to? He divided it into various parts. First, he said that he would define what should be our attitude to Europe. But I must say that I did not feel that he had very much to contribute. He said that we must regard the Brussels talks as off.
Mr. George Brown: Oh, good Lord!
Mr. Sandys: The right hon Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) says, "Good Lord". But I am stating what his right hon. Friend said. The right hon. Member for Huyton went on to say that we must not slam the door. But that
1068
is almost exactly the same as what my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said when he returned from Brussels. My right hon. Friend said that we must not turn our backs on Europe. Thus, the right hon. Member's policy towards Europe is no different in any way from what the Government have already said and announced.
The right hon. Member went on to say that our European initiative should be on a wider basis than the Community and should be based upon the Six and E.F.T.A. He added, as an after-thought, Yugoslavia—and I give the party opposite full credit for having thought that one out. But, apart from Yugoslavia, that is precisely what we have been doing over the last eighteen months. Our negotiations with the Six have been conditional upon parallel negotiations being brought to a successful conclusion to allow the other countries of E.F.T.A. to join the Community. I can see nothing new, therefore, in what the right hon. Gentleman said on that issue.
The right hon. Gentleman then said that we should examine the French proposals for an industrial free trade area. I was not aware of any proposal, and I have now verified with the Foreign Office that there is no such thing.
Mr. James Callaghan: That is not what he said.
Mr. Sandys: What did he say?
Mr. Callaghan: This is as much in my recollection as in that of the right hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend said that we should be willing to accept any proposals if they were forthcoming. It is no use the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) uttering his usual ridiculous animal noises.
Mr. Sandys: I should probably be out of order if I offered the hon. Gentleman a bet that what he said is incorrect, as he will see when he reads HANSARD tomorrow; but I am prepared to do so outside the House.
If the right hon. Gentleman merely said "examine anything that may come along", that is not a great policy. I understood that this was a proposal; this was a plan for the future of Britain put forward by the Labour Party, even though

1069
it was pretty thin. The right hon. Gentleman said that we should examine the French proposals for an industrial free trade area. All I can say is that no such proposals have been received. I accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation; any serious proposals put forward from any quarter will of course be considered.
Mr. Callaghan: Does that mean that the Government would be willing to consider the idea of an association with the Common Market?
Mr. Sandys: I am talking about these proposals for an industrial free trade area. The hon. Gentleman knows the objections to association, which has been ruled out by the Community itself. I am not going to deal with a lot of hypothetical cases. We shall receive politely, and consider carefully, any proposals from any quarter. Considering them does not involve accepting them. The hon. Gentleman cannot expect us to say in advance that we are prepared to accept proposals which we have not seen. The right hon. Gentleman summed up his plan for the future of Britain with these impressive and inspiring words, "We must keep an open mind".
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that we must base our policy on N.A.T.O., but who is he, and who is the party opposite, to tell us to show more devotion, more concern, and pay more attention to the importance of N.A.T.O.? N.A.T.O. has always been the cornerstone of our European policy. The only new idea put forward by the right hon. Gentleman under this head was that we should convene a conference of the heads of Governments of the countries of N.A.T.O.—when in doubt, call a conference.
But while advocating a conference of his own, the right hon. Gentleman pooh-poohed a meeting of Commonwealth Trade Ministers which we are convening. He said that a meeting of Commonwealth Ministers before the G.A.T.T. session was no more than routine. He seems to think that Commonwealth consultation is best done in a series of dramatic, much-publicised and spasmodic conferences. Are we wrong to use the existing machinery of the Commonwealth? The meeting may be a normal one, but the issues to be discussed will be of exceptional importance.
1070
The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) urged that we should do all we can to further the reduction of tariffs. The right hon. Member for Huyton urged that we should make the most of the Kennedy round of tariff negotiations. That is already the declared policy of the Government. It is a little difficult to understand how the right hon. Gentleman reconciles that argument with his emphasis on bulk purchase. He seemed to be advocating a series of bilateral deals, under which we would buy Commonwealth primary products and the Commonwealth countries would, in turn, buy our manufactured goods. But that is not what the Commonwealth countries want. What they want is wider multilateral trade.
Before we pursue the right hon. Gentleman's ideas we must be quite sure that they would not result in reducing our total volume of world exports. To increase Commonwealth trade at the expense of reducing total trade would be a loss and not a gain. That is why all the Commonwealth Governments at the Montreal Conference defined their objectives in these words:
"To continue to work in no exclusive spirit towards a multilateral trade and payments system over the widest possible area."
In the same spirit the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, at their meeting here last September, expressed their readiness
"to join in comprehensive international efforts by all available means to expand world trade."
All this surely leads to the conclusion that our immediate aim must be to do our utmost to ensure that the next vitally important round of tariff negotiations results in a major loosening up of trade restrictions throughout the world.
It has been said many times that the Commonwealth is not an alternative to the Common Market. By that we mean that it cannot offer us what we had hoped to obtain by joining the European Community, namely, a large area of completely free trade. Developing Commonwealth countries would not feel able to expose their young industries to unrestricted competition from Britain. Equally, the British farmer could not, without support, hold his own against the low-cost producer in Australia and New Zealand. But while accepting the necessity to expand trade outside the Com-

1071
monwealth, we must not assume that there are not still great opportunities for expanding trade within the Commonwealth also. These opportunities must be exploited to the full.
From the beginning, all Commonwealth Governments have made it clear that the responsibility for the decision whether or not we should enter the Common Market must rest with Britain, and with Britain alone. The protracted nature of the negotiations was largely due to the number and complexity of Commonwealth problems for which solutions had to be found. The whole Commonwealth will acknowledge the ability and determination with which my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal fought for their interests.
There were many who feared that Britain's application to join the European Community would vitally undermine the unity of the Commonwealth. But that has not happened. In fact, I believe that these eighteen months of intensive discussion have given us a better understanding of each other's problems and needs than ever before. These earnest consultations on matters of vital concern to the lives of our people have imparted an increased sense of reality and purpose to our Commonwealth relationships. I firmly believe that to be so.
1072
In the course of these negotiations, we have learned to understand each other's point of view and have come a great deal nearer on these difficult economic problems. The links between us have been tested and have stood the strain. The Commonwealth has emerged, I believe, strengthened in its unity and in its purpose.
The right hon. Member for Huyton said that we needed a purposeful plan for economic expansion. I believe that when the right hon. Gentleman's plan for the future of Europe is studied it will be found that it contains nothing new and nothing very purposeful—not even his final statement that our future lies in our own hands. His proposals were either mere repetition—
Mr. G. Brown: So is this speech.
Mr. Sandys: —of declared Government policy or else a revival of old and dusty quack remedies out of the Socialist medicine cupboard. I do not believe that anyone who heard the right hon. Gentleman today thought that he or his plan, in the words of his Amendment, had
"the capacity to arouse in Great Britain the sense of urgency and national purpose …".
Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY] (No. 2)
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue with amendments the provisions relating to the payment of Exchequer Equalisation and Transitional Grants to local authorities in Scotland and for other matters, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1962.
  Resolution agreed to.

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (MEDICAL AID)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
9.58 p.m.
Mr. James Boyden: When this subject was asked for on the Adjournment, by error it was put down for reply by the Treasury. It was, rightly, subsequently transferred to the Secretary for Technical Co-operation. Unfortunately, tonight the Minister is ill, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health has courteously agreed to reply to the debate. I am very sorry for the reason that has caused the hon. Gentleman to be here, and I hope that it will very soon be remedied. But this gives me an opportunity which I welcome to tackle his Department on a number of issues.
In order that medical aid to the developing countries can be properly executed there must be the closest cooperation between the Department of Technical Co-operation, the Treasury and the Ministry of Health. Even though this is so, just as justice must be seen to be done, so this must be seen to be done. So far as I can see, certainly in this House, the co-operation does not make itself manifest. For example, the sums of money to be devoted to medical assistance have not been made clear. It is not clear from what I have seen of the attitude of the Ministry of Health
1074
in answering Questions. Indeed, on occasions when I have tried to put Questions to the Ministry of Health I have been referred to the Department of Technical Co-operation although I should have thought that it would have been much better for the Ministry of Health to have attempted to answer. It would also seem highly desirable, indeed imperative, that there should be a good deal of Parliamentary discussion on this subject in order that the country, as well as the House, should be able to judge what progress is being made and will be made.
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. I. Fraser.]
Mr. Boyden: I therefore put it to the hon. Member that three things should be done by way of showing greater interest in this matter. There should be an annual report from the Department of Technical Co-operation, possibly divided into matters of health and matters of education, etc., but certainly there should be put together, in respect of medical aid to developing countries some compact documents to which hon. Members and the public can turn to see progress. Certainly there should be an annual debate in which hon. Members can participate. There should be possibly biennial but certainly fairly frequent Commonwealth conferences on the subject so that the whole world can see what Britain and the Commonwealth are doing.
Much of this debate must be centred on the Porritt Report. That is the Report of Sir Arthur Porritt and his Working Party on Medical Aid to the Developing Countries. I should like to join the Secretary for Technical Co-operation in paying tribute to Sir Arthur and his Working Party and say that there have been few Reports so practical, so pointed, and so short. It is a model of what Reports should be if they are to be carried into execution.
But, having said that, I am bound to ask, considering how fast the Committee worked—it took four months to produce its conclusions—why it has taken so long for the Report to be printed and to be brought before the House. It looks to

1075
me as though the printing of the Report has taken three times longer than the production of the arguments and the recommendations.
I hope, too, that the rather inauspicious format is not an indication of the importance which the Treasury attaches to the Report, because for a Report of this importance it is a little odd to produce it in the kind of type and the kind of way in which it has been produced.
I also hope that the fact that there is little enthusiastic reference to the Minister of Health in the Report is not significant and that the Minister will be able to explain that the Ministry of Health is as zealous as the Report regarded the Department of Technical Cooperation, because, referring to those from the Department of Technical Cooperation attending the deliberations of the Working Party, the Report said that they showed
"an eager and constructive interest"
in its proceedings. But there was no mention of a similar interest by the Treasury or by the Ministry of Health.
According to the Working Party, and certainly in the view of many of us, the problem is of great urgency. The last few lines of the Report read:
"The Working Party hopes that the most urgent attention will be given to its proposals and that temporary considerations of economy will not be allowed to delay the implementation of measures which become daily more necessary. During the four months over which its work has been spread, there has been continuously brought to the Working Party's notice new evidence of the further decline of British influence in the medical field overseas. It is for this reason that the Working Party has regarded its task as one which has to be completed, with whatever sacrifice of detailed study, in the shortest possible time."
I was very struck by Dr. Spooner's Appendix III in the Report, in which he referred to the fact that the Hayter Report to the University Grants Committee on the development of Oriental, African and Slavonic studies contained no reference at all to medicine. I confess that I read the Hayter Report with very considerable interest. The Scarbrough Report had a great deal of influence in Durham University, and I have known for a long time of the excellent work that has gone on in oriental studies in that university.
1076
I read the Report very carefully, but until my attention was drawn to it by this Appendix I had not noticed that medicine had been so completely left out, yet medicine, surely, is one of the foundations upon which British influence in overseas countries, particularly in the Empire, has made it greatest contribution. Livingstone is fundamental to the glories of the Empire that was and the Commonwealth that continues. I feel that we are not, perhaps, following in the path of the eminent Victorians by applying to the modern age the sort of techniques and contributions we should be applying quite as brilliantly as was the case in Victorian times.
Be that as it may, I understand that a good many countries these days are stepping up their medical aid to developing countries—Russia, the Federal Republic of Germany, Yugoslavia, the United States—and I do not, of course, count this a disadvantage. It is highly desirable that medical aid should be provided wherever it is needed, but it seems to me that Britain should be making more running than it is. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to say that events have overtaken the statement I have quoted from the Porritt Report, and that we are running faster than we were.
I note, for example, that in the Sudan, British sisters are being replaced by Yugoslays; that in Ghana—where, of course, we had an excellent Oxbridge University tradition—the medical school is being run by the United States; that in Egypt the Americans and the Germans are setting up research institutes. In all these places—although, naturally, the developing countries welcome aid from wherever it may come—it would seem to be a slipping back that that aid is not being provided by Britain.
Perhaps I may turn to what seems to be the most important part of the Porritt Report. If I leave out any references to nurses it is not because I think the subject unimportant but because I must concentrate on one or two particular aspects. As a preliminary, I would ask: does the Department of Technical Co-operation accept the main objective of the Porritt Report, which is that our aid should be, as it were, teaching aid; that we should provide teachers for overseas; that we

1077
should have leading doctors and nurses going back from England to their own countries so that our influence could be brought to bear on this as a main aspect?
If we spread our efforts too far we might not achieve the results we might otherwise achieve. In any case, we obviously cannot staff hospitals all over the world, nor would it be the wish of some developing countries that British medical officers should still be there. In other words, the fundamental need is to concentrate our efforts on those aspects of medical aid which will influence the leading doctors and nurses in Commonwealth and developing countries.
It is for that reason that I should like to turn to the four chapters relating to the training of doctors. Perhaps I may skip Chapter 2 on undergraduate training, except to say that in Britain we are still suffering from the effects of the Willink Report, and the tardy way in which the Ministry of Health has acknowledged that the Report was inaccurate. It is doubtful today whether we can produce enough undergraduates in our own medical schools for our own needs. The Porritt Committee rightly says that to provide places for overseas undergraduates is very difficult, but I want to indulge in a little special pleading, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) has done with my support. Would the Parliamentary Secretary—and not only he himself, he is here, and I did not expect him, but the Secretary for Technical Co-operation, —consider the possibilities of a medical school in Durham?
There are one or two very strong reasons why there should be a medical school there. Durham has a very long tradition of residential college life, and a medical school there in which, perhaps, half the students were from overseas and half were British medical students, would have one very great advantage which very few other universities would provide.
Places for students could be made in the colleges quite naturally without any special provision of a segregated unit for overseas students and without the students being dispersed over lodgings. One of the things that makes the greatest difficulties for overseas students, that is, accommodation, could be provided in Durham.
Add to this that Durham people are famous for their hospitality and are
1078
very interested in overseas developments, and Durham would be able to provide all requirements for a good medical school. There is a project for a new hospital in Durham which could well become the university hospital. There are also developments on Tees-side which could be integrated with the work of a medical school in Durham. I leave that special pleading. Even if this does not come about there must be new medical schools, and one of the arguments for them is the increased training need for undergraduates from overseas.
One of the most difficult problems is mentioned in Chapter 3, the question of bringing into England overseas medical post-graduates for training and experience. We all know that if the overseas post-graduates working in the National Health Service were withdrawn the Service would collapse. The Report states that about 100 doctors from overseas are coming to Britain every month. There are two categories of post-graduate overseas students who need special attention, and I mention the easier category first. There are those who come to the medical schools of the teaching hospitals.
The Committee's recommendation is that there should be Technical Cooperation Department bursaries in increasing numbers for these students. I believe that the figure discussed in the Committee was between 100 and 200. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can give some indication whether this proposal is accepted, the amount of money that may be available for it and the number of bursaries.
It is the second problem that is much more difficult. It concerns the Ministry of Health more than the Department of Technical Co-operation and that is the training of overseas post-graduates to take up posts in the National Health Service away from London. All of us are concerned with the weaknesses of post-graduate medical education. The Pickering Report is not under consideration here at the moment, but the general question of our own British post-graduate education is of considerable importance.
I venture to quote what the Porritt Working Party says about post-graduate education for overseas visitors:
"The Working Party views with the greatest concern the fact that many young doctors from the developing countries who come to this country for post-graduate experience return

1079
home with no more experience of British medicine than they have been able to acquire in small hospitals far from teaching centres where they have received a minimum of supervised training."
I was very disappointed when I put to the Minister of Health a particular reference to this matter in a Question on 28th January. I asked the Minister
"what steps he is taking to implement the recommendation of the Porritt Working Party on Medical Aid to the Developing Countries, that doctors from overseas taking up posts in the National Health Service undergo a two months' clinical assessment in selected hospitals and that subsequently they are provided with much improved post-graduate training if they receive posts in non-teaching regional hospitals."
The right hon. Gentleman gave an Answer which I thought was neither particularly courteous nor informative. He said:
"It is the responsibility of employing authorities to assess the suitability of applicants for particular appointments."
A member of a regional hospital board might be expected to know that. The Answer continued:
"Schemes for post-graduate medical education are being developed in regional hospitals with the help of the Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1963; Vol. 44, c. 122.]
This, again, is mentioned in the Porritt Report and the Minister might have expected anyone asking the Question to have read the Report. What is being done about this fundamental problem? It is a matter for the Ministry of Health as well as the Department of Technical Co-operation and my view is that it is not enough to rely upon voluntary sources of finance.
I turn to Chapter 4 and the question of British graduates going overseas. I understand that a code is being drawn up. The Ministry itself should see that a great many of the pernickety regulations which exist now are reduced in the interests of British doctors in the National Health Service going overseas. I understand, for example, that a consultant appointed from, say, the West Indies is allowed only four increments from the basic minimum scale, so that a man aged 50 coming back to England would receive the sort of salary given to a 36-year-old. Could the superannuation regulations be revised so that someone retiring from the National Health Service need not lose
1080
his superannuation on taking up an overseas post?
There are a great many other matters into which I would like the Minister of Health to look to see whether the regulations could be revised concerning doctors who wish to go to overseas countries. By doing this they gain the experience of our senior people and this should be most valuable. I see that time is against me and, although there are many other matters to which I should like to refer, I will only say in regard to Chapter 5 that the necessity to develop aid in public health is as important as the other matters I have mentioned. As time does not permit me to go into this matter I hope that the Secretary for Technical Co-operation will give me an indication of what he proposes to do by correspondence.
10.17 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): I regret that my right hon. Friend is unable to reply owing to an indisposition, and I share the wish of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) that he makes a quick recovery. In the circumstances, I will do my best to answer the points he has made. I do so gladly, partly because when I was Under-Secretary for Commonwealth Relations—and, indeed, long before that—I had a deep and continuing interest in the problem of providing aid for developing countries overseas, and partly because, in any event, we in the Ministry of Health have an interest in the subject he has raised tonight.
I should at the outset make it plain that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in providing technical assistance is to meet the requests of developing countries in whatever form they appear.
I make this point because it could be that while one developing country devotes a high proportion of its requests to medical aid, others may prefer to ask for technical assistance in education, geological surveys agricultural development and so on. This is clearly accepted in the Porritt Report, and it is bound to influence strongly all that we do in implementing the recommendations of the Report.
The Department of Technical Cooperation is responsible for promoting and co-ordinating Britain's technical assistance to developing countries, not

1081
only the self-governing countries of the Commonwealth but the dependent territories which still look to us for help and guidance, and also certain foreign countries as well. It was essential that such a co-ordinating Department should be set up.
When the Department of Technical Co-operation was set up about eighteen months ago, recognising that the choice and initiative rested with the developing countries, we were concerned to ensure that funds and facilities were available to meet such requests as were reasonably made. To this end, a number of committees was set up to investigate all the various fields of assistance. In the medical field, my right hon. Friend was particularly fortunate because, owing to the enthusiasm of the medical profession itself and of Sir Arthur Porritt in particular, leading members of the profession offered to make this survey themselves, provided that they were given reasonable assistance.
The hon. Member asked why their report had taken so long to come to light. It is not a Departmental publication. It is the Report of a Working Party, an independent body, although from the outset, as its, members themselves said, they drew encouragement from the eager and constructive interest shown in their proceedings by the Department of Technical Co-operation. The delay was due to the fact that the Report involved new financial provision which could be considered only in the context of the Estimates of the Department of Technical Co-operation for 1963–64.
We now have that Report, and I know that my right hon. Friend would like me to take this opportunity to express our warm appreciation, and to underline everything that has been said by the hon. Member, of the work of Sir Arthur and his distinguished colleagues. Partly because the British medical profession has such a high reputation the world over and partly because of the intangible links which still bind Commonwealth countries together, this interest of the profession in the less well-developed and less well-equipped countries of our family of nations is both timely and welcome.
The hon. Member suggested that Britain was falling behind in this regard, but neither my right hon. Friend nor I
1082
could accept that. Such a view pays very little regard to the constitutional changes resulting from independence. If, indeed, Ghana or the Sudan desire to employ people from other nations, that is their affair and not ours. It is due also to the desire of other donor countries, particularly the United States, to make their own distinctive contribution and not least to the important consideration which I mentioned at the outset—the fact that the determination of priorities in calling for aid rests with the developing countries and not with us.
It is also right to say that there are very few countries today which devote so high a proportion of their national income per capita to overseas development as a whole. Indeed, our present contribution in medical aid to the developing countries is not inconsiderable, although I do not want to suggest for a moment that it is always necessarily supported by Government funds. What matters in this context is the willingness to provide facilities and whether this is in evidence.
Today, there are 900 undergraduate students from overseas studying in our medical schools. There are 9,000 student nurses from the Commonwealth in our hospitals. Nearly half the doctors at registrar level in our hospitals are from overseas. In the last two years the Department of Technical Co-operation has arranged and paid for post-graduate training for 265 doctors and 170 nursing sisters from overseas, and that is in addition to 170 doctors who came from the dependent territories for post-graduate training at the expense of their own Governments. There are 1,385 medical staff who are designated under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme at a cost for the coming year of £1·6 million.
In the last two years, my right hon. Friend's Department has recruited 131 doctors for service overseas. Many medical appointments have been made under the Colombo Plan and the Special Commonwealth African Assistance Plan. Medical equipment provided under these plans in 1961·62 was of the value of £68,000. In addition, my right hon. Friend's Department is currently spending £262,000 in support of medical research for the benefit of developing countries.
The House will agree that this adds up to a significant contribution, but I agree with the implication of the Report

1083
that we must put ourselves in the position of being able to do more. This means, of course, the provision of more training facilities here and the despatch of further medical personnel overseas. The limiting factor here, however, is not the provision of funds but the willingness to make the facilities available and the ability to find the men and women to go overseas and work there. While training facilities have, generally speaking, been made available, my right hon. Friend and I must confess to some disappointment at the lack of response to serve overseas.
It is against this background that the Working Party's Report is so valuable. My right hon. Friend is anxious to make a detailed statement about the Government's attitude towards the specific recommendations in the Report as soon as possible, but, had he been here tonight, it would have been premature for him to have said anything on this score because he had his detailed talks on the subject with Sir Arthur Porritt only last Thursday. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that my right hon. Friend will make a statement at the earliest opportunity. Meanwhile, I am very glad to say that the Government accept the greater part of the recommendations in the Report.
The hon. Gentleman referred to postgraduate training. Here, the Government propose to create 25 bursaries for post-graduates from the developing countries. These will be administered on lines similar to those provided under the Colombo Plan. The selection procedures by the Department, the universities and the medical schools are being worked out now.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned, also, the supervision of post-graduate education in non-teaching hospitals. The House will be glad to know that this is now in hand, with the aid of £250,000 provided by the Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust. The hon. Gentleman referred to the proposal that there should be a scheme of clinical assessment of doctors coming from overseas. This is not without difficulties. The House will appreciate that assessment of the suitability of applicants for posts is the responsibility of the hospital boards; they are the employing authorities.
1084
These doctors will be working in British hospitals dealing with our patients and I do not think, therefore, that the answer which my right hon. Friend gave the other day was unsatisfactory. It was the only answer he could have given. My right hon. Friend would certainly be interested, however, in being kept in touch with any scheme which a hospital board might work out, perhaps with funds from a trust or other non-official sources.
I am glad to say that the Government propose, also, to make a major contribution in advancing public health overseas. As the Report points out, we have a great fund of expert knowledge in this country of public health problems overseas. We can take great pride in the contribution which our countrymen have made in preventive medicine in so many countries. Accordingly, we intend to aim at the establishment in all of 12 senior and 6 junior lectureships in 1963·64 at the two tropical schools.
As my right hon. Friend told the hon. Gentleman the other day, we are also very interested in the recommendations in Chapter 6 dealing with facilities for training nurses overseas. Although, as I have said, we accept, with one or two minor exceptions, the recommendations in the Report, I frankly confess that I doubt whether mere acceptance of recommendations will be sufficient to fill the vacancies which now exist at all levels, from general practitioners to consultants, from nurses to matrons, and those which will continue to arise, until sufficient personnel from the developing countries have been trained in the years to come.
At present, my right hon. Friend has 235 vacancies to fill, and other agencies have vacancies, too. If we are to fill all these, we must create in the medical profession and the hospital boards a climate of opinion as favourable to service overseas as that already created in the teaching profession. I do not minimise the difficulty of this task. However, publicity may help, and my right hon. Friend and I are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for ventilating thins matter tonight.
My right hon. Friend has discussed this aspect of the problem with Sir Arthur Porritt. I am glad to say that Sir Arthur has offered all possible help and will advise my right hon. Friend on how his

1085
Department's activities in this matter can best be directed.
The hon. Gentleman asked about an annual report on medical aid. I do not think that this would be practicable because of the vast number of agencies concerned. However, my right hon. Friend hopes to give as much information as possible in the Annual Report which his Department will publish. I shall certainly pass on the suggestion about an annual debate. Over and above this, I think that Parliamentary Questions may be the best answer.
As regards the provision of funds, my right hon. Friend has previously said that
1086
his Department's Estimates for the coming year will take account of the Working Party's recommendations, including those which I have mentioned tonight. He is only too well aware of the disparity between medical services in this country and those in most of the developing countries overseas. We must do all we can.
The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  OVERSEAS AID
  OVERSEAS AID
  HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES AND REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
  HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES AND REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
  ALGERIA (REFUGEES)
  ALGERIA (REFUGEES)
  CUBA (BRITISH SHIPS)
  CUBA (BRITISH SHIPS)
  WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION
  WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION
  GERMANY (ARMED FORCES)
  GERMANY (ARMED FORCES)
  KATANGA
  KATANGA
  UNITED NATIONS (MILITARY ACTION)
  UNITED NATIONS (MILITARY ACTION)
  BRITISH-SOVIET CULTURAL CONVENTION
  BRITISH-SOVIET CULTURAL CONVENTION
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Glanllyn Estate, Merioneth
  Glanllyn Estate, Merioneth
  Wheat
  Wheat
  Fishing Limits
  Fishing Limits
  Agricultural Support
  Agricultural Support
  Trawlers (Building Grants)
  Trawlers (Building Grants)
  Livestock (Protection)
  Livestock (Protection)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Passenger Service, Leeds-Bradford Airport and Amsterdam
  Passenger Service, Leeds-Bradford Airport and Amsterdam
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Old-Age Pensions
  Old-Age Pensions
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Census Returns (Abertillery, Nantyglo and Blaina)
  Census Returns (Abertillery, Nantyglo and Blaina)
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Public Health Inspectors
  Public Health Inspectors
  Vaccination (International Certificate)
  Vaccination (International Certificate)
  Smallpox Vaccination
  Smallpox Vaccination
HOSPITALS
  Building Work, North-East and Merseyside
  Building Work, North-East and Merseyside
  Nurses (Midwifery Training)
  Nurses (Midwifery Training)
  National Health Service (Cost)
  National Health Service (Cost)
  New Hospital, Lindley
  New Hospital, Lindley
  Mental Hospitals
  Mental Hospitals
  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead
  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead
EMPLOYMENT
  Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Ford's, Dagenham
  Ford's, Dagenham
  Pontyclun and Tonyrefail
  Pontyclun and Tonyrefail
  School Leavers, Gateshead
  School Leavers, Gateshead
  Government Training Centres (Allowances)
  Government Training Centres (Allowances)
SCIENCE
  Scientists (International Exchanges)
  Scientists (International Exchanges)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Aircraft
  Carrier Programme
  Carrier Programme
  White Paper
  White Paper
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Water Supplies (Radioactivity)
  Water Supplies (Radioactivity)
  Water (Access to Gathering Grounds)
  Water (Access to Gathering Grounds)
  Private Roads
  Private Roads
  Canals (Piping or Removal)
  Canals (Piping or Removal)
ADEN
  Federation of South Arabia
  Federation of South Arabia
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Education (Local Authority Expenditure)
  Education (Local Authority Expenditure)
  Fuel Oil and Petrol (Taxes)
  Fuel Oil and Petrol (Taxes)
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
POST OFFICE
  Sub-Offices, London, S.E/
  Sub-Offices, London, S.E/
EDUCATION
  G.C.E. Results, Coventry
  G.C.E. Results, Coventry
  Pupils (Maintained. Direct Grant and Independent Schools)
  Pupils (Maintained. Direct Grant and Independent Schools)
  School Meals and Milk
  School Meals and Milk
SCOTLAND
  Local Government (Rateborne Expenditure)
  Local Government (Rateborne Expenditure)
  Hospitals, Western Region (Maternity Beds)
  Hospitals, Western Region (Maternity Beds)
ROADS
  Hertfordshire
  Hertfordshire
  Road Schemes (Flyovers and Underpasses)
  Road Schemes (Flyovers and Underpasses)
BRITISH ARMY
  Units (Establishments)
  Units (Establishments)

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

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR SPORT
2.36 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what were the reasons compelling them to make good the deficit incurred between the income from appeals and actual expenditure by the British teams in the recent Empire and Commonwealth Games at Perth.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS OFFICE (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, in view of the high cost of sending the British teams to Perth and in the interest of Britain being represented at this important Commonwealth occasion by a worthy team, the Government agreed, subject to the approval of Parliament and as a special case, that a contribution should be made to the administrative expenses of the Council for England for the Games for the purposes of the British team as a whole, to meet this deficit.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, without placing too much emphasis on the word "special", I was delighted that the Government had felt able to do this. If the noble Duke will not think me discourteous, I wonder whether I may frame a supplementary question in rather wider terms in the hope that the noble Viscount the Lord President will perhaps be drawn in. What I really wanted to know, in view of the fact that the Government have made this initial step, was whether the Leader of the House and his adviser on sport would consider applications on a reciprocal basis for world and European championships
782
in this current year? And may I ask the Lord President whether he would not agree that in this country it would seem that the best combination is one of voluntary contributions and official contributions? Could he hold out any hope for us?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the noble Lady must not try to lead me astray. My new appointment was designed so that I should consider the whole field, and that, of course, would include, among other things, the point which the noble Lady has raised. I should not like her to feel that this case, which was a special one, could necessarily be treated as a precedent.

TELEVISION BROADCAST OF BOXING MATCH
2.39 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 are aware that on the evening of February 6 an exhibition of prize fighting was shown on B.B.C. television from 9.15–9.45, repeatedly delaying the normal news bulletin, in consequence of which millions of people who abhor such displays were trapped into witnessing this spectacle; and whether they will make representations, in the interests of social progress, to ensure that the B.B.C. exercise greater discretion in the future.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, the B.B.C. tell me that they arranged to show the whole of this boxing match so that the many millions of people who enjoy boxing might be able to watch it. One of the difficulties about scheduling time for boxing matches is that it is not known in advance if and when one of the participants will be knocked out. This did not happen on the occasion in question and the result was to postpone the News.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what

783
then, is the purpose of publishing the radio news which will guide people; what is the purpose of telling people to be selective about their viewing, when people all over the country are compelled, as in this case, to look at a sordid picture brought into their very living-rooms? Does he think that this is in the interests of social progress?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not think that the question of whether it is in the interests of social progress is for me to answer at the moment. I would have said that the question of selective viewing had been brought into play on this occasion, and that if people who do not care for boxing—and I readily agree that there are people who do not—were trapped into watching for some time something that they did not care for, they could have turned down the volume and probably the light and glanced just occasionally to see whether or not the programme had changed to the News. If they did not, then it is truly an instrument well called the "goggle box".
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is being quite irrational if he is telling the whole country now that the statements made by the B.B.C. about the timing of their programmes are inaccurate and that the only way that they can be selective is to turn the lights and the commentary down? Does he think that that is practical advice for a little kitchen into which this picture is brought?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I was replying to what the noble Lady said about people being trapped into watching something for which they did not care, and I ventured to suggest what I thought was a fairly logical action. The question of the B.B.C.'s published timings is a matter for the B.B.C. For many years, as I think the noble Lady knows, it has been the practice and the accepted policy of successive Governments that the B.B.C. should remain independent in their day-to-day affairs, including the timing of programmes.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I thoroughly enjoyed this brutal and disgusting exhibition and should have been quite annoyed had it been switched off to show
784
a News programme about the state of the snow in the South-West?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have been told that no news is good news.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many millions of viewers are very grateful to the B.B.C. for having allowed them to see an exciting match?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I just have the last word? Is the noble Lord aware that I have just been given 40 letters from people, as intelligent as the noble Earl who intervened and as the noble Lord on these Benches, who take an entirely opposite view—including a former President of the Royal College of Physicians?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think that we can all be aware that in this particular context, as in many others, there is room for more than one shade of opinion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I would inform your Lordships that at a suitable moment after half-past three o'clock my noble friend Lord Dundee will be making a statement on the situation in Iraq.

TOWYN TREWAN COMMON BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING
2.43 p.m.
LORD ECCLES LORD ECCLES rose to call attention to the need for widespread changes in industrial training; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. We are all grateful to my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House for having found a day to debate a subject which touches the lives of a large number of our young people, and on which, I hasten to add, many of your Lordships are more expert

785
than myself. The Government have given us a very welcome preview in their White Paper of what they intend to do about industrial training. The general opinion of this White Paper seems to be that half a loaf is better than none. But, however one may regret that some things are left out, what is in the White Paper is of immense importance. For there, at last, we find repudiated the old doctrine that a young worker's training should be more or less exclusively the responsibility of industry, or rather—and here is the real weakness—the exclusive responsibility of the particular firm which happens to employ him. We have waited a very long time to see this, which is one of the major assumptions of the Carr Committee's Report, set aside. But the Ministry of Labour have taken the plunge, and the White Paper says officially that in future the responsibility for industrial training shall be a shared responsibility—shared, that is, between industry and the public authorities. This is the heart of the new proposals.
Of course, we have been moving towards this change of policy for some time now; but so long as the primary responsibility remained with industry, the education service (and that is the service chiefly concerned with this subject) has had to be something of an outsider, waiting to be called upon for help. Furthermore, nobody has been under any obligation to provide training for young people who on all counts were suitable to have it, and who wanted to have it. The system has been hit-and-miss: very good in some places, and very poor in others, and giving results which the White Paper frankly admits have fallen far short of the total demands of industry for skilled manpower; and also, I may add, far short, of what the education authorities might have achieved had they been earlier recognised as a full partner in the provision of training.
The policy of leaving everything to an individual firm could have worked only on two conditions: the employer had to be willing to make the arrangements for the training, and the training itself had to be adequate to the needs of his industry and of the young worker himself. The best firms have completely met this double requirement, and their training methods are first-class. But they cover only a small proportion of the field, and the real trouble is that so large a number
786
of young workers receive no training at all, or that the training they do receive falls far below what is necessary under modern conditions.
But now, if the main proposal of the White Paper is carried to its logical conclusion, and the public authorities become full partners with industry through out the whole field of training, then between them they will be able to build a system which in a short time will put our country on a level with, and I think ahead of, all our foreign competitors. The Government clearly intend this to happen, and that is a great advance. I am only sorry that the courage they have shown in "ditching" the old doctrine has not been equalled when they come to say what they want to put in its place. Nevertheless, it is a bold proposal, to raise a cash levy on all firms, except the very smallest, who do not provide adequate training and to supply the deficiency through technical colleges or other centralised institutions. As I understand it, the Government are now serving notice on every employer that if he cannot, or will not, do the right thing by his young workers, then the public authorities, in collaboration with the industry concerned, will do it for him, and do it partly at his expense. This is a good, solid blow, struck on behalf of the young, and it rejoices the heart.
But one must not disguise the fact that this system in detail will be very difficult to administer, and probably very unpopular in some quarters. Therefore it would have been better had the White Paper spelled out, with all possible clarity and enthusiasm, the dramatic difference between what we have been content with hitherto and the breadth of training now to be offered at all levels to all suitable young people. I have to say that I here find the White Paper weak and vague. We have to be satisfied with a little sketch of industrial training which reflects what is already in existence, even if it is the best in existence—training in the particular skill, with some knowledge of the basic principles of the trade. I am sure your Lordships will share my disappointment that this part of the White Paper is written so narrowly from the joint view of the Ministry of Labour and the employers.
Take, for example, the first section, which bases the whole case for action on

787
the need to increase the supply of craftsmen and technicians. We are told that everything is to be done to meet economic needs and technological developments. One understands how anxious the Ministry, and industry in general, must be to fill the vacancies for skilled manpower. So are we all, my Lords. But what of the craftsmen and the technicians, not to mention the semi-skilled workers? How much does the White Paper try to make them feel that they count in all these great reforms? Every single one of these badly wanted recruits for industry is a young and immature person, a mere boy or girl, to whom Parliament has a duty that goes beyond their industrial training. They have wider educational needs, and I am convinced—and I believe all responsible people in the world of education would agree with me—that unless these wider needs are met at the same time, combining their vocational and non-vocational education, industry will not get the kind of young workers it wants, and the young people themselves will not be equipped to seize the multiplying opportunities of the modern world.
I missed in the White Paper any reference to the ambitions, the difficulties and the human predicament of the young. I wanted the Government to appeal to us for support for a policy that was at once efficient and sympathetic, human and patriotic. But in the White Paper their appeal is based wholly on economics. I hoped that they would ask us to give the tools to the young to make their careers a success, their leisure enjoyable, and their country stronger and more lively than it has ever been. This, of course, would imply a much wider form of training for the new entrant to industry than the average of apprenticeships as we know them to-day. Of course, apprenticeships used to be different. Maybe we have lost some the good features. For example, the medieval guilds insisted that the apprentice's master should be firmly placed in the position of a parent. The boy himself was bound not to play cards or marry, or otherwise misbehave. Under this system the master looked after his conduct and welfare while he taught him his trade. Of course, I know that times have changed, and that we cannot go back to the authoritarian relationships of the Middle Ages.
But the young are still young, and how many of them can really fend for themselves in that gap between leaving school and reaching maturity, when the growing pains are sharpest? Have they really changed so much that they no longer need looking after? Some firms—we could all name one or two—look after their new entrants in an admirably comprehensive way. They know full well that vocational training is not enough in the interests of the young worker, or in their own. They take very great trouble to develop his career and his character in all its aspects. But they are in a small minority. Many more firms would say that they do not have the resources, or that it is not their business, to teach young workers things which bring no direct benefit to their shareholders. There is force in these arguments, and your Lordships may wish to admit it. But, even so, does it follow that it is no longer anybody's business to act as a good parent towards the boy of 15 when he first goes out to work? I think it wrong to treat these young people—they are really not much more than children—as if they were adult employees. They should be cared for more like pupils and members of a family. One hopes that firms—and there must be thousands of them—who cannot undertake any part of a parent's responsibility will recognise that the duty still exists, and will generously support those who can help to fill the gap, the churches, the youth service and the education authorities.
The most complete way in which boys and girls of this age can both be looked after and learn something useful is for them to stay on in full-time education beyond the age of 15. I shall be arguing in a moment that it would pay industry from the strictly financial point of view to encourage all children to stay on in full-time education beyond 15, but I want first to say a word about the other advantages to be gained by an extra year or two in school or college. Why do parents who pay for their children's education, often at a great sacrifice to themselves, not take them away at 15? Very largely because they expect benefits of character and self-confidence to come from those last years at school, as well as better academic qualifications. I cannot believe that the children who go to the maintained

789
schools would find these benefits any less important in their lives when they afterwards go into industry. It is their future we are considering this afternoon. We surely can say that industry would gain very much from the more mature outlook, the greater knowledge, the greater powers of communication which the young workers would derive from a longer period in school and from a longer time in the top positions of their school. Unfortunately, the White Paper gives no hint that staying on at school, or the problems of looking after the young, have anything to do with industrial training. But the truth is, my Lords, that the links between the schools and the technical colleges, and between both and industry, are the most vital relationships in the whole system of training and education for an industrial career.
To come now to the training itself, I think the most disturbing fact is the low quality of the training which so many young people receive. I take the engineering industry. There was a time when a craftsman took great pride in training an apprentice to be thoroughly competent in his craft. But now, one is sorry to see, many craftsmen—and it is not their own fault—are unable to maintain the old standards. Very likely they are on piece-work and so cannot spare the time to train an apprentice; if they did they would lose their bonus. Worse still, restrictive practices and job demarcation can themselves stop the craftsman from giving them any practical training in the production shop. This has to be done, if it is done at all, somewhere else, and this is very difficult for the smaller firm to arrange. These handicaps are self-imposed by industry. They are no credit to either side and they can do real harm; because when a boy can only watch what others do and is not allowed to practise it himself it is small wonder if he becomes "browned off" and perhaps even demoralised. I do not know whether employers and trade unions can be persuaded to remove these frustrations. That would help very much. I believe that there are men on both sides of industry who wish to remove them, and we should encourage them.
My Lords, all this is especially necessary, because it is inevitable as things go on that a larger proportion
790
of industrial training will have to be given outside the factory, in some technical college, and for a reason which is familiar to your Lordships. It is this. To-day's recruit to industry has to adjust himself during his working life to many new labour-saving developments and many new discoveries, few of which can be foreseen during his period of training. So it is just as important that he should be equipped for technical change as that he should master the skill needed for his first job. The White Paper makes this point very well and, in paragraph 15, advocates a more systematic training in the basic principles of the trade.
The apprentices employed by progressive firms to-day receive such a comprehensive training. But one has to admit that the majority do not, and perhaps one reason for this weakness is the old distinction between training and technical education. It is an unreal distinction. It has crept into the White Paper and it mars some of the best passages in it. There may once have been something valid in separating principles and practice, but there is nothing now. A boy needs both and it ought to be a matter of convenience whether either part of his training would come in the works or in a college. As the technical age proceeds the educational element in training is bound to increase, and it does not make sense any longer to plan vocational and non-vocational training in separate compartments.
I hear on all hands how the young worker to-day ought to study more the uses of the English language. I hear that he ought to learn some general economies, something about the structure of industry or perhaps a foreign langage. Once that sort of thing is accepted and a broadening of the training becomes desirable, then some very important administrative consequences follow, and they are not quite clearly drawn in this White Paper. There are very few firms who have the resources to teach basic science mathematics or languages, and therefore either boys and girls must be encouraged to stay longer at school or arrangements must be made for the courses to be given in a technical college.
Naturally, one effect of providing a better general education will be that many boys and girls will not be ready to enter industry at 16. I hope industry

791
will be prepared to modify the entrance arrangement to suit the school-leaving dates. Some firms do it now. But, my Lords, how often I have come across the opposite! How often I have seen a child compelled to leave school before taking the G.C.E. rather than miss a job which can be started only at 16. It is not right, and this is one reason why the whole system of apprenticeships must now be reviewed.
I do not look for a new set of rules of apprenticeship to govern the whole country. Of course we do not want that, and the White Paper is certainly wise in saying that each industry must work out its own apprenticeship system for itself. All the same, I think it must be true that in nearly all industries to-day five years is too long to learn one unionised skill, and one skill is not enough to last a lifetime. One hopes that the industry boards will recommend shorter periods for apprenticeships and, within those periods, more full-time education. My own view is that that full-time education is best given directly after leaving school. I know that the Minister of Labour himself is firmly resolved to see that major changes in the apprentice system shall be made, and he will need all the support we can give him.
I hope he is also going to promote better training for semi-skilled workers. At present there are five young people entering industry for every one apprentice. A suitable training for a large proportion of these so-called unskilled boys and girls would promote better production, lower labour turnover, lower scrap rates, and ensure better safety on the job. It would also help to remove that sense of inferiority at being left behind, which drives some boys to try to get their own back by aggressive behaviour. If we could provide them with a little training they would think they counted, and their behaviour would be very much better.
However, taken together, apprentices and non-apprentices, several hundred thousand young people enter industry every year and the question arises: under whose auspices and in what type of institution should this vast number of young people be given that part of the industrial training which cannot be given in the factory
792
itself? This problem, which is approached in the White Paper, needs considerably more thought; and I am very doubtful about the proposal in paragraph 10, that the industry boards should set up their own training centres, for these would inevitably come into competition with the technical college. This is an idea derived from that old distinction between training and education which in my judgment, is no longer valid.
It would seem to me to be a serious mistake, for several reasons. We are going to be desperately short of teachers, full-time and part-time, and we know from experience that the best use can be made of those we can attract by recruiting them and deploying them through one system, where the maximum opportunity can be provided for their promotion and also for research into training methods. We know also that young students benefit very much from attending a large college where they can mix with others who are taking courses related to different industries and where they have a wide choice of social activities. In such a college it is possible to provide a common service in liberal studies, and I cannot overstress to your Lordships how important that can be.
There is another practical reason, and that is the problem of residential versus day courses. No Government or industry in the foreseeable future will be able to afford to set up a great network of hostels when the teaching plant itself so desperately needs expansion, and the young workers in many industries—and agriculture comes to mind—are scattered up and down the country. They must have day courses, and it is far easier to provide them with day courses through the technical colleges than in isolated training centres set up hereafter by one industry or another. However these problems of accommodation may be solved, a very large building programme is going to be called for. The Government simply must not wait until the training boards are set up and then wait again to hear what the training boards recommend before they authorise a large expansion in places both for the students and for training technical teachers.
We know now (no one is more glad of it than myself) that in spite of the big programme in hand—and there is something like £100 million worth of work

793
in progress in the technical colleges for England and Wales—shortages of places are beginning to appear in several of our large cities: in London and in Coventry for example. Even on present plans these shortages are bound to increase; and so, if we are serious about the proposals in the White Paper, an immediate expansion in building and staffing becomes essential. I beg my noble friend to believe that swift action on this point will be taken as an outward and visible symbol of how much the Government mind about their proposals in the White Paper.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord to clarify a point in his extremely interesting argument. I did not quite follow what he was advocating as between residential and day courses. Is the choice in his mind between full-time residential and full-time non-residential courses; or, when he is talking about day courses, is he meaning day release? I do not think he quite got his argument across.
LORD ECCLES: I am grateful for the intervention. What I was advocating is simply this. I know there are many thousands of young people who will want to get technical education of one kind and another in the near future. It is not possible to build residential accommodation for these young people. Therefore I feel we must go for the day places, because time is short. I am not at all meaning that the clay places should be part-time. I hope, and I think everyone connected with the technical college world hopes, that full-time courses will become a larger proportion of the whole. Personally, I have always believed in block release against day release, but if the boy can live at home and go every day to take his course, that is the best we can hope for. No doubt in time we shall be able to build hostels, but it is impractical to think we can in the near future meet problems of this size by residential courses; and in my judgment that knocks out the proposal of the White Paper for isolated training centres set up by individual industries.
I was saying that the cost of the proposals will be very great. A contribution will come front the levy taken from those who do not themselves provide adequate training. But who can doubt that the Government will have to under-
794
write a very large part of this programme? I hope the Government will not forget that industry is about to pay very much more in local rates and that half these extra local rates will go straight to education—and a good thing, too! I can think of no expenditure of public money which could better be described as an investment in prosperity and happiness. Yet I cannot feel sure, remembering old battles and few victories, that the money will be there on time. Old habits of thought persist, and in some quarters education is still looked on as an article of consumption, something on which it is wrong of us to ask for more unless we are richer and can afford it out of income, like a better wardrobe or a longer holiday. But science and technology have turned that concept of education upside down. Education to-day is an article of production, something which has to be paid for in advance of the growth of national output of which it is itself the chief instrument. Here one sees the real difference from the other social services, which can properly be regarded as a fruit on the tree of prosperity; but education and training are the soil in which it grows.
Before returning for one moment to the theme which I started with, there is just one question I should like to ask the Government, and it is vital to the whole of this discussion. What do they intend to do if an industry says it has no use for a training board? Will they then accept defeat and let things remain as they are, or will they take power in the Bill to do it some other way? Then when there is a board, how tough will they be with that board if it fails to provide adequate training? It would be a tragedy if the promise to do the right thing by our young workers remained in the White Paper, a gesture of good will and nothing more, I know my noble friend shares my feelings on this subject and I hope he will be able to give us a clear answer this afternoon.
There are many other issues raised in the Whtie Paper on which I should dearly have liked to trespass on your Lordships' time—such as the tests for apprenticeships and the retraining of redundant workers—but I thought it better to concentrate upon an appeal for a wider look at the whole of industrial training, and that from the young workers' point of view, and briefly I come back to that in

795
conclusion. My Lords, the cry all around us is that British industry must become more efficient. We are bidden to shake off complacency, to get rid of restrictive practices and to raise productivity. Yet when the ordinary man is impressed by the justice of these strictures, and in good faith inquires how precisely all this is to be done, the answers which he receives inspire no enthusiasm. Perhaps that is because these answers are so largely the medicine of professional economics: that purchase tax is to be cut, investment allowances are to be increased, tariffs lowered, and so on. Intellectually there may be a case for every one of these measures, but none of them convinces the ordinary man that the future is going to be better; not one of them stirs him to a fresh personal effort.
In these circumstances, might it not be better to go behind economic policies, and roundly to say that from now onwards we will make the character and the skill of those who do the work, managers, technicians, operatives, the spearhead of our plans and a first charge upon our resources, taking special care of all the young now entering industry on whom the vigour of the economy must so soon depend? Any of your Lordships who shares this view will welcome the White Paper, because in it the Government promise to go into partnership with industry and provide better industrial training. But for whom, and for what purpose? The White Paper gives us half the answer—the economic half, and nothing more.
So I ask my noble friend to tell us, when they take this great step forward whose champion will the Government be? I hope he will say that they will be the champion of the young, of all the millions of boys and girls who cannot proceed from school to university but must go out, early, to work. I have tried to show that this is the true rôle—the champion of the young—of the Government in this business. It we thought it right, and if we did not shrink from the expense, we know that we could do much more than we are doing now to help young people to make the best of their talents at work and to build good homes for their families. On their side, each generation of school leavers knows better than the last how much they are missing when we have not adequately provided
796
for their further education. They are going to see, in the action taken on this White Paper, a test of how this Parliament understood and cared for their future. And for the public at large the coming legislation on industrial training can be the best of all proofs that Britain is not dropping out of the race but is set upon educating her children to lead interesting and full lives, and to maintain the influence and the honour of their country. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMSON: My Lords, we should, I think, welcome the Motion of the noble Lord; and I am grateful for the opportunity of discussing in your Lordships' House this most vital question, especially having regard to the White Paper (Cmnd. 1892) outlining the Government's proposals for industrial training. While there may be argument on the detailed proposals of the White Paper, it is surely a welcome sign that at long last there are prospects that the potential skills and possibilities of our manpower resources are to be harnessed and brought up to a higher level of efficiency.
It is a sad thing to have to say, but we in this country are woefully behind in this respect, and there can be no disagreement with the Government's objectives, which are to enable industrial training to be better related to industrial needs, to improve the overall quality of training, and to spread the cost more evenly over industry. The noble Lord, Lord Eccles, pointed out that there is nobody in this country in industry under any obligation to do any training at all, and it is now generally accepted that the training of our young men and women has been much neglected over the years; and we can fairly lay at the door of this neglect any of the major shortcomings that there may be in our industrial performance.
It is now five years since serious attention was focused nationally on this question by the inquiry and findings of what is now referred to as the Carr Committee; and if there is any justification for the criticism now being levelled at the Carr Committee, that it did not go far enough, it was not altogether the fault of the Committee. The Committee faithfully considered and reported on the information and evidence it was able to

797
gather. That evidence was extremely limited. The Committee was unable to obtain any reliable statistics concerning numbers of skilled personnel, numbers of apprentices or estimates of future requirements. The Carr Committee Report tells us, at page 10, that few industries were able to give any information at all in regard to these matters. This fact alone clearly demonstrates how haphazard the approach to this question has been.
The fact is that now, five years after the publication of the Carr Report, industrial training is to a large extent subject to the good will of industry and individual firms. We should be grateful to those progressive industries and firms who have in the past fostered training schemes at great cost; trained trainees not only for their own requirements but also for other firms which have selfishly neglected to carry out any training at all, although many of them have always been able financially and even now are quite able to do so. The time has come now to make them pay without much more loss of time. The stark fact is that there is yet no plan, no system, no co-ordination, and the most tragic disability in the industrial system is the fact that the vast proportion of our young people receive no opportunity for training at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Eccles, pointed out that for every one trained apprentice there are five young people who are destined to be unskilled or labourers, or at best semi-skilled and picking up their training as best they can. It was because of this sorry state of affairs that, following the Can Report, the National Training Council was formed five years ago. In some quarters there are those who are trying to make a scapegoat of the National Training Council. It is said that notwithstanding the progress it has undoubtedly made in some directions, it has achieved not nearly enough. It has not done so because it has been hamstrung from the start. Here the Government must accept their share of responsibility because, to finance this massive task confronting the Council, to encourage and foster training schemes throughout industry, commerce and distribution, all the Government could see their way to contribute was £75,000 over three years—not enough to pay for an office and an administrative staff.
798
I anticipate that the noble Viscount who will speak for the Government will say that even this small sum was not fully expended by the Council. That is quite correct. But the reason is that the National Training Council was able to offer such miserable financial assistance to the various industries towards the cost of inaugurating training schemes that there was little response. At one stage when I was a member of the National Training Council we invited industries to participate and, after two or three months, we received just two inquiries.
My Lords, running like a thread through this pattern is the fact that many good, progressive firms become discouraged over the years through constantly having workers whom they have trained at considerable cost filched by other firms, prosperous firms making substantial profits but taking no part in training at all. These unco-operative firms have found it cheaper to pay "over the odds" to seduce trained labour, than to pay their share of training expenses. Those are the firms that we must tackle and compel to pay their share, not only in their own interest but in the interest of the nation. If I may digress for a moment, this conduct is not dissimilar from that of firms who make substantial calls on imported raw materials, and take no interest whatsoever in exports. This is a matter which might occupy us on some other occasion.
My Lords, we have now arrived at the stage where we cannot afford another five years of abortive exploration. If we want skilled workers in sufficient volume tomorrow we must train them today, and we should therefore welcome this White Paper. I should like to refer to certain of its proposals. It is proposed that statutory boards should be set up in individual industries, after consultation with both sides of the industry. But there are probably between 100 and 150 different industries, and it would appear to be fantastic that a separate board should be set up in each of so many industries. But assuming that only certain industries are to have a statutory board (and I am led to believe that it is only in a few of the main industries that boards are likely to be established: the noble Viscount can probably inform us on this point), it would be a serious omission if no provision were made for all the other important manufacturing industries.

799
In any case, my Lords, a controlling and co-ordinating authority seems to be essential. A central authority would be able to carry out one of the first basic requirements: an estimation of the requirements of skilled personnel in the various grades and occupations; how these are likely to change; and what requirements are likely to be in the years ahead. Without this information, how on earth can the statutory boards plan the volume and variation of training which should be provided for? If individual boards are to embark unilaterally on training schemes, how will they know whether they are under-training, over-training or overlapping with other boards?
My Lords, I can think of at least three industries whose skilled personnel is common to all industries to some degree. There is no one who can define the boundaries of the engineering industry or the boundaries of the chemical industry. With modern developments industries are becoming mixed—not quite as definitive as they used to be some years ago. The three industries of which I speak are engineering, the building trade and electricity. Most, if not all, establishments in the country—industrial, administrative and distributive—need maintenance engineers, building trade craftsmen, and electricians. There are probably more skilled electricians outside the electricity industry than inside. Who should be responsible for training the many thousands of maintenance craftsmen?
The great difficulty up to now has been that, although the engineering and building industries have been doing a great deal of training, other industries who use engineering maintenance men and building trade craftsmen have taken the men trained in those industries and thus created a shortage of trained men. As a result, some have become very discouraged. Will the electricity industry train only for its own requirements, with other industries training their own electricians; or will the engineering industry train personnel to provide for all the maintenance engineers in other industries, and the building trades industry train to provide for all the maintenance building trade craftsmen in other industries? Without a controlling central board there could be confusion worse confounded.
I should like to make one remark on trade union co-operation. I would say
800
to the trade unions, particularly the craft unions, that it is absolutely vital that they should co-operate in the training of young people in those crafts. I sincerely trust they will—in fact, I am sure that many of them will do so. But trade unions, particularly some of the smaller craft unions, are more likely to accept training and co-operate in training schemes if they know that there is some central co-ordinating authority which is safeguarding the possibility of over-training in any particular craft, with the possibility of redundancy. This question of redundancy, of not being able to work at one's craft, is a real one, and I am sure that if it is shown, as is said in some of these publications, that we are short of 20,000 engineering craftsmen and a similar number of building trades craftsmen, then these unions will be more likely to co-operate.
I would ask the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, to tell us whether the possibility has been considered of linking up these proposed industrial boards with regional boards covering areas of supervision, not dissimilar from the regional boards for industry which now exist. Such boards would be invaluable in assessing, from first-hand information, local requirements and the volume and type of training required. A great deal of the training in the North-East, for instance, will be quite different from that required in, say, the North-West; or that in the Midlands from that required in South Wales. If only a few industries are to have statutory boards, I believe that regional boards to cover all training for all industries—which I think was in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, in part of his speech—would be more comprehensive and would prove to be more adequate and efficient.
The noble Lord, Lord Eccles, mentioned the question of centres and technical colleges. Surely it is not envisaged that the electricity industry, the engineering industry and the chemical industry should each have their own colleges. There could be comprehensive buildings providing training for many trades in the same industry. So, my Lords, after much thought I myself have reached the conclusion that, whether or not we agree now, we shall be forced to agree in the future to have a statutory central national training council, with statutory regional training councils to cover all industrial training; and these need not inhibit or

801
prevent any industry or firm from having its own training facilities.
The financing of these schemes is, of course, all-important, and the Command Paper proposes a levy on firms in the particular industry for which a statutory board is established. What about those firms and industries for which a statutory board is not to be appointed? Presumably they are not to be subject to a levy, notwithstanding that they are employing skilled personnel and are probably making no contribution at all to training. This is precisely the trouble now, and what the White Paper proposes is to rectify this disability. Why not a training levy on all firms? It is the Government's responsibility to assure adequate finance, one way or the other. Why not a bold and imaginative scheme now? I have been looking at the evidence from Sweden. In Sweden, municipal vocational schools and works schools receive substantial State subsidies. In France there are 26 centres run by the State with State subsidies. I have been privileged to have a look at one or two of them, and they are very good. They are not taking five years to train many of these craftsmen for some industries, such as the building trade; they are taking something like twelve or eighteen months, and giving them training in more than one particular section of the trade. There is a wages tax levied in France of 0·4 per cent. of all wages, and this is levied on firms whether or not they engage apprentices.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to interrupt him just before he leaves this point? I think he will agree that there are in this country firms which have excellent apprenticeship schemes and training schemes. He surely would not suggest that they also should pay a levy on top of their own schemes?
LORD WILLIAMSON: Yes, my Lords. I agree that there are progressive firms which have these training schemes. The levy could be paid and then there could be rebates; that would be the easiest way of doing it. Or they could be relieved from the levy if they could show that they were carrying out training.
LORD CITRINE: It is provided in the White Paper.
LORD WILLIAMSON: My Lords, in Germany apprenticeship schools are maintained out of public funds. In Holland apprenticeship schemes are arranged by joint industrial committees, which receive a subsidy of 70 per cent. from the Central Government and 30 per cent. from local authorities. The Dutch Government paid £1 million recently for the training of 52,000 apprentices. What about us? A very small levy of a half of 1 per cent. on the wages in this country would bring in £45 million; or a quarter of 1 per cent. would bring in over £20 million. Why then should we not go the whole hog? If in the future there are going to be wage increases from year to year of 3 or 4 per cent., is it going to be a really serious impost on industry to meet a charge of a quarter of 1 per cent., which after all is going to be a profitable investment?
I will not take up any more of your Lordships' time. I believe that our national and economic salvation will depend more in the future than it has in the past on our industrial performance; and our greatest asset will be the skills inventiveness, genius and efficiency of our manpower. Financial resources put into the training of our young men and women will be the nation's most profitable investment, from which the nation will reap rich dividends in the years to come.

BRITAIN AND IRAQ
3.47 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, it might be convenient if I now make the statement on Iraq which has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal.
Her Majesty's Ambassador in Iraq has had an interview with the new Foreign Minister (Talib Hussein Al-Shabib) in which the latter asked for recognition by Her Majesty's Government. The new Government officially stated on February 8 that it will comply with Iraq's international commitments and treaties. Her Majesty's Government have noted these assurances with satisfaction.
All the evidence we have indicates that the new régime in Iraq has the support of the armed forces and the bulk of the

803
population and is in effective control of the country.
In these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government consider that it would be proper to accord recognition to the new Iraqi Government. Her Majesty's Ambassador in Baghdad has accordingly been instructed to inform the Iraqi Foreign Minister to-day of Her Majesty's Government's recognition. Her Majesty's Government look forward to the development of friendly relations between the United Kingdom and Iraq.
Your Lordships will regret to learn that two British subjects, Mr. R. Braithwaite, of the Embassy staff, and Mr. K. Deves, the Reuter correspondent, were slightly wounded by stray bullets during the fighting in Baghdad. I am glad to say however, that both of them have now left hospital. Her Majesty's Ambassador has been making extensive inquiries but, apart from these two gentlemen, there are no other reports of harm to British subjects or damage to British property. The Iraq Petroleum Company heard on February 10 that their staff at Kirkuk and Basra were all safe and well.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for repeating here the statement which has been made in another place, and for announcing the recognition of the new Iraqi Government by Her Majesty's Government. I think I am right in saying that the basis upon which the recognition has been given is the normal basis for recognising a new Government in a situation of this sort. We are glad to hear the reassuring news about the two accidental British casualties, and also that no other of the British personnel engaged in any way in Iraq has suffered harm. We hope that if in course of time there should be news of further casualties, or any further developments affecting this country, the Minister will be good enough to give the House the latest information.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am gratefully obliged to the noble Lord. We will, of course, keep your Lordships informed of any developments.

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING
3.50 p.m.
Debate resumed.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, we have listened to two very fine but sharply contrasting speeches from my noble friend below the gangway and the noble Lord opposite. My noble friend starts from a very strongly educational bias which to some extent I personally share, having been for a large part of my life the governor of a technical college and having long family connections with that side of the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, starts from what I might call a wide experience of industry. Both points of view seem to me to be necessary and legitimate; but I thought to some extent that my noble friend's feelings on the subject of education led him to make criticisms of the White Paper which were not altogether just.
I absolutely agree with both noble Lords who have spoken that the more one thinks of it the more certain it becomes that one, at least, of the limiting factors on the growth of our economy is the shortage of skilled people. I would absolutely agree with my noble friend that if one is to use the expression "skilled people" in any rational sense, one must not limit oneself to the products of craft apprenticeship. On the contrary, one of the most serious limitations of growth, although I doubt whether it could be measured in any terms of statistics, may lie in the quality of top management. We feel—at least, I feel, and I think the House will agree with me—that in this country we have in the past largely neglected the field of management studies, and that we are suffering for it now and will continue to suffer for it for many years after the neglect has ceased.
I also agree with my noble friend that in assessing the question of industrial training in its wider sense one cannot ignore the importance of a good general education in the modern world. It is quite impossible, even if it were desirable—and I would agree with my noble friend that it is not desirable—to face really skilled labour with even the vocational problems which they have to face unless they have the basis of a

805
sound general education. In that connection I would agree with my noble friend in what he said about the importance of staying on at school, whether that school be a grammar school or any other kind of school: the importance, too, even after leaving school, of attending a college of further education or a technical college to obtain courses of a kind which could not ordinarily be administered within the ambit of craft apprenticeship. I thought, if I may say so, that my noble friend was quite right in emphasising these aspects of the matter. I would also say that in any rational definition of "industrial training" one would have to count the graduates and technologists who received their degrees at university or college of advanced technology or other college of further education of whatever standard. The technicians—the new and developing and rather ill-defined class which is a characteristic of really modern industry—would have to be included as well.
Therefore, I do not in the least complain of the philosophy which my noble friend brought to bear upon this subject. Furthermore, although to isolate the issue of craft apprenticeship and industrial training in a narrower sense may to some extent be artificial, I think it is inevitable, arid I do not myself accept it as a criticism of the White Paper, at any rate to the degree which my noble friend insisted, that the White Paper does isolate industrial training in the narrower sense to the extent to which it does. After all, as noble Lords will know, and as I think the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, appreciated by inference, craft apprenticeship in this country, which is a matter of long institution, has in practice been isolated for a very long time, at any rate to some extent. A craftsman enters work for an employer, normally for five years, either at a special apprentice school or directly in the shop of his own firm side by side with skilled men. The training of the craft apprentice is, in fact, principally undertaken by industry, and has been for many years; and the characteristic feature of it which is of vital interest to the trade unions is, of course, that there must be an employer, because wages must be paid and paid in full. The trade unions insist upon this, because they do not
806
desire what they call the dilution of skilled labour which would otherwise be effected if this were not the case.
It is therefore inevitable that one should to some extent isolate the administration of craft apprenticeship in a White Paper of this character, although I fully agree with my noble friend in his feeling that the approach to the subject should relate it to general education and should be characterised by a warm and human approach to the whole matter, remembering that it is in many ways the young with whom we have to deal.
LORD WILLIAMSON: My Lords, would the noble Viscount forgive me for interrupting? It is accepted, and has been, that the training of technicians and graduates is the Government's responsibility and that the other training of craftsmen is industry's problem. This is what the White Paper is about.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, who has really put in a nutshell what I was probably intending to put but was succeeding in putting less concisely. To some extent, therefore, it is inevitable that we should discuss this latter question, which, as my noble friend and as the White Paper recognise, is a partnership between the Government, represented both by the education authorities and the Minister of Labour, and industry itself.
It is with this, therefore, that I will' concern myself in the main during the course of my remarks. Is the training plant for industry adequate? I agree with what is implicit in the White Paper and with the two noble Lords who have spoken hitherto, that the answer is "Manifestly not". Do enough people go into apprenticeship? That is the first question. I am sure the answer is still No; although, in spite of the difficult time which industry is having, it is fair to add that more boys are going into apprenticeship—last year 121,500—than ever before. I think it is fair to say, too, that, whatever might be the general figure for both sexes, last year the proportion was not one in five, as noble Lords have said, but one in three—or, rather, very nearly one in three; over 30 and under 33 per cent.

807
I think for this purpose one is entitled to take boys because, whether it should be or not, apprenticeship is very largely a male speciality. I think these improved figures reflect an increasing awareness on the part of all concerned of the importance of skilled training; and I think they reflect great credit on the I.T.C., with which my noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton has been associated, and its regional boards. But I am equally sure that it is not enough. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that each industry, and each firm within each industry, including Government Departments has an obligation to play its full part in industrial training. Of course, the White Paper, by proposing to impose a levy, recognises that compulsion is necessary in order to see that they do perform that duty.
While I would accept what my noble friend Lord Eccles has said about the development of the Carr doctrine—it is, I think on the second page of the White Paper—one must go on insisting that the obligation rests upon industry, and recognise that their obligation is certainly not less, and may be more, precisely in proportion as the partnership with Government has been recognised. A firm or an industry which does not play its appropriate part in training skilled labour is failing to develop the economy as it should be developed; and insofar as it is employing skilled labour which it has not trained, it is simply living on the efforts of others. Unless we remedy this our plans will be geared to failure, and not success.
One must also emphasise the close relationship between full employment and skilled labour. When I was Minister of Education I used to get into great trouble for saying that we were moving into the age of the qualified man. In those days it was easy for a boy leaving school to earn £8 to £9 a week in an unskilled job. It is, of course, a great temptation still to do so, even though there is unemployment. It was less profitable then, in the short run, either to stay at school or to take up an apprenticeship. But, with some exceptions to which I will turn in due course, the unemployed are the unskilled. Unemployment among the unskilled is
808
far higher than among the skilled. It follows, therefore, that anyone who does not do his best to ensure that a boy or a girl takes up a skilled occupation, or gets some technical or graduate status, is doing him or her an ill turn.
But it is an even more important point that skilled workers create employment for unskilled workers as well as for themselves. To employ unskilled workers usefully, you need a cadre of skilled men around which to employ the unskilled. It follows that a shortage of skilled workers can be—in my opinion, even now—a cause of unemployment. Even now in the North-East, which I have just been visiting, there is a shortage of borers, precision fitters, tool makers and setter operators of all types. I am sure that, if Government policy succeeds—and we all wish that it will—there will be a shortage of skilled craftsmen in many more of the engineering skills and most of the building skills lone before we have absorbed the existing army of unskilled unemployed, and even before the shipbuilding industry makes its highly desirable recovery.
Of course, I realise the difficulty of small firms in supporting adequate apprenticeship schemes. The answer may be a group training scheme. I learnt while in the North-East that both the two I.C.I. apprentice schools, and at least one other, were not running at full capacity, and that the firms concerned would be willing to put the spare capacity of their plant at the disposal of the public—assuming, of course, that the wages of the extra apprentices were paid by the appropriate source and that adequate arrangements were made. This is something we should take advantage of, and my right honourable friend has already put some resources at the disposal of the region to accept this offer. But in the end, of course, I wish candidly to admit that, in my judgment, the existing plant is less than adequate.
I also draw attention to the problem created as regards apprentices when a firm shuts down and the apprentices concerned thereby break their training. In the main, I know, the unions and other employers recognise in such cases a moral obligation. But cases have been brought to my attention in which the apprentices have been temporarily left high and dry. It is here that the rule that there must be a sponsoring employer hits hardest. Moreover, in an area of high unemployment, it

809
is cruel if a boy cannot find apprenticeship before he is too old, under the existing rules, to admit him. This is a social injustice which we have no right to inflict; and no one, Government, employers, or union, can rest happy so long as there is a possibility that it can be inflicted. In parenthesis, at this stage I would ask: are we facing the problem of adult retraining sufficiently seriously? Because this must be within the terms of my noble friend's Motion. Again I must answer, "No". Obviously, it is possible to exaggerate the extent of the problem involved. Clearly, some skills are interchangeable. In other cases, union skills cross the boundaries of industries. A plumber is a plumber whether he is plumbing in a house or a ship; and there are many kinds of engineering skills (to mention only one point) inside the coalmining industry.
But, my Lords, we must not blind ourselves to the existence of a real problem; and here I must make one blunt, brutal point. It is quite morally unacceptable that a man who in middle age becomes redundant should join the ranks of the unskilled for the rest of his life. If he wants to be received, and can be trained to an adequate level, then facilities should exist or be created, and other unions should accept this with generosity and compassion. I want to deal with this matter with great delicacy, because I know how deep are the feelings which have to be overcome. But we must make some progress in this direction; it is not good enough to fail to do so. The need for retraining is going to be a normal feature of industrial life. The second industrial revolution is going to make changes of skill more frequent, even in periods of full employment.
Here, my Lords, I have one partial failure to report. Last year my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour announced his intention of opening three new small centres (two in Scotland and one in North-East England) in areas which will be particularly affected by coalmining redundancy. The A.E.U. did not oppose these proposals in principle, provided that the Ministry obtained the agreement of the local officials. Despite protracted discussions this agreement has not been forthcoming. In the building industry one union, the Woodworkers, agreed in principle to this retraining of redundant
810
men. The other unions concerned, those for bricklayers, plumbers, painters and plasterers, refused to agree. Despite these difficulties my right honourable friend intends to go ahead with these new training centres and to introduce classes in building trades at centres already in being. He is giving greater encouragement to suitable men who have become redundant to undertake training, rather than to go into unskilled employment, by raising substantially the training allowances paid to men at training centres. A single man now receives £7 10s. as against £5 10s. previously; a man with a wife and two children gets £9 as against £8. These allowances are not subject to taxation or to reduction for National Insurance contribution. I would ask the House to say that we must press on and ask public opinion to support us.
I return to apprenticeship—the age of entry, length of course, content of course and facilities available. I agree with noble Lords that employers have simply got to realise that 16 is too early an age for a boy to lose his training chances for the whole of his life. I agree with what my noble friend said about the value of his staying on at school. The fact is that within certain limits of capacity and demand for skills, in a free society a young man has a right to be trained in the skill of his choice. Neither Government nor management, nor trade union, has really a right to deny him the choice of his own occupation or the means of acquiring the necessary skills to pursue it. Moreover, he may wish to turn to acquire a skill after a preliminary error in rushing after an unskilled job. Still more, he may be thrown out of work by technical changes or alterations in the pattern and structure of industry. It is vital that both industry and unions should accept these circumstances as part of our industrial life and I repeat that employers really must learn that their refusal to take young apprentices of over 16 is not in accordance with the public interest. It is simply an incitement to leave school early.
I am bound to say that I agree with the views expressed by, I think, both noble Lords, but certainly by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that the current length of apprenticeship is too long at five years, and, apart from that, the

811
ages between which it is received are absurdly rigid. I agree that laymen in any profession tend to underestimate the time it takes to get professional skill, but during the war it took us only a matter of months to train a Spitfire pilot and I decline to believe that it takes five years to train a bricklayer, especially as the normal period abroad, whore the children are no more intelligent than ours, is three years and not five, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, said. Moreover, I entirely agree with what has been said about the value of the particular training received and the standard of achievement at the end of it.
It is no longer satisfactory that the main criterion in the definition of a craftsman is that he has (to use the cant expression) "served his time". Some training is very good indeed, but there is no guarantee of this. In the absence of properly detailed syllabuses and of some way of testing the adequacy of training given and received, the term "time-served apprentices" may mean anything or nothing. The fact is that the actual content of apprenticeship courses has been insufficiently surveyed. Modern methods of conveying information have developed in a revolutionary way in recent years. Pre-apprenticeship courses in school or colleges of further education can largely take the place of the early months of years of apprenticeship, as my noble friend pointed out. It is a pity that they are not yet generally allowed to do so.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Labour has taken a strong personal interest in this question. Some eighteen months ago, he approached the engineering and construction industries and asked them to take a fresh look at their training arrangements, not only as regards apprenticeships, but both as regards age of entry and as regards length of course and quality of training. I know that it is his view that a strong lead is required from the centre of different industries. Proper standards need to be established, syllabuses drawn up, and steps taken to see that these are actually put into practice in individual firms. For some occupations, new forms of training altogether are needed. The training of technicians, for example, has received far less attention than it deserves. At present, a tech-
812
nician is often either a promoted craftsman or a failed engineer.
I do not know how far to describe my right honourable friend's efforts as a success. Last summer, the construction industries agreed to give regional committees authority to reduce the period of training from five years to four years. But so far only three regions have taken advantage of this. Among those who refused are the Northern, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, Eastern and Southern Midlands, North-Western and Scotland. The construction industry has also decided to commission a three-year study of its occupational requirements and the effect these will have on training. This is a far-sighted move, and I commend both sides of the industry for agreeing to it. But I sincerely wish they would do a little more.
What is disappointing is that the engineering industry has so far done nothing. It is still deliberating. This is particularly disappointing on the North-East Coast because, as I said before, the biggest shortage of craftsmen is in engineering. Even at present there is a shortage of some grades of craftsmen, which I have enumerated, a shortage which would become serious if present industry were to revive to its former level, and still more serious if considerable numbers of new firms were introduced. Only last week, the Ministry of Labour official who was accompanying me told me of an inquiry from a firm who wanted to come up North but wished an immediate availability of 200 of the rarest type of craftsmen. So, even with a high rate of unemployment skill can be a limiting factor in growth.
This brings me to the White Paper proposals. All these considerations—the continuing shortage of skill, the need to improve the quality of training, the failure of industry in some cases to put its own house in order, and the success of the courses in Government training centres and technical colleges—have convinced the Government that, in the words of the White Paper.
"the time has come to strengthen and improve the existing partnership between industry, the Government and the educational authorities in the provision of industrial training".
I agree with my noble friend's argument that for the Carr doctrine, as it was accepted in 1958, there ought now to be substituted the view that industrial training is a partnership between industry,

813
Government and the education authorities. It will be argued with a good deal of force that this ought to have been done a long time ago. To this position, I oppose only two arguments. The first is that the most pressing task of recent years was to make sure that industry increased the amount of training it did in order to cope with the so-called bulge and that to make radical changes at the time would have interfered with this object. The second argument is that industrial opinion itself is only too little prepared to change in this field and has only showed signs of moving in the last two years in favour of Government playing a more active rôle. This is a compelling argument, but I am not sure that it reflects credit either on us or on them.
Your Lordships will already be familiar with the proposals in detail and therefore I do not wish to deal with them at any length. I should, however, like to bring out the features in the White Paper which give the Government ground for the belief that the scheme proposed is sound and workable. It will be our aim to make full use of the existing facilities for training in colleges of further education, in training establishments provided by firms and in Government training centres themselves. This to some extent deals with one of the points raised by my noble friend in the course of his speech. This can be achieved, in our view, only if proper standards and training syllabuses are established and if, generally, a systematic policy is formulated in such matters as admission to training courses, their length and provision for attendance at further education establishments. It seems to us that this kind of objective can be reached only if the burden of cost is more evenly spread than it has been hitherto. Hence, the White Paper proposes that training boards should have the power to impose a levy on all firms in their industry.
I quite accept the point which the noble Lord opposite made, to the effect that industries are difficult of definition, and the idea of 150-odd training boards is a manifestly absurd one. From the proceeds of this levy grants could be made to firms which were giving training of an approved standard. It would also be open to a board to set up its own training centre and, if it thought
814
fit, to pay allowances to trainees while they were being trained, either in public centres or in their own centres. On the other hand, I think it is generally accepted that industry itself should also make a contribution towards the training from which it will gain immediate benefits, and the training boards to be established by my right honourable friend would, therefore, be given power to impose a levy. It would, of course, be our intention that rebates should be allowed from the levy where firms provide training of approved quality.
My Lords, all this demands close consultation. This is now proceeding, and discussions are being held by my right honourable friend with industrial organisations, notably the Trades Union Congress and the British Employers' Confederation. On the education front, my right honourable friends the Education Ministers are consulting educational organisations. Obviously, the success or failure of these proposals will depend in great measure on the calibre of the boards which my right honourable friend will set up. This again will be a matter for consultation with industry; but it is our intention that the educational interests should be adequately represented, and also that the Ministry of Labour, and one or both of the Education Departments, shall be represented on each board by assessors. This, together with the proposal to empower the Minister of Labour to appoint officers to ensure adequate standards of training, should meet the doubts which have been aired about the likelihood of some of the boards being of sufficient calibre.
My noble friend Lord Eccles asked me two specific questions arising out of that proposition. In the first place, he asked: What will the Government do if an industry refuses to set up a training board? The training boards will not be set up by industry; they will be set up by the Minister of Labour, although, of course, in consultation with the industry concerned. Since Government money is to be made available in the form of grants to training boards, the Ministry of Labour expect that industries will willingly co-operate in setting up boards. Indeed, industries with reasonable training arrangements already are likely to benefit financially because of the Government grants. The Minister of Labour expects that the financial stimulus of a Govern-

815
ment grant should act as a sufficient incentive to industries without adequate training schemes to co-operate in getting a training board set up.
Secondly, my noble friend asked how tough the Government would be if the board did not provide adequate training. Of course, this is an early stage, but I must remind my noble friend that the Minister will have power to appoint inspectors to see that the training arrangements made by the boards are satisfactory; and if they are not, he will have power to withhold the Government grant. At this early stage I do not want to say more than that we have the power, if the ultimate sanction were invoked, to ensure that our intention was carried out. But our intention is to see, in partnership with industry, that the training schemes do succeed, so that the sanction will not have to be invoked.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, before leaving that important point, would the noble Viscount say what sort of sanction the Minister has in the case of refusal?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I thought I had made it clear that he has the right to appoint inspectors to inspect the adequacy of the arrangements, and he has the right to withhold grants if the arrangements are not adequate.
LORD CITRINE: The right to pay grants is an inducement, but not a sanction. With regard to the question of inspectors, an inspector is not a substitute for a board. I gather the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, to be this. Supposing the Minister wants a board to be set up, he consults the industry concerned. But if, for some reason, the industry refuses, what sanction has the Minister?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This was the first of the two points made by my noble friend. It is not the industry which sets up the board; it is the Minister of Labour. While I agree that an offer of grant is an incentive and not a sanction, I would say that the withholding of grant, once given, is a sanction and not an incentive.
My Lords, I am conscious of having taken up a great deal of time in the speech which I have delivered. I think the proposals in the White Paper have been welcomed by both the noble Lords who have spoken. I have some sympathy with those enthusiasts who feel that they
816
do not go far enough. Those of us who regard industrial training as one of the keys to our economic well-being can perhaps be forgiven for showing some impatience with the number of administrative difficulties which are involved in launching proposals of this sort. But this does not make the difficulties any less real; and I know that my noble friend, who has great experience in this matter, realises this better than most. I believe that the proposals in the White Paper promise to lay a sound pattern for industrial training in the future and, as such, I warmly commend them to the House.
4.27 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, we are all grateful for the opportunity provided by the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, of giving that discussion to the Government's proposals for industrial training which I assume to be part of the reason for publishing them in the form of a White Paper. I find myself largely in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, said, and his hope that when eventually legislation is brought forward it may be wider in purpose and more far-reaching in terms than the White Paper itself. Here, if I appear to be critical, may I apologise in advance if I am unable to remain until the conclusion in the debate? I have to take the Chair at my Diocesan Conference this evening, and since the Diocesan Bishop in a Diocesan Conference in his own single person constitutes an Upper House, my own presence is somewhat essential on this occasion.
As I read the proposals in the White Paper, I have an anxiety, which has been partially dispelled by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that though they are good in themselves, they will not necessarily make things happen which we all wish to see happen. Will the levy, for instance, be so calculated and enforced that youths in small firms will not be at a disadvantage compared with those in larger concerns? Will the proposed boards have sufficient power, not only to establish standards of training, but also to enforce them? Will they be able to make a radical reappraisement of the apprenticeship system, which has its own mystique not untinged by its mediæval origins, and which may not be suited to the technological needs of to-day, when industry requires an almost

817
unlimited series of grades of skills which are themselves constantly changing? My fear is that if we allow the training of apprentices to loom too large in our thinking, we may lose sight of the 64 per cent. of the boys and 90 per cent. of the girls who on leaving school at the present time do not enter apprenticeships and who, in the total picture, are no less important as individual persons and as citizens, and for whom, as has been said, there is at present very little educational or training provision.
I welcome the reference made to the need of retraining of adults. The present restrictions result sometimes in a grave injustice to the individual, because they deny to men and women who have not taken the chance of learning a trade before the age of 21, or who, for reasons which are not their own fault, have found themselves in a trade in which they are redundant, any second or third chance of equipping themselves for more skilled work. Not very much so far in this debate has been said about women, but I should have thought that this applies far more to women even than it does to men. Is the ability of a woman of 45, returning to work after bringing up a family, best used by her returning to the kind of work she did as a girl of 15? Can she get the retraining which she needs to make the contribution of which she was capable?
For reasons such as these, I cannot but question whether a stronger direction of policy at the national level may not be essential. While the White Paper speaks of improving
"the existing partnership between industry, the Government and the education authorities"
it does not specificially mention, for instance, the Minister of Education. Technical colleges are his responsibility; training centres, I suppose, will be under the direction of the Minister of Labour. But who would make the overall decisions of policy on what is essentially, as the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, has said, an educational question?
I agree with the noble Lord that the need to raise the school leaving age is paramount, but as one who has spent most of his working life directly or indirectly in connection with formal education, the older I get the more convinced I am that it is necessary to go on reminding people that the process of education is not confined to what goes on within the four walls of a class room or a lecture theatre.
818
Work is itself, when rightly handled, a vital part of the education of an adolescent or of anybody else. To be without work is not just a loss of income or even an increased opportunity to get into mischief; it is a definite deprivation of the individual personality. Whatever we do to care for the young people who are unemployed—and the Church is anxious to do all it can to help—there is no educational substitute for work and training for work at the right point of maturity.
There are now boys and girls moving into the second year of worklessness; there are some who, having achieved one or two "O" level passes after five years of secondary education, are finding it almost impossible to get employment. In the short-term approach to the personal problems created by enforced idleness, every effort must clearly be made to continue and develop both general education and technical training, using, I should hope on an increasing scale, the imaginative, informal educational methods of which Outward Bound and Young Farmers' Clubs are but two examples. This is not merely "ambulance work"; it would be a definite contribution to the solution of the long-term problem of solving those economic difficulties of which unemployment is only a symptom.
There is another point to which reference has not so far been made, and that is the need for someone or some body to keep a watch upon the development of young people as they move from one job to another within an industry, or outside the boundaries of a particular industry. Their development requires that somebody should be concerned that their education and training continues, and while this might be a function of youth employment officers, I am inclined to think that it would be better done by the colleges of further education who are in a different and more regular relationship with the young. But it is perhaps a point that could come appropriately under the general oversight of the new boards.
There is much in the White Paper which is welcome, as has been said: for instance, the suggestion that the main attention of the boards should be given to the improvement of first-year training, for there is evidence that much can go wrong at this stage which it is difficult to rectify subsequently. Perhaps it is too early to go into the details of what the

819
boards should do, but the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, has mentioned the question of the relative values of day release and block release. Here I would agree with him that the evidence so far available suggests that block release is educationally much more efficient, in that it does not necessarily lengthen the number of hours per annum that students spend in the college but leads to a better attitude to work when they are in the college of further education, and in terms of examinations, at any rate, leads to better results.
Can we not work out some schemes of this kind which would apply to boys and girls who are not apprenticed, but who need these skills and trainings no less? In spite of what the noble Viscount has said, I believe that this industrial training is essentially an educational rather than a purely industrial process, complicated as it is by the great variety in the requirements of different industries, by the differing grades of skills required, and by the difficulty of providing training for a few students in small firms. Nevertheless, it has to be faced, and it is right that industry should have a large share of the responsibility. I think we should all agree that it should be regarded as a failure in management not to use potential ability, just as we consider it a failure in management to leave plant idle and not fully used. The best firms—and they are many—know this and act accordingly. I hope that the new boards may have sufficient power to compel those who are less enlightened to do what they should.
My main concern is with the point which I made earlier, that in all this we are dealing with human beings. The emphasis in the White Paper on industrial efficiency alone could be somewhat disquieting. Clearly, it is necessary for the economic well-being of the country that skilled men and women should be available in adequate numbers, but the young and the not-so-young need to be educated all the time in the widest sense, for economic welfare depends on other factors than technical efficiency alone. It depends on our having men and women who are good technicians, good citizens and good men and women, integrated and balanced in their judgments and informed about the social implications of the work they do. The Minister of Education showed his concern for this
820
in the pamphlet issued recently with the title, General Studies in Technical Colleges.
Many local education authorities have already had experience of the marked effect which time spent on social studies and English has on the students' attitude to life and work and their ability to express themselves clearly and concisely. I saw recently a letter from the managing director of a large concern who praised the social studies course in a block release scheme because of the ability it gave students to express ideas clearly and logically, to differ amicably from each other, and to examine a proposal critically and constructively. That applied to a scheme for apprentice training. I think the hope of all of us is that, as the proposals of the White Paper are developed into legislation, such opportunities on the widest scale will be made available to all who enter industry and commerce, whether skilled, semiskilled or unskilled, and whether those distinctions will have any meaning whatever twenty years from now. Our young men and women are the nation's potential and priceless asset. Industrial training is only part of their education. But we have a responsibility to see that, by whatever form it is done, the ability and the assets we have are not thrown away by neglect or only partial encouragement.
4.38 p.m.
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, I think we are all much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, for having raised the subject of industrial training to-day, and for collecting a number of speakers of different points of view. I am sure those of us in industry welcome especially the intervention of the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of London, in the debate. I should like to declare a rather special interest. I have only recently retired from being President of the British Employers' Confederation, and was privileged to be the first President of the Industrial Training Council, so I am somewhat biased in some of the things I say in those respects.
I would remind the House, with no offence to anybody, that we are discussing not general education but industrial training, and I think that should be remembered. The White Paper says, I think quite rightly, that the Government have decided that the time has come to

821
strengthen and improve the existing partnership between industry, the Government and the education authorities in the provision of industrial training. That, I think, is welcomed on all sides. Like the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, I myself believe very strongly—and I think that a great majority of employers would agree with me—that the sooner we can get the school-leaving age in general to 16, the better for industry and, indeed, the better for the whole country.
I am very anxious to see that all industry which trains skilled apprentices should come to regard an extra year at school as being equivalent to an extra year's apprenticeship training. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, spoke about five years' training for an apprenticeship as being too long. If we can keep them at school another year, and have four years' apprenticeship training, or if some are kept at school for two years and have three years' training in industry, I believe that the results would be well worthwhile.
I was glad that the right reverend Prelate took up the question of day and block release, which the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, mentioned but passed over very quickly. I am one of those who are and have been for some time enthusiastic for block release, but we do not seem to be making much progress on that line. It seems to be a much more efficient idea than letting the boys go off for one day each week. They leave a gap in the industrial establishment when they go, especially when they are nearing their fourth or fifth years and are useful members of the shop or floor. It would seem to me better for them to have continuous training for a short time, if it can be arranged, rather than have this intermittent training. However, I cannot help feeling that the resistance to the acceptance of the idea of block release comes just as much from the educational as from the industrial world and I personally wish that we could get over it.
I was most interested, as I am sure was the whole House, in what that great authority, the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, told us; and, I must confess, for my own part, that I have nothing with which to cross swords with him in what he said. Might I also emphasise to the noble Viscount how much I agreed with him
822
on the absence of training for top management? In my own industry there are a number of our younger, highly skilled people who are always coming round, pressing us and saying: "Where can we go to get top management training to enable us to be proper members of the boardroom when, as we hope, we get there? This is a matter of considerable concern, though it is outside, I think, the scope of this debate as I see it this evening.
My Lords, I was very glad, too, that the right reverend Prelate mentioned training for women. I believe that all people who go into industry want some training, whatever their job is going to be and however long they are going to last in it. Indeed, the Industrial Training Council recently produced a booklet, which was widely accepted, on training for women. I hope that the right reverend Prelate has received a copy. If he has not, I will see that he gets one.
The need for change in the field of industrial training is, I think, now widely recognised on all sides, and I would say that the Government's recent proposals for improving training arrangements in industry have been accepted by the employers as a suitable basis on which to discuss with the Ministry of Labour the best way of strengthening and improving the partnership which we have already mentioned. If I might put my own gloss on how to read these proposals, summed up in one sentence I would say that they contemplate the introduction into Parliament of a Training Bill which would empower the Ministry of Labour, after consultation with the organisations principally concerned on both sides, to establish statutory boards. I think it is important to remember that these will be statutory boards with responsibility for all aspects of training in the industries, and with power to undertake the wide range of functions set out in the White Paper, including, of course, the training levy, on which the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, had some pertinent comments to make. The White Paper does not lay down how many statutory boards are going to be set up. That is an extremely difficult question and one which will have to be discussed carefully by industry and the educational world with the Ministry.

823
My colleagues in industry and I fully accept the determination of the Government in this way to fortify the means by which it can itself encourage the improvement and expansion of industrial training, and I should like to take that in its widest sphere as one part of the effort the Government should be and is, I believe, making to develop our economic efficiency at this time. But I would add this: that I believe there is much more credit due to industry generally than is given by the general public and by speakers and writers in the development of training arrangements which have been made over the last few years. Progress in this field is, of necessity, slow. There is a great deal of partnership, conservatism expertise and back knowledge in the way in which we train our people, and while change is important, change for change's sake is of no value. We must make sure that any change is for the better.
If people wish to challenge this progress, I would only quote the same figures as were given by the noble Viscount. The Industrial Training Council—the trade unions and the employers—when we set ourselves up, invited the Ministry of Labour, the nationalised industries and educational authorities to come in with us, and the first task we set ourselves was to increase the number of apprenticeships, so as to make sure that the boys coming out in the "bulge" years should have at least as good an opportunity to get an apprenticeship as those coming out when the numbers were much smaller. We set ourselves a target of a 20 per cent. increase over four years. A target of 30 per cent. was actually reached. There are 30 per cent. more boys in training to-day than there were in 1958 when the I.T.C. was set up, and I think that that is quite a considerable achievement, and one which I wish to lay before your Lordships.
I must confess that I get tired sometimes when I hear people who should know better making rash charges against industry in general, and against the skill and training of our craftsmen in particular. I listened to a talk last Thursday night (I think the programme was called "Gallery") on B.B.C. Television; I do not think I have ever listened to this particular programme before. It had a distinguished cast in Mr. Carr, a Member of
824
Parliament and Chairman of the Carr Committee, Mr. Frank Cousins, and a Mr. Shanks, who, I believe, was introduced as from one of the prominent national newspapers. Mr. Shanks was particularly virulent in attacking industry for not training more people, and nobody would have realised from that discourse that Mr. Shanks's own industry was the one which was pilloried so recently by the Royal Commission on the Press as not making any effort whatever to train its own craftsmen but was stealing them from the general printing industry. It made me rather tired to hear this particular gentleman railing against the engineering industry, the building industry and others which are making great efforts, when his own industry is making none at all.
I claim that the message which the I.T.C. try to put before the country in this matter has not gone unheeded, but I would say that the pressure should still be on; that although we are now training 30 per cent. more than we did in 1958, that percentage must increase still further in the next two or three years. I think that industry fully recognises that there is room for considerable improvement, both in the quantity and in the quality of industrial training at every level. Therefore, I believe that industry and employers are fully appreciative that a case for action by the Government has been made out in the field of industrial training, and accordingly we welcome the introduction of this White Paper. We hope to see that the scheme here laid out will enable decisions on the scale of training to be better related to economic needs and the developments of technology. We hope that it will improve the overall quality of industrial training, which is very necessary, and establish minimum standards—again, I think, something we have been lacking in the past. It is, in my view, a very good thing that the cost should be more evenly spread. I would emphasise to your Lordships that I believe that these proposals in no way undermine the basic responsibility of industry for the training of its own workpeople and that they merely give statutory backing to broad principles in the Carr Report, that each individual industry should be responsible for ensuring the adequacy of its own training and that all firms should contribute to the cost. I am glad to say that the Ministry of Labour have already

825
contacted the T.U.C. and the British Employers' Confederation with detailed discussions on how to carry out the ideas put forward in this White Paper.
There are many difficulties before we can get to a satisfactory Bill and Act. Some of the problems are extremely difficult and complicated: the basis on which industry should be defined (the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, said something about this) for the purpose of establishing training boards; how many training boards are to be established; the means of identifying companies within the definition of an industry, companies which may be carrying on many ancillary or different trades; the grades and ages of workers to be covered by the boards, and, of course, the way the levy should be applied. There is also the composition of the training boards, which is, of course, of supreme importance. I believe that the composition of the training boards should be primarily representatives of the trade unions and the employers with, of course, important representatives from the educational organisations, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Education itself.
Will there be need for a central authority? I believe there will. Indeed there may be need for some form of central authority in two parts, two different schemes. The first functions of the White Paper deal with the actual overall control. The Government are going to put up money. I hope they are going to be fairly generous in this respect. The Government—the Ministry of Labour, I presume, will be the appropriate Department—must keep some form of statutory control and also inspection of standards of training adopted where Government money is being spent.
But I believe that the second kind of function needed to be performed by a central authority—and I maintain this is quite as important as the overall responsibility of the Government—is that of providing general advice and guidance to the training boards when they are first set up on the very wide range of responsibilities and activities which they will have to undertake: assessment of their training, analysis of jobs and occupations in terms of skill, planning systematic training schemes—different grades of workers will need different
826
types of training even in the same industry—establishment of training standards, minimum standards, and, indeed, even more, working out of syllabuses, establishment of training tests, which I believe have long been needed in industry, how they should be applied, whether they should be mandatory or voluntary, the establishment of qualifications, and tests for instructors. This is one of the most important points. Instructors, of course, are so apt, through no fault of their own, to get out of date; they are apt to leave industry to come to the training centre, and within five years conditions in industry have completely changed and they may find themselves teaching old ways which are quite out of date in industry. I believe some method must be prepared—indeed, this has been tried out in my own industry and others—by which instructors can go back into firms in industry for a month or two during the recess and bring themselves up to date. These are some of the important things to be considered.
I believe there needs to be a source of general information, and I should like to plead that the Industrial Training Council are able and willing to fulfil this rÔle of a central organisation who can give the proper guidance to these training boards when they are set up on all those matters which come within their scope and which will make all the difference between success and failure. The I.T.C., especially under the guidance of Mr. George Lothian and now Mr. R. A. Banks from the Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, have made big progress in propagating and encouraging the spread of systematic training arrangements for all our young people, not only apprentices, women as well as men, and they now enjoy a very great measure of support from all sides of industry, and, I believe, in many other quarters as well. At first, as I say, we concentrated on endeavouring to get up the number of apprenticeships. Now the I.T.C. are concentrating on providing training facilities. We have established a training advisory service. I am glad to say we have most excellent officers staffing this, with wide experience and practice in training matters, who are going out more and more into industry, helping those firms and industries who have not made progress themselves in industrial training schemes to do so. I

827
believe they are fully competent to take over the work which I suggest.
There is an enormous amount of work to be done in improving and modernising our industrial training system, and there is no doubt that if we can do this work a most vital part of the raising of the efficiency and productivity of industry will be performed. But I would agree with the right reverend Prelate: if we give our young people coming into industry a sense of their being an important part of industry, of its being worth while to give a little personal attention to them, a little training, I believe it may well establish a basis for improved industrial relations which may last them all their lives; for all good industrial relations depend upon the human element and the human being, not as a cog but as a person. To succeed in our efforts in this respect we must have full and active co-operation between employers and trade unions, and, I believe—and I am blowing our own trumpet again—the I.T.C. has been a valuable source of bringing together the two sides of industry in this important joint effort; and the educational authorities and the Government have, of course, played their part with us. While accepting, therefore, the general need for change in industrial training, I believe that the Government are right in approaching the whole problem, not as a take-over bid by the educational or any other section of the community but as consolidating the present partnership between themselves and industry.
Before I sit down, may I say one word on a problem on which the noble Viscount touched? It is, to my mind, rather a separate problem, and it is the retraining of adult skilled workers. He has dwelt on some of the difficulties, the deep personal difficulties, which this problem raises. Another difference between apprenticeship or general training in industry and this problem of retraining is that the apprentices and other trainees are in work and in industry, while most of those who need retraining are out of work and therefore not earning any wages or attached to any firm. I believe that this retraining must inevitably be a prime responsibility of the Government, although I am sure that industry will do its best to help them. I would urge the Government to look at it from that point of view. It is a special problem. It is
828
a problem that will grow more and more important as more and more of the older trades turn over to new ones, and I believe it is one which must have full Government control.
Finally, I should like to put before your Lordships one other point. I do not think that youth employment officers have been yet mentioned. I believe we all should, in this debate, pay tribute to the youth employment officers up and down the country. They do a good job of work. They make all the difference to the approach to industry of a great number of young people, and I should like to commend their work to your Lordships.
5.1 p.m.
LORD FLECK: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, for giving us an opportunity to debate this important subject. I should like to say how much I appreciate all he said in his speech in opening the discussion. I would also support what Lord Williamson has said, particularly about getting more factual information as to what we actually need in the way of apprentices to keep our industries properly supplied with skilled men. I hope that the Government will take note of that request. I should like to see much more definite information made available to us than we have had hitherto.
In this Motion the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, has used the phrase "widespread changes in industrial training". I would hope that in asking for widespread changes he is not asking for revolutionary changes, but for the specific development of a great number of the methods that have been used up to the present; because although these methods may be deficient in some respects, nevertheless they have achieved much that is to their credit and are worthy of much commendation. For example, our technical college system in relation to industrial training has many accomplishments to its credit. The recent White Paper, in giving an outline of possible Government proposals, is indeed a welcome document, even if it must be regarded, as I think legitimately it can be, as a coat-trailing document to see what kind of reception such ideas are likely to receive from interested parties whose reactions to new suggestions are sometimes rather difficult to predict.

829
So far as I am concerned, let me say right away that I support those who want more and better training. That remark applies not only to the highly organised forms of training, such as the whole range of apprenticeship schemes, but also to the looser, shorter forms, often somewhat irregular but nevertheless most helpful, that vary all the way from the purely functional and utilitarian types to the somewhat starry-eyed social and psychological talks aimed at formulating an acceptable gospel of work. I regard better industrial training as something that is absolutely essential if we are to get our industries on a sure foundation. We must do all possible to achieve that. I trust that this debate will be given serious consideration by industrial organisations at large, both by firms and their staffs who are responsible for establishing and operating training courses, and by those, including the trade unions, who more directly represent the interests of the people on the pay roll.
I urge that whatever improvements in industrial training can be brought to reality, through the suggestions in the present White Paper, they should be seized on and consolidated. Let there be no dragging of our feet in going forward with the proposals that are outlined in this White Paper. We should not run the risk of missing any possible advance merely because a major reorientation cannot be obtained in the immediate future. I stress the wisdom of such a course because industrial training is not a problem that can be considered once and for all; nor one for which a solution put forward at the present time will provide a full remedy for the next decade or two. Industrial training is a matter which must have continuous study and development if it is to meet the needs of a rapidly developing industrial situation.
We in this country of course sincerely believe that our industry is not stagnant, but is lively and advancing to meet the inevitable changes that the future will bring. Some progress has, of course, already been made: for instance, in the day-release scheme. With all due acknowledgment to the block-release scheme, the day-release scheme is, I think, a worthy operation. But in the day-release scheme progress is regrettably small. In England and Wales, the figures given in
830
another place some eleven months ago gave the most recent position for boys and girls released by their employers as 14·6 per cent., whereas in Scotland, once the proud home of advanced and advancing education, the comparable figure was only 9 per cent. This is not the time to inquire into the discrepancy, but I venture to think that until it is remedied Scotland cannot claim that it is doing everything possible to make itself an efficient industrial community. In the matter of day release, of course employers are more forthcoming so far as boys are concerned. That is perhaps natural, and in fairness it should be acknowledged that, for England and Wales, the Official Statistics of Education for 1961 give 30·4 per cent. for boys released by their employers to attend part-time day courses.
It is necessary, however, to look on industrial training and the White Paper from a much broader point of view. It would not be realistic to expect too close definitions in the words used in the White Paper, but some clarity of definition may be wise just to make specific what we mean by "industrial training". Clearly, what was uppermost in the minds of the writers of the White Paper was the training of young people freshly introduced into industry. I think that that wording should be accepted, because it is most vital, and the discussion so far this afternoon has shown that apprenticeships and the position of young people are much in their mind; so I accept cordially the wording that is in the White Paper, that it is mainly concerned with young people.
The wording used, however, does not exclude a second type, the training and retraining of adults required for whatever reason, either declining industry or unemployment. It is very important that this type of training and retraining should be kept in mind, but I do not think there is any probability that this admirably short paper can hope to make any material contribution to that very complex problem. I suggest that the problems of training adults and of retraining had better he given further consideration in independent documents.
A third type of training which would seem not to be excluded from the White Paper by the wording employed, is managerial training of the type given at a large number of institutions of which the Administrative Staff College at

831
Henley is one. The language of the White Paper would seem not to exclude that type of managerial and supervisory training, but I would suggest that it should be excluded from our present consideration and should not be included in our present definition of industrial training. Therefore, in my present observations to your Lordships I shall confine my remarks to the industrial training of youth—in short, I shall concentrate on apprentice and allied problems.
My Lords, evidence of the sincerity of our industries in their desire to improve industrial training is seen, as the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, just mentioned, in the setting up of the Industrial Training Council by the three organisations: the British Employers' Confederation, the trade unions, and the nationalised industries. The Industrial Training Council is doing good work, which is widely recognised, and it has some measure of financial support from the Government. But I infer that the White Paper, produced as it is by the Minister of Labour, basically arises from acknowledgment that the Industrial Training Council, worthy body that it is, is not proving to have adequate driving force. The same kind of thought comes from a consideration of the various group training schemes, such as the Mid-Tyne Group Training Council scheme and similar schemes, which, I understand, exist, for example, in the Birmingham area and on Merseyside. These are clearly motivated with the highest intention to give youths a wider experience in bigger organisations and so to break away from the restricted training that necessarily results from apprenticeships served in smaller firms. My information on such schemes is somwhat limited, but so far as it goes the indications are that the boys taken away from their parent firms find that the grafting process for them to be received in the accepting firms is difficult to achieve with any degree of success.
My Lords, I should like now, having expressed wholehearted sympathy with the basic considerations of the White Paper, to examine some of its implications, and to ask: are they likely to prove adequate and successful? Here I have to say that I fear that in practice
832
they will exhibit some fundamental weaknesses. First of all, the proposed boards are to be the prime responsibility of the Minister of Labour. I very much appreciated the remarks of the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House when he emphasised that the Ministry of Education was vital to the partnership. The Ministry of Education is, in fact, very much concerned, and I personally have hitherto looked mainly to the Ministry of Education for initiative in these matters. It was under the Ministry of Education that the Willis Jackson Committee on the Supply and Training of Teachers for Technical Colleges was set up, and it is from the Ministry of Education that the further education staff college, which is essentially dealing with technical college teachers, gets a financial grant.
Under the White Paper the Ministry of Labour, among other things, would be concerned with
"establishing and running training courses in its own training centres".
This dual interest of the two Ministries seems to be yet a further example of the developments we are experiencing to-day in many aspects of science and technology—namely, that it is in the borderlands of hitherto well-defined fields and traditional skills that the greatest present growth is being experienced. A well-recognised example in science is between mathematics and biology. These used to be quite distinct, almost unrelated, disciplines, and now it is in the borderland between those disciplines that the greatest thought and much work is being given, and where we see the greatest manifestation of growth. In a parallel way, I suggest that the question of industrial training, where we ought to see much growth and advance, is equally—and I emphasise the word "equally"—the responsibility of labour and education, and the organisation looking after it should be some kind of organisation equipped with funds from both the Education Minister and the Labour Minister—again, I emphasise, with equal responsibility. If that is not done, I fear there is a liability that in this borderland, where we want growth, there will be a tendency towards dissipation of effort and wastage. By means of some kind of joint panel we could have an integrated whole, associated, on the one hand, with the Ministry of Labour and, through

833
them, with the employers' organisations and the trade unions, and, on the other hand, with the Ministry of Education and the local education authorities and, through them, with their schemes for technical education.
My next point is that when these industrial training boards are set up endeavours should be made to keep their organisation as simple as possible. If the pattern indicated in the White Paper were to be followed, I tremble to think what a complex, creaking, bureaucratic machine we should be setting up. The board has to have some ten functions, which are set out in the White Paper: power to make levies; to remit its levies; to pay grants to trainees; to borrow; and to propose, for the Minister's decision, what firms are within the definition of an industry. Each and all of those questions seem to be of a nature that would require long periods of hairsplitting and sometimes heated discussion before they could be satisfactorily resolved.
Again, I should like to question the wisdom of making the Ministry of Labour set up boards which would be responsible for all aspects of training in individual industries. This question has already been touched upon by the noble Lords, Lord Williamson and Lord McCorquodale of Newton. In the White Paper there is almost continuous reference to "the industry", and I gather, from such accounts as I have of the debate which occurred in another place some ten days ago, that the Ministry of Labour is strongly attached to the idea that the boards foreshadowed in the White Paper should be organised on the basis of individual industries. I would hope that the Minister would keep an open mind on this subject of industrial training, and come to a conclusion only after he had fully considered all the available evidence. I could go on to give examples of this, on which I think the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, has already touched. Take the shipbuilding industry with its centres on the Mersey, the Wear, the Tyne, the Clyde and in the East of Scotland. In every centre a multitude of skills is required. Are we to have at each centre training facilities for each skill applied to shipbuilding? The chemical industry also operates at many of these centres for the
834
same skills. In any one centre, are we to have organised training for joiners for the chemical industry and another organisation for joiners for the shipbuilding industry? Surely, it would be much simpler if the training were organised on a geographical regional basis such as has already been suggested.
Some idea of the magnitude of this training has already been indicated, and I would remind your Lordships that the Standard Industrial Classification of the Central Statistical Office gives the number of industries in this country as 152. Even admitting, as could easily be agreed, that you will not want training boards for all of those, and even if we allow for the number of interested industries to be only a quarter of the total, what a complex machine it will require to look after 30 or so boards, each having wide and variously interpreted powers! Is not the answer to this criticism to be found in the conception that the major matter at issue is the whole basis of our apprenticeship ideas, and its contribution to efficient and modern industries? However, here I would suggest that basic progress will be made only after the conception of apprenticeship and its adequate evolutionary growth has been thoroughly rethought in the light of modern industrial concepts. Admittedly, the joiner must be a real specialist in wood, but should he be completely devoid of all experience in working with other materials? For my part, the answer would be that he is a specialist in wood, certainly; but give him some knowledge of the properties of other materials. And the same kind of reasoning applies to the fitter. If that kind of technical development and education can be applied, we shall, I believe, be better off with a set of training centres grouped geographically, than with a multitude of smaller centres grouped on an industry basis.
Here I should like to make reference to what I think can be described as the Glasgow experiment. This is an apprentice scheme under the local education authority, guided by friends in the Royal College of Science and Technology, and in operation, admittedly on a very limited scale, since last September in premises formerly used by the North British Locomotive Company. I gather that the scheme, with the agreement of employers and the A.E.U., has been

835
launched on a three years' basis for some 33 boys paid by the sending firms, and drawn from sixteen or seventeen firms. I should be glad if we could be told by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who will wind up the debate for the Government, if this scheme has the backing of the Scottish Education Department and the Ministry of Labour. At the moment, as I understand it, it is a scheme for apprentice fitters who would, in the normal course of events, become members of the A.E.U. But it is a scheme which, if it is successful, would seem readily capable of being expanded to general training based on geographical centres.
As I have said, I am speaking in general when I say that I think the schemes for apprentices need revising. The usual form of criticism is that for what they teach they are too long, and might with advantage be reduced to three years. For my part I would prefer to see an extension of the things to be learned by the apprentice, and an extension of his appreciation of associated techniques and technologies. This means that industry and trade unions have to sit down together and hammer out some new schemes directly designed to meet modern industrial needs. Here again I see the importance of development of ideas in the borderlands to which I have earlier referred. First of all, I referred to the borderlands between classical disciplines, then to the borderlands between Ministries. The point I am now making is that thought and consideration should be given to the borderlands between apprentice skills, so that in these areas the efficiency of industry could be raised, as it should be raised, by the use of modern methods and techniques.
Some months ago I ventured to address your Lordships on an associated subject, and I endeavoured to make the point that we had some 4· million tradesmen in this country who are of great potential value as qualified technicians to extend the reservoir of technical capacity. I want to see this reservoir still further extended and improved by our qualified tradesmen having better qualifications, so that their skills may have a wider application through better understanding and better training. Moves towards that goal can be made only over an appreciable period of time. The better the industrial training methods that are available to us, the
836
surer shall we move towards making our skilled craftsmen a real source of industrial strength to the nation. I am glad that we have had this White Paper, and I trust that favourable reactions given to it will stimulate the Ministries of Labour and Education to further thought, and to bring forward specific proposals that will achieve a greater degree of suitability to the desirable ends we all have so much at heart.
5.27 p.m.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the mover of this Motion, not merely for its timeliness but also for the reasoned and eloquent, yet not uncritical speech that he made in its support. I assure him that there is no need for anyone, in any section of the community, to seek to convert the people who are on these Benches to the need for adequate and extensive training of young people. I had been at the Trades Union Congress for only three years when a resolution was moved 36 years ago, the effect of which was to call for appropriate industrial training for all young workers. This view was expressed again in 1942 in a T.U.C. memorandum on education. Then in 1945 a resolution was carried by Congress declaring that fundamental changes were necessary in the conditions governing the employment of young people in industry and commerce. The changes suggested included, among other measures, the establishment in each industry of a comprehensive scheme of training and apprenticeship, to be agreed upon between the employers and the trade unions, and endorsed and supervised by what was then the Board of Education. In point of detail there may be some qualification to make to those resolutions, but in principle they are in close accord with the White Paper which we are now discussing.
I would also remind your Lordships that, when it came to giving practical effect to this aspiration for better training, the Labour Government in its Proposals for the Nationalised Industries placed a duty upon the Boards, not merely in the sphere of safety, health and welfare, but also in education and training; and, as far as my knowledge goes, those Boards have worthily carried out the responsibilities devolving upon

837
them. I have served on three of those Boards, and I can answer for two, at least, by saying that if the schemes that they have in operation were adopted and carried out in the measure that they are by the nationalised industries, this White Paper would not be necessary. In point of fact, the schemes have been operated in close co-operation with the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Education, although the Boards themselves are responsible for evolving the schemes.
Now I do not think that anyone really acquainted with this subject would object to the proposals set forward in paragraph 10 of this White Paper, which indicates the broad Governmental proposals. I join, too, with those who have spoken already in my tribute to those private firms in industry who, under no compulsion except that of interest in their employees and a knowledge of the value of training in the economic sphere, have set up schemes and financed those schemes entirely out of their own resources. In passing, that is one of the advantages of the trade unions in industry. I think your Lordships know that for many years I have been in favour of bigger units in British industry, not merely for the facilities they can afford in respect of research and such matters but on basic policy questions, and on this subject of education and training. I am afraid that almost the only people who can operate such schemes on a comprehensive basis are the large private firms, because those schemes would be outside the resources of the smaller firms. We have, of course, to define what we mean by the smaller firms; but, broadly speaking, it is the big unit, the big firm, which is able to provide these schemes.
The difference between them and the nationalised industries is that they relate to a particular firm or enterprise, whereas the nationalised industries cover the whole of an industry. There are great problems in trying to evolve a scheme to cover a whole industry if that industry is in private hands. Not only are there all kinds of obstacles because of the diversities of the industry, but also the state of mind of some of the people inside those industries perhaps makes that task a really formidable one. In nationalised industries it has proved to be much simpler, and principles have
838
been worked out which, at least in part, could be imported into any industrial schemes that are set up. I personally retain my pride in the achievements of the electricity supply industry in doing what is, in substance, pioneer work in this field. There have been private firms that I have visited over many years whore I have seen excellent schemes in operation; but I repeat that the main difference is that the nationalised industries cover an industry and the individual firm a much smaller compass.
I thought I detected in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, when he moved this Motion, a tinge of regret at the apparent stress upon the economic aspects of this question almost to the exclusion of any consideration of the development of the character and the qualities of the individual. If I am right in interpreting him in that way, I want to say at once that I share entirely his view. The purpose of industry, ultimately, is the service of mankind, and in the process of giving that service the more that the qualities of the individual can be developed, the more his character can be unfolded in a communally desirable way, I think the better for everybody.
We must somehow find a way of awakening the pride of people in the industries in which they are employed. There may be divisions of opinion about that. To the Labour Movement, it often appears that private industry, in some of the sections at least, is run entirely for the benefit of the individual body of shareholders; but, broadly speaking, it surely is a good thing that people in their employment should feel that they are doing something worth while, that they are expressing themselves in some way, that they are contributing to the communal good. I have many times denounced the expression, whenever an idea or proposal is put forward, of "selling" that idea. I think the phraseology is diabolical and destroys the purpose. What we have to do is to take an interest in the individual and show him, if we can, that whatever proposals are put forward are primarily concerned with him as an individual; are primarily intended to try to develop his characteristics and to enable him to give of his best. I think that is of prime importance, and I hope it will never be overlooked.

839
The structure of the scheme is, of course, one of establishment of industrial boards, and the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, has already drawn attention to the problem that that is going to place on somebody by way of defining the limits of industry. My noble friend Lord Williamson has already indicated the ramifications of the engineering industry. It runs, almost on a horizontal level, through nearly every kind of service in industry. But arbitrary decisions will have to be come to, as they are in these matters, and the general common sense and the ability to improvise that is characteristic of our nation will, I think, be able to produce a common-sense solution.
These boards are to be set up, apparently after consultation with the organisations functioning in the industry. That, of course, is all to the good. I think it can truly be said that, irrespective of the political colour of individual Governments, that has become a basic principle in the sphere of relations between industry and Government. I would just mention this, purely as an individual opinion: that I feel there might be some advantage if, in determining the personnel to function on the boards, the Minister did not confine himself entirely to representatives of the organisations of employers or workpeople. I think there is room here for the interposition of a public element, if I can so describe it; public people engaged in the social sphere, particularly in the educational sphere, who could give their guidance and the benefit of their experience to both sides.
I have one experience only to draw upon. When I was Chairman of the Miners' Welfare Committee—which, as your Lordships know, functioned under an Act of Parliament—I found the public members very progressive in every sense of the word. Time after time, when there was some reluctance because of tradition and conservatism (if I may so put it) on the part of the so-called practical people, we were induced to go one step further, and that step always proved, in my experience, to be a good one. So I hope that that point will be kept open. The Minister is not tied, according to the White Paper, to limiting himself to direct representatives of the employers and the trade unions, so
840
perhaps that aspect could be considered. Of course, the boards are bound to involve some overlapping, and I share the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, who spoke of the difficulties in avoiding this overlapping and doing repetitive training of the same classes of men.
I should like to make an observation on the noble Lord's suggestions in respect of this co-ordination. I regard co-ordination of this matter as absolutely essential to success. Unless there is, at the top and in the regions, some co-ordination (even assuming an industrial board system) there is bound to be waste and lack of drive. I do not rely in the slightest in this respect upon the individual officers who may be appointed as members of a board or working under its authority, because I know how difficult it is for an individual officer to maintain a view which is diametrically different from that of the Minister under whom he serves. Because of that it is necessary for any central authority that may be set up to co-ordinate (and no such plan is envisaged in the White Paper) to be independent of the Ministry. Without that co-ordination, and without that independence, I cannot see how this scheme will function.
It is implicit in the White Paper that such co-ordination as was necessary would be carried out by the Ministry of Labour. I do not know where the Ministry of Education will fit in in this programme; but I should regard a scheme where the co-ordination is placed exclusively in the hands of the Ministry of Labour as a regrettable one. There would have to be some measure of co-ordination between the educational aspects of this matter and also the ones which the Ministry of Labour are qualified to deal with. Therefore I hope that there will not be any hesitation about realising the need for central co-ordination by a body independent of the Ministries both at the national and at the area level. I have reason to think that this point has already been raised with the Minister and, for some reason that I do not understand, he has shown reluctance to admit that any co-ordination outside the Ministry of Labour is essential.
Having said that, I would say that I do not entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Williamson in respect of the

841
setting up of centres which would be entirely open to every class of worker. I have a feeling that they would get remote from the industries. It would not be related closely enough to the industries. It is a moot point. Such a system would have the benefit of simplification, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fleck; but I have a feeling that the principle of industrial boards is right, and I hope it will be approved by the organisations who are directly concerned. I gather that that is likely to be the position. But I sincerely hope there will be this measure of co-ordination with those industrial bodies. I do not know where the National Training Council is going to stand. Nowhere in the White Paper is it mentioned that that body will become redundant, but what function could it perform in this scheme unless it is made in some way the co-ordinating authority? I think we should receive a little light on that point.
There are one or two points of detail which I am glad to see in the scheme but which represent to me a very great departure. Many times from these Benches and from the Labour movement generally we have urged that planning without sanctions of some kind at the end is a long, arduous and not altogether successful role. I know that when I was Secretary of the T.U.C. and was continually being asked to evolve schemes for solving every problem under the sun, we were conscious in advance that, no matter how ideal the scheme or its proposals might be, it would not be carried into practice because there was no way by which it could be enforced. Therefore I welcome the proposal in the White Paper for the boards to have power to make a levy on the different firms and make suitable rebates where they are satisfied that the training is up to their standard. That is good; and I suppose, in the nature of things, there are precedents for it, because, unless the Conservative members have been converted from their basic beliefs, this power of compulsion is a new element, so far as I know. I hope there would not be hesitation to utilise this power if it became necessary.
I am puzzled, still, despite the answer of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, as to how the Ministry could impose a board upon an industry that did not want it. Without co-operation from the organisations in the industries, how could
842
the Ministry compel anybody to do anything? Certainly, the withholding of a grant from a particular firm would be an inducement. In that sense it is a measure of sanctions; but it is a very mild one compared with the sanctions that could be imposed if the boards were appointed in agreement with the representatives of the employers and trade unions. The Ministry must be prepared to meet reasonable objections to this machinery.
I should be the last person to suggest or provoke opposition to the basic principle of this scheme because I think it is a considerable step forward, but I have to remember the experience when the Whitley Council system was initiated. Then, the organised employers in several industries said: "Our system is better than this one. We do not want it." And trade unions and employers in leading industries, like the engineering industry, for instance, never had the Whitley Council system in operation. I think that their schemes were poorer than the Whitley Council conception; but, none the less, they did not want it. They wanted to go on their own road.
There may be features of this scheme which would not completely fit in with the conceptions of those in the industry. I am far from thinking that, because of that, the Government should do nothing about it; but at least the Minister should be ready to listen to alternatives and should not tie himself too rigidly to any scheme until he has had the opportunity of the full discussions which are necessary. I do not want these discussions to go to the point of procrastination. There is an art in industry of delaying decisions. When it comes to applying an increase in wages the employers, as a general rule, find it necessary to consult their constituents down to the lowest possible unit; and if there is any suggestion of any material change on the trade union side, the trade union representatives show the employers what novices they are in the art of procrastination. I do not want that kind of dilemma to arise in the setting up of these boards.
I should like to ask about the position in the nationalised industries. So far as my knowledge goes, all these industries have excellent schemes in operation, under statutory authority, now. Could we be told whether it is intended that the

843
nationalised industries should be brought within the ambit of the scheme or, having regard to their present statutory duties and the way they are being implemented, whether they would be regarded as already covered? I do not take up any position on this point: I merely ask the question.
In conclusion, I should like to say that this scheme will not bring in quickly a transformation in the methods of training in British industry. First of all, there is the legislative stage to go through; then there is the stage of consultation; and thirdly, there is the stage of administration. I have had some experience of the expedition with which legislation can be carried through, with a given majority in Parliament—quite quickly—but the next stage is invariably the harder. So I think that we should be wise to assume that there will not be any widespread transformation right across the face of industry for a long time to come. What I hope will happen is that a limited number of schemes and boards will be established, preferably in the industries which are fairly well organised now, but which may not from top to bottom have adequate schemes. And I hope that, arising from the experience of these boards, the principles and methods of operation (allowing for proper variations where they are needed) will spread across industry as a whole. I am quite sure that, given good will—and this is the vital thing for the prosperity of this nation and the standard of life of its people—all the obstacles that stand in the way can be surmounted.
5.53 p.m.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, I should like to add my humble thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, for giving us an opportunity to consider this vital question at such an opportune moment as to-day. In a debate on unemployment in your Lordships' House about four years ago, I ventured to make a few remarks on the subject of youth employment, and on that occasion I observed that the Industrial Training Council, which had just been established, was collecting information about the plans of industry for the training of young people. I was rash enough to add that the Council, which, as has already been said, is representative of the federations of
844
employers, trade unions and the nationalised industries, was not exactly built for speed and was constitutionally incapable of stripping for action.
I made certain suggestions as to how the education authorities might play a larger part in this business of training apprentices. The noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, who at that time was Chairman of the Industrial Training Council, and who spoke soon after me, received my sally with his usual courtesy and good humour and said that what I had had to say would certainly be considered at the next meeting of the Industrial Training Council. I do not suppose they did anything of the sort, but soon afterwards I found myself a member of the north-western regional committee of the Council. I do not suppose for a moment that this was a case of cause and effect, but it certainly put me on the spot at the time. Since then, I came increasingly to hold the view, and to express the view, that in the end something more than exhortation would be needed if, as a nation, we were to ensure that all those people who were capable of profiting from training for skilled occupations would in fact get that training. So I, too, should like to congratulate the Government on the proposal contained in the White Paper to take statutory power to get something moving at last in this field.
I am glad that it is proposed that industry should play a large part in the boards which the Government are planning to set up in tackling the job, for a solution to which the boards which are directly concerned in a problem have contributed is clearly going to be more acceptable to them than one that is imposed from outside. I welcome also the decision that, over and above the levy to be made on firms, certain financial help is to be given by the Government to these boards. It has always seemed to me to be wrong in principle that the standards of our industrial training arrangements should depend on the state of the national economy at any particular moment. But the point that I should like, above all, to stress is that in this matter there is really no time to lose. Already we have reached the peak of the so-called "bulge" in the number of people reaching school-leaving age, and valuable human material is already being wasted.

845
I know that it is no good dashing into action until we have our objectives clearly in view and that it is essential, when establishing the number of apprentices to be trained in any particular industry, first to have formed some estimate of the long-term requirements of that industry for craftsmen; but I believe that the greatest service we in this House, as leaders of informed opinion, can perform today is (if your Lordships will pardon the phrase) to get the Government cracking. In my view, any further consultation that is needed should be completed quickly, the legislation proposed in the White Paper should be enacted, and these boards set up as a matter of national urgency. Thereafter, the Government must satisfy themselves that the boards do in fact undertake the functions they will be empowered to perform. This means, among other things, that the Government must give the boards adequate help for that purpose.
I very much hope that industry will play its part in this matter. As one whose life is largely spent negotiating with the trade unions, I do not underestimate for a moment the complexities and difficulties of the task, but with the establishment of the levy, smaller employers will no longer have any reason for not training their share of apprentices, either directly or through group apprenticeship schemes. As for the trade unions themselves, there are certainly plenty of challenges for them set out in paragraph 10 of the White Paper.
Subparagraph (1) refers to the question of admission to apprenticeship or otherwise, and this seems to me to be the nearest that the White Paper comes to having anything to say on the subject of adult training or retraining. I was glad to hear what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House had to say on this subject, and of the Government's decision to press ahead with their plans for training centres in Scotland and the North-East. The noble Viscount asked for the support of public opinion in this, and I certainly hope that he gets it.
Subparagraph (4) of paragraph 10 deals with
"Devising tests to be taken by apprentices and other trainees on completion of training and, if necessary, at intermediate stages …".
I believe this to be an important point in the proposals.
846
To revert to subparagraph (1)—some reference has already been made to this—it deals with the question of the length of training. I am not a technician, but I know that if to-day you ask any competent engineer in a well-run factory how long he thinks the training of an apprentice fitter or electrician should take, he will tell you it should not be more than three years. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Fleck, as it seemed to me, support that view. At the very least, it seems to me that if apprenticeships are to continue to last for as long as five years, then the time spent in full-time education should go towards that period.
Alternatively, we ought to be training people on the American pattern, so that they are capable of performing any one of a number of trades. Of course, it is no good training people for a variety of trades if then they are not able to move from one trade to another when the occasion demands. It seems to me to follow that the craft unions should cease to place unreasonable restrictions on the number of apprentices to be trained, on the number of occupations for which they are trained, and on the type of work they may undertake once they are trained. These, I know, are tall orders, and they seem to me to constitute in themselves a powerful argument why the National Economic Development Council needs urgently to devise a generally agreed policy for incomes and economic growth which will enable industry to operate consistently under conditions of full employment. These matters also seem to me to highlight, if I may say so with due respect to the noble Lords, Lord Williamson and Lord Citrine, the need for radical changes in the organisation and structure of British trade unionism. In this connection, I think we should congratulate the boilermakers and the shipwrights on having recently joined forces in a way which should bring considerable benefits to the shipbuilding industry. We should also give all the encouragement we can to enlightened and progressive trade union leaders, like Mr. Woodcock, in the steps they are courageously taking in the same direction.
If the unions are to give up these restrictive practices in the field of industrial training, I believe that employers, too, must be prepared to strike a financial bargain with them, on the lines of that which has already been made by the Esso

847
Oil Company. The essential point, surely, is that any intelligent, patriotic and impartial observer can see that these are things which need to be altered; and if they cannot be altered quickly, with the willing agreement of the parties concerned in industry, then it seems to me that the Government must not shrink from seeing that they are altered in some other way. The time has come to make sure that, one way or another, the nation gets the skilled manpower it will need in the future. For it is this skill which is still our greatest industrial asset, and it is there for us to exploit, if only we have the will. The Times has a leading article this morning, which many of your Lordships will have read, entitled, "The Tide will not wait". It seems to me that the conclusion reached in this article is the right one, which is:
"The crisis inherent in the political and economic situation of Britain is a moral one."
Let it not be said of us, as it was said of the slothful and unprofitable servant, that we were afraid and we went and hid our talents in the earth.
6.7 p.m.
LORD NETHERTHORPE: My Lords, I, too, welcome the White Paper, and the debate that is taking place this afternoon, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, for introducing it. Thus far, at any rate, the debate has been authoritative and has indicated a real consciousness on the part of noble Lords in this House of the critical problem of industrial training. Perhaps the biggest danger facing this country on the economic front to-day is wishful thinking, especially when wishful thinking is blinding us to the economic facts of life. No treaty, whether it be of Rome or any other association of nations, can be a substitute for the vital and urgent need to achieve the most effective use of our total national resources.
Outside the vast production potential of the nation's total employable population our natural resources are somewhat limited—limited, indeed, to around 20 per cent. of our raw materials used in industry, and to the productive capacity of our soil, yielding something like 50 per cent.-plus of the food we need to sustain the 52 million people in the United Kingdom on a sound and varied diet. That is why exports are essential to sur-
848
vival, let alone solvency. Foreign exchange just has to be earned in a highly competitive world in order to pay for the raw materials needed to keep the wheels of industry turning and to buy the balance of the food we must still import. Thereafter, and only thereafter, any favourable balance of payments derived from earnings in excess of these requisites conditions our capacity to play a fuller role in the world, whether it be reflected in aid to developing countries, or sustaining the strength of the pound as an international currency, or in exerting influence for good, based on strength, in international politics.
The challenge of our time is, therefore, in winning and holding markets for our exportable products, be they goods or services, which contain the maximum content of skilled—and I emphasise "skilled"—human endeavour and the minimum content of imported raw materials and unskilled labour. Skills of the nature so demanded can be acquired only by training. Fundamental and applied research represents the essential basis for technological progress and development, and the equipment for these pursuits can come only from our universities and colleges. It is, however, in the development and practical application of new processes and techniques that the real fruits of research can accrue. It is in this broader field that the necessary human skills must be moulded fully to exploit and harness the creative genius of those in research and development. The more the developing countries seek to utilise domestically indigenous raw materials and manpower by fostering their own secondary industries, the more an erstwhile exporter has to find new and more sophisticated products to meet the demands, stimulating either a new demand in the developing countries, or competing on quality or novelty in an already sophisticated market.
For all these reasons, therefore, there was never a greater need for us to be equipped to meet the challenge: more research and development springing from our universities and research establishments, and then a highly-trained management and artisan class to exploit fully the inherent potential therefrom. It is against this background, and as Chairman of the British Productivity Council in National Productivity Year, that I support strongly the advocacy of the noble Lord for the

849
need for dynamic progress in the general field of industrial training.
I should like to speak, however, on a particular facet, that of training for agriculture. Agriculture needs men of versatility, with initiative and experience, to deal with the problems as they arise, since farm workers are often working alone. Even so, modern agriculture is technically a rapidly advancing industry, using complicated machinery, complex chemicals and highly intensive and specialised methods of livestock production. The level of training and skill now required is therefore certainly no less than is required in industry. Indeed, with its wide dispersal of many small units the problems of training in agriculture are even greater. Out of 340,000 farms in England and Wales, 21,000 have no workers other than the farmer himself; 70,000 have only one worker besides the farmer, whilst only 14,000 have four workers or more. Organised training within a single farm unit is therefore virtually impossible either through the lack of numbers of trainees, or through the lack of aptitude for instruction by the farmer himself.
Despite the drift from the land, hitherto most entrants to agriculture have been of country stock, nurtured in country lore and a variety of rural crafts. To-day, technology has gained precedence over craft, and urban entrants now willing to move in require even better and more concentrated training to equip them. Although progress has been made, there is certainly no room for complacency. Against the background of an annual intake of 20,000 workers into agriculture per year, only 2,500 are currently attending full-time courses at some 33 farming institutes, 1,150 are currently attending full time courses at agricultural colleges, and 1,600 are agricultural students at our universities. Just under 6,000 of our young people are taking day-release classes, of whom 900 are serving a three-year apprenticeship. Formal training in agriculture is therefore the exception rather than the rule, though positive progress is indicated in the figures I have just quoted.
Under the Agricultural Apprenticeship Council, established barely a decade ago, and sponsored by the farm organisations of both employers and employees, an
850
apprenticeship with proficiency tests is now established and, I am glad to say, growing. The need, however—and it is an urgent need—is for more willing and able training farmers, those who will undertake to have with them an apprentice and have the aptitude to train him. There exists on the part of many farmers a natural reluctance to undertake the training, bearing all the costs inherent in so doing, and then to risk losing the trained apprentice for the benefit of some other employer. I would here draw the distinction between agriculture and industry, where there is usually a pool of apprentices. The loss of one out of a pool may not be as severe a loss as one out of a very small number of employees, as would be the case in agriculture if an apprentice were lost in that way.
Further finance is required—and it is required urgently—to promote the agricultural apprenticeship scheme and to speed up its expansion. It is gratifying that day release has gone up from 3,000 to 6,000 in four years, despite transport problems and the fact that often the one boy may well represent half the farmer's labour force. Here I have to say that, by comparison with block release, day release in agriculture often proves to be the only practicable means of ensuring a measure of training at all. It is claimed that agricultural productivity in Western Germany is rising faster than it is here, Granted. I would say, however, with emphasis, that there is more leeway to make up. Even so, they claim to have no fewer than 36,000 farm apprentices, and even farmers' own sons are required to undertake training on someone else's farm. No longer can we afford the untrained, whether they be farmers' sons or employees.
The White Paper on Industrial Training displays creative thinking and contains certainly novel proposals. I should say that no industry needs a training board more than agriculture does. While the method of collecting the levy may raise some problems, the principle is surely right. The application may present difficulties and will need to be worked out with care, just as noble Lords this afternoon have indicated that for industry, too, there will be complications. But I am sure that, given goodwill, no problem in this context is insurmountable. The training boards' activities must, in my view, be co-ordinated with those

851
of the local education authorities, and certainly supplement rather than replace their present activities.
May I, therefore, conclude where I began, by repeating that we must ensure the most effective use of our total national resources? The higher the level of productivity in agriculture, the lower, in the ultimate, will be the unit cost of its products. If, therefore, our domestic industrial out-turn, be it for human consumption or export, is to carry the highest content of skilled human effort and the minimum of imported raw materials, then agriculture has a most critical part to play, on the one hand, in making the food content of that human effort cost as little as may be, through progressive efficiency in both production and distribution; and, on the other hand, by using that natural resource, the land of this country, to the most productive national advantage. And training is the key to the full exploitation of that advantage. No effort, therefore, should be spared to give every possible aid and encouragement to stimulating changes for the better in industrial training, and I am happy to support the worthy objective of the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, and to thank him for so ably ventilating this critically important subject.
6.21 p.m.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I echo the words of previous speakers in thanking my noble friend Lord Eccles for the initiative he has shown in putting this Motion on the Paper to-day. I think we have had a very interesting and valuable debate at a very high level with two ex-Ministers of Education taking part, and it is with some temerity that I rise to my feet. Nevertheless, I am emboldened to make a brief intervention because for many years, as production director of a company with which I am associated, I have as part of my duties taken a close interest in, and have considerable practical experience of, training schemes of every kind, for management trainees, for supervisory staff and for operatives both male and female. The only training scheme of which I have had no experience, and of which therefore there will be no reference in the few remarks I am going to make, is that for apprentices.
For many years I have been a member of the Council of the Industrial Welfare
852
Society, and for some years past have been privileged to sit on the executive council of that body. Although my practical experience has been confined to the factories for which I was responsible—although these were not by any means all in the tobacco industry—on the other hand, I have learned much from my association with the Industrial Welfare Society, which, as your Lordships will know, covers the whole field of industry and has always concerned itself with training and education, with emphasis on the importance of human relations at work, a factor to which the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, so eloquently referred in his speech.
The White Paper (Cmnd. 1892) is entitled Industrial Training…, but in fact, refers both to training and to education, and I do not think it sufficiently differentiates between these two things. Unless one does differentiate, I submit it is not very easy to chart the best course to follow in order to stimulate wider interests in either or both or to provoke further action as a matter of urgency, which I think is the objective of us all. I define education as the inculcation of knowledge, general or particular, and I define training as the teaching of how to apply that knowledge in whatever job one has to do. Industrialists, or anybody for that matter who is an employer, employ men and women who have already received education to a greater or lesser extent, and the employer's job is then to train these people in the job for which they are employed. Further education may well be necessary; in fact it will be necessary in a great many cases, notably for professional men such as engineers, scientists and accountants and also for the supervisory staff, to which I shall refer later. Night classes, technical colleges, commercial colleges, adult education centres and courses provided by voluntary bodies such as the industrial Welfare Society exist to provide this further education; and there are probably, so far as I can judge, about 200 such organisations working in this field. Whether they are sufficient and whether they are used enough is another matter.
First of all, I should like to speak about training, the responsibility for which, in my view, lies fairly and

853
squarely on the shoulders of management, because in my experience it must be done on the job. Training in industry, as indeed in any other walk of life, needs leadership and this is what management must give. Of course, management has to give leadership to many other aspects of any enterprise, but I submit that the question really before us to-day is this: is management as a whole giving adequate leadership in this important matter of training and, if not, how can they best be helped or spurred on to do so? Of course, the necessary leadership must come from every level of management, which brings me to what I believe to be one of the most vital factors in this matter: the training of supervisors and, in particular, training them to train their subordinates. What this means is admirably described in the Report of the Committee set up by the Ministry of Labour in April, 1961. Their Report, generally known as the Barnes Report, was published just a year later in April, 1962. I think this is an excellent Report and one which every industrialist should study.
I have seen it stated—I think in the Barnes Report—that there are some 500,000 supervisors in industry of which few have received any formal training. Upon the face of it it is a pretty bad state of affairs, but in fact it is not quite as bad as it appears because I think that most firms practice promotion from within and therefore their supervisors, or the majority of them, have received some form of training, sometimes quite a lot, before they take up the job. But what is undoubtedly needed for these people is further training and education in their responsibility for training the people working under them. Over the years I have conceived a very great admiration or the foremen and forewomen, the chargehands and chargewomen I have met in industry. They are the salt of the earth—the petty officers, the N.C.O.s of industry, if you like. Sometimes their importance to management is not sufficiently realised and therefore the importance of giving the men training is not sufficiently realised. In this matter of training the supervisory staff it is my view that these people hold, if not the key, at least a very important key towards improving the general standard of training and performance in industry, and it
854
is they who need not only help from their senior managements but possibly Goverment action to stimulate action by industry itself. If we get our leadership right, particularly at the supervisory level, I think we shall find that the rest will follow as surely as night follows day.
What should be done? I have given very careful consideration to the Training Bill proposed in the White Paper, and I must say at once that I do not think the conglomeration of training boards described therein will be really effective. I made such research as I could and arrived at the figure of 77 for different industries; but the noble Lord, Lord Fleck, in his most interesting speech gave the figure, I think, from an excellent source, as 152. Whatever the number be, I think it will prove extremely difficult, wellnigh impossible, to find qualified people, not so much to sit as board members but to provide the officers of these boards. My own feeling is that it would be very difficult to find adequate staff for half a dozen such boards. I personally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Fleck, who indicated a preference for regional boards.
All the larger units in industry have their own training schemes. They also pay great attention to education. No doubt some are better than others, and sonic, inadequate; but a great deal more is being done in this field than is generally realised, or than one might have thought from some of the speeches made this afternoon. It is the smaller firms that need the help, but even among them the majority realise the need. That is my experience. The position is that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak; in other words they have not the financial resources or the staff.
What should we do to help them in this position?—and I must say that I do not think the problem can be solved by "widespread changes in industrial training", to quote the Motion. The noble Lord, Lord Fleck, referred to this wording and said that it did not mean revolution. I agree. I think that changes may be necessary; improvements are certainly necessary. But the real problem is to stimulate and maintain interest, and to spur it on. I believe that in many respects, and in some very important respects, this is a question of publicity,

855
though I think a better word which is very prevalent in industry to-day is "communication"—communication up and down the line. We hear a great deal about that, and I think we want improved communication in this matter of industrial training.
I suggest that there are two steps which could be taken immediately without great cost. First, I believe that the Industrial Training Council, of which my noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton is President—
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: I am not the President now.
LORD AMPTHILL:—was such a distinguished President, should be given more "teeth", so that it can make more impact on industry than it has been able to do hitherto. I think it has made great impact on industry in the matter of apprenticeship training, but in other respects, as I believe one noble Lord on the opposite Benches said, it has been hamstrung. The second step which I think we should take is to strengthen the Training Within Industry section, generally known as T.W.I., in the Ministry of Labour, which was very successful in its early days but is now suffering, I believe, from depleted staff, due to some economy drive a few years ago. Many of the best men who worked in T.W.I. in the Ministry of Labour are now, in fact, in senior training positions in industry.
I think that the Ministry of Labour should be allowed to recruit sufficient skilled personnel to produce three or four teams at least—possibly more—with the idea that each team should concentrate on one particular area or region for, say, six months at a time. These teams should not be allowed to dissipate their efforts over the whole country, or a whole industry. They should go into a certain area rather as what I would call T.W.I. commandos and concentrate on that particular region. In their work, in my opinion, these commandos should give the highest priority to this important question of selection and training of supervisors based on that excellent Barnes Report.
Furthermore, my Lords, I believe that greater use can be made of trade associations to "spread the gospel". I have one or two friends who are directors of
856
trade associations. One who dined with me last night is a director of a most important heavy industry trade association based mainly on the North-East coast; and after talking to him and consulting with him, I am convinced that a trade association can do a great deal to put across this need for training and education. I suggest that one of the first tasks of the strengthened or reinforced Industrial Training Council should be to enlist the aid of, to make a dead set at, these trade associations. The members of a trade association know that it is their own "show", and they listen to what their directorate has to say. Even more important, they read the occasional bulletins of information which their trade association send out. Moreover, in the constituent firms of a trade association it is the top people who read these things. As many of your Lordships will know, all senior management in industry have far too much outside paper coming on to their desks. If they have too much inside paper it is their own fault because that is within their own control; but outside paper is not. It pours in. If they want to get out and about, and get to their factories or see their clients, as they should, there is only one thing to do and that is what I do—put it in the wastepaper basket.
Trade associations could also be asked to draw the attention of their members to the facilities available for further industrial education as provided by the technical and commercial colleges and the voluntary organisations, such as the British Institute of Management, the Industrial Welfare Society, and others. I will not waste your Lordships' time by mentioning their names, but they will all be found in Appendix B of the Barnes Report. Lastly, on the subject of trade associations, surely they are in the best position to assess, or to get that assistance which is necessary to assess, the facilities best suited to their members' requirements and best located geographically.
My Lords, the subject of industrial training and education is a very wide one indeed. It is one in which, as I know, from my own experience, the majority of industrialists take a close interest. I should like to tell your Lordships in far more detail some of the practical problems and how some of these have been solved; of the successes and failures and of the beneficial results which flow from

857
close attention by management to this matter; but I must not detain your Lordships any longer. Before I resume my seat, however, I should like to pay a tribute to what, in my experience, has been the most helpful attitude of many trade unions which I have come across. I am sure that much remains to be done, by both managements and trade unions, and also by the Government—I think we shall all admit that. But to help us all, and in particular to help the small firms, I am sure it would be wiser, cheaper and quicker—and speed is the essence of this contract—to build on and to improve the existing organisations, rather than to create the new and, as I think, top-heavy organisation set out in the White Paper.
6.41 p.m.
LORD TODD: My Lords, like earlier speakers to-day I greatly welcome the Motion which was put down by the noble Lord, Lord Eccles. I share his conviction that widespread changes are needed in industrial training, and I intervene in the debate only to draw attention to one aspect of this problem, to wit the question of supply and training of technicians. I think it has been generally agreed (this is a point which I think the noble Lord, Lord Netherthorpe, made) that progress in industry to-day is determined to a quite substantial extent by advances in science and technology. For this reason there has for a number of years been considerable interest, even considerable agitation, about our shortage of scientists and technologists, and a number of steps have been taken to try to meet our requirements. But much less attention has been paid to the problem of our shortage of technicians. Yet it is the technician, and only the technician, who can translate into practical results in industry the researches of the scientist and technologist. The craftsman alone cannot fill the gap, and unless we have a proper supply of well-qualified technicians we shall simply continue to waste as we do now, a good deal of the time of fully-qualified scientists and technologists on performing operations which would be more appropriate to, and as a rule better carried out by, people with lower academic qualifications.
I suppose the lack of appreciation of the need of the country at the present time is due to the fact that, save in a few industries like the chemical industry, electrical engineering and telecommunications, recognition of the technician as a distinct
858
type is fairly new and the scarcity has not become apparent until recently. Of course one may quite properly ask for a definition of a "technician". It is not easy to give a short and concise definition because of the wide variation in functions and skills in different industries. But, generally speaking, the technician, as I understand the term, means a man who stands between the scientist and technologist, on the one hand, and the craftsman or operator, on the other. He can apply, in a responsible manner under professional direction, the proven techniques which are normally employed by experts in such fields as research and development, design, maintenance and so on; and he must have not merely a high degree of skill, but a degree of education and training which will enable him not only to perform but to understand the reasons for, and the purpose of, the various operations.
This means, since such people are going to play a large part in any effort we make to increase our productivity, that we have to face up to the need for educating a considerable number of people technically to a much higher level than we have done in the past. I cannot give any precise estimate of the numbers of technicians that are required. The only data on this subject are found in a short report on a small sample survey made by the Ministry of Labour in 1960. That survey covered only firms in the chemical, metal goods and general engineering industries. But the finding there was that about four technicians are employed in industry for every one qualified scientist or technologist. Of course it may be that some of the other industries which were not examined might employ a lesser proportion of technologists, but it is pretty certain that, overall in industry, the number of technologists employed to-day is less than it ought to be. And, in any case, even taking the figures quoted, when you remember that according to the latest census there are about 200,000 qualified scientists and technologists economically active in areas where technicians are involved, you can understand that the number of technicians we want is pretty considerable.
By and large, the majority of the technicians in industry to-day are simply promoted craftsmen, and most of them

859
have followed no systematic course of educational training to fit them for the work which they now undertake. Even in the engineering industry, where the technician has been known and recognised for a considerable time, the qualifications of technicians, where they have any, are exceedingly variable. This, I think, is because the traditional method of producing both craftsmen and technicians in this country has been the apprenticeship system. To my mind, there is no doubt at all but that the apprenticeship system needs a complete overhaul. If the noble Lord, Lord Fleck, was not quite so blunt as to say that, I think he nevertheless had much the same idea in mind. An overhaul of this type will demand joint action by the employers, the trade unions and to my mind the technical colleges. I know, and I am glad to know, that some action on these lines is being taken. But I should like to feel that the people concerned are treating this matter with the urgency it deserves.
I am afraid that, even to-day—there is a hint of it in the White Paper that has been mentioned, and in some of the speeches we have heard to-day—in discussing the education of technicians, people are inclined to think of it as a part of craft training. The educational requirements of the technician and the craftsman are not the same, and I think that part of our trouble is due to our consistent failure to recognise this fact. I think that if we seek to continue the equation of the technician's training with the craftsman's training, the best we can hope for is that we shall finish up with an apprenticeship system which presents too high an intellectual hurdle for the craftsman, and is still no use at all for the training of technicians.
For this reason, I greatly welcome the White Paper (Cmnd. 1892), which has been mentioned several times to-day, because we need some move in the general direction that it lays down. In the last year or two there have, of course, been a number of suggested variations in the courses for technicians. These are of a rather experimental character, but no doubt we shall learn a good deal from them. But the success of these experimental courses, or indeed of any course, will depend largely on the
860
employers, because it is only employers who can secure the release of young people in industry to attend training courses.
On this matter of training courses, I confess that I have a kind of preference for block release rather than day release, particularly in the first two or three years of employment. I must try to keep an open mind on this matter, because I admit that my preference for block release rests largely on impressions I have gained over the years of the way in which students at university level react to various types of courses. I expect that they are no different from any other young people. Quite apart from personal preference, in the year 1961–62, as the noble Lord, Lord Fleck, has said, the number of boys between 15 and 18 in employment in this country who were obtaining day release represented a proportion of only 1 in 3, and as to girls only 1 in 10. This suggests to me that a good deal more could be done than has been done up to the present time.
If we have the kind of action taken that is suggested in the Ministry of Labour's White Paper, I hope that we may see some kind of uniformity in our approach to the training of technicians. That uniformity will be rather difficult, although I think it can be achieved because the recognition of functions and ranges of skill of technicians varies enormously not only between different industries but even between firms in the same industry. There are, indeed, firms who seem to have failed to realise even yet that there is any need for training of technicians outside their own operations.
These are matters which have been of great concern not merely to me personally, but also to the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, of which I have the honour to be Chairman. As your Lordships will know, that Council has a Committee on Scientific Manpower which over the years has produced a series of reports on the supply of, and demand for, scientific manpower. We have recently asked our Committee to undertake a survey on similar lines on the whole question of the supply and demand in the field of technicians. This inquiry will, I think for the first time, seek to delimit the magnitude of the technician problem in

861
this country; and I hope that, in addition, it may uncover some basis for a coherent educational approach, which I think is necessary. The danger at the moment in regard to technicians is that of proceeding to a piecemeal solution, industry by industry—a solution which will almost certainly end in the development of a multiplicity of courses, each far too narrowly based to meet the needs of ever-changing, flexible industry to-day.
I hope, too, my Lords, that if we secure a good, general approach to this problem of the education of technicians (and the White Paper will help us on this), we may also see, as a result, the vocation of technician given the status and recognition which it deserves. I should like to see the vocation of technician recognised in such a way as to make it appeal as a career for thousands of our young people leaving school every year. And it should appeal, because it is a career—or, if you like, a vocation—of great importance, one which can provide young people with a job full of both interest and stimulus.
6.55 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, to-day has been a notable day indeed, and I think that your Lordships have, in the way that the Press occasionally likes to suggest, really justified yourselves by the very high quality of the speeches. I particularly enjoyed the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Eccles. I have noticed among ex-Ministers of Defence and such like subjects a reformed character: they are more critical of the Government. But in the case of Lord Eccles, I think the wisdom he acquired at the Ministry of Education has enabled him to give a really distinct and creative approach to this problem. I am only sorry that the other ex-Minister of Education, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is still in the Government and therefore tied to this rather, I will not say "tatty" piece of paper, but let us call it, as Lord Fleck did, coat-trailing document. He failed to trail his coat very far, and was determined, so far as I could tell, to confine the debate to the subject of the training of craftsmen. He mentioned managers and a number of other people he would have liked to talk about who he said were important, but the only thing he said that was constructive in this discussion was concerned with craftsmen.
862
It is quite clear that a debate of this kind, as with all our debates on industrial affairs—or, for that matter, on foreign affairs—touches all sides of national life, but I think we have succeeded in keeping pretty close to the subject of the Motion—even though Lord Hailsham carved out an even smaller patch within that Motion for himself. Clearly, we could have discussed, because it is germane to this topic, the whole structure of industry—the trade union structure, problems of industrial co-operation, and so on; and it is quite obvious, as I am sure we should all agree, that any really effective approach to improved training, particularly retraining, presupposes a state of full employment. I am not getting at the Government particularly at the moment when I say that obviously the circumstances that prevail to-day make it a little more difficult to persuade the trade unions to face up to problems of dilution, and so on.
We have to accept the fact that there will be a vast amount of technological change which might lead to technological unemployment. When we look at the new industries that have been created in the last 50 years—and I need not mention them because they will immediately spring to your Lordships' minds—and think of what is likely to come about in the next 50 years, the problem in regard to training at the operative level (and in saying "operative" I am including the so-called unskilled worker and the so-called skilled worker or craftsman—and we probably ought to include Lord Todd's technician, although I suspect technicians are a specialised problem) is obvious. My main criticism of this particular White Paper is that it tends to narrow the consideration: it isolates the craftsman. Although it is skilfully ambiguous enough to avoid relating its remarks only to apprentices—it says "and other trainees"—the emphasis seems to be mainly on industrial skilled workers. Having listened carefully to practically the whole of this debate—in which, I again emphasise, I was gratified to find how much the initial forward-looking approach of Lord Eccles's speech was sustained throughout the debate, and in which the House of Lords was really feeling its way into the future—I have a fear that we may be tackling this question in the wrong way by thinking primarily in terms of craft skills.

863
My Lords, I would agree that the exercise the Government are doing and which we have gone through is useful, but the old dividing lines are no longer valid and, of course, in some industries they scarcely exist at all. Nor would it be true to say that there are no skills in industries which some people regard as unskilled. I admit that this is again a problem of the definition of industry. I am not sure whether that includes agriculture; I suspect that it certainly does not include the distributive trades. But I do not think that we can look at this without looking at the whole field of industry and commerce and, indeed, at all those activities outside direct Government services that add up to the total of the national product.
There are in fact great skills in some of these other trades. It takes a good deal of training, for example, to make a good shop assistant. A good shop assistant has to know a great deal about merchandise and has to be trained in a number of things. And indeed in the retail trade, for example, there is a very good Retail Training Council. There is a certain amount of day release, and there are standards of proficiency for the national retail certificates, yet the painful fact is that only something like 14 per cent. of young people in the retail trade are going for day release, let alone block release for which so much preference has been expressed. I think that in the long run we ought to look at this nationally, however much the Government and we to-day have thought in terms of craftsmen, apprentices and manufacturing industry.
My Lords, I should now like to turn to this question of the boards and how they will be set up. In particular, I would reiterate the question which somebody (I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Eccles) asked the noble Viscount as to how tough the Government would be in setting up these boards. To some extent the model is the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, which was passed when the noble Viscount was in another place, in 1946–47. There powers were taken to set up development councils, provided that in the opinion of the Minister a sufficient number of people in the industry thought there was a demand for a development council. They had considerable powers;
864
indeed, powers to develop training and to make levies. I remember some of the violent discussion that went on against this gross interference with private enterprise. It is interesting to see how far we have come from those days. But what is absolutely true—and the critics were right—is that you cannot impose this.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, that it will not be possible to impose these boards with powers to collect levies which will be regarded as punitive, unless the particular industry—however that may be defined, and we certainly have been given no clue as to how you define an industry—wants it. The fact that there will be a carrot in that certain firms in an industry will get the levies paid back to them does not seem to me to meet the case sufficiently. I understand the Government are thinking in terms of direct grants. I would urge that it would surely be better for the Government to accept the responsibility of government in this matter, and not to transfer their taxing powers to subordinate bodies.
I think one of the values of this debate is that we are still following out ideas. I know that any Government spokesman clearly cannot say more than what represents Government policy at the moment, but the rest of us can at least float our ideas. Might it not be better that the responsibility for financing training should rest with the Government? If they wish to make a direct charge on industry, I would suggest one method—though it may not be popular on either side of the House; that is, that they should revive the idea of that seriously misconceived tax, the payroll tax. The Government introduced the payroll tax under the impression that it would be a short-term economic regulator. How they did this, and how they believed this, it is quite impossible to tell, because it is not a short-term economic regulator. But in so far as we wish to get greater efficiency, and to provide incentives to the better use of manpower, I am sure that in all our planning we must plan on the basis that any Government will maintain full employment. This then would seem to be a much easier and more painless way—indeed, I would say a much more proper way—to collect this money. Thereafter the Government, either from that fund

865
(I know that they do not like hypothecated taxes), or from direct taxation, would pay broadly for the training that is done in the industry.
My Lords, here I should like to suggest, as other noble Lords have done, that this should not be primarily the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour. There is much to be said for regarding this as an extension of the education system. There are other examples in other countries to suggest that this would be a rather honourable precedent, and surely industrial training, in the terms of this White Paper—in terms of first-year and apprenticeship training—grows out of the education system. It is extraordinarily difficult to distinguish between vocational and non-vocational training. All vocational training departments are consciously doing a lot of what many people would call non-vocational training, because, as with all general education, it has a relationship to the subsequent vocation of the particular individual.
There have been certain other criticisms of the narrowness of the Government's proposals. I would endorse the suggestion made by other noble Lords, that there is a need for some form of co-ordinating body. I do not think it ought to be done by the Ministry of Labour; and I doubt whether the Ministry of Education will be allowed to do it. I would therefore suggest that there should be some sort of national co-ordinating vocational training body. I think this should be a Government body, and I should like to keep the Industrial Training Council playing the extremely useful sort of rôle that it is doing now—supported by the Government, but not simply a Government agent. It may well be that it should be combined with this Government body, but I think there is a good deal to be said for its playing this particular rôle.
Here, my Lords, I should like to turn to an actual example of another country—Sweden. There has been some reference to other countries, and some of your Lordships will have seen the article in the current Economist quoting from Lady Williams's book on vocational training and industrial training in other countries. It is interesting to see how far they have gone in a country like Sweden. They have clearly had one big advantage. They have had a much simpler pattern of
866
industry, and they have had industrial trade unions, rather than a mixture of craft and other types of trade unions. We need not go into the merits of this, but clearly it is going to simplify any industrial approach. I personally am in favour of the industrial board. But it seems to me that if we are to make the industrial board work, as opposed to the area board or the other approach, it can be done only on a national scale; otherwise we shall be continually confronted over the whole of the rest of industry with this problem of who trains the electricians. In Sweden they have precisely this sort of pattern. They have the Industrial Joint Trade Committee, representing both trade unions and employers, which operates at industry level. Above that, they have a Joint Vocational Training Council (and the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, is probably very familiar with this) which is not so very different from our own Industrial Training Council. Then, in addition, there is the Civil Service Department, the National Swedish Board of Vocational Education.
My Lords, firms who already carry out their own training, their own apprenticeship and their own craft or other training are, in fact, paid for their contribution in these training schools, and it seems to me that this would be an easier way to operate this scheme than the rather strange mixture of carrot and implied stick—and the Government have yet to show that they have a stick which will be effective against a possibly reluctant industry. Furthermore, I suggest that this approach would make it very much easier to achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Fleck, wants to achieve; that is, flexibility in these fields where there is new development as between the existing disciplines in the sciences and industry.
My Lords, the debate has gone on for quite a long time. I shall not say more, apart from a word on the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. He had some fine words, and some sympathetic words, to say about the miners and their right to be retrained. There is not time now to go into the question of retraining, but I do not think these fine words, or the intentions of the Government (and I am quite sure that the Government have a number of views, which they have

867
been too careful to put into their White Paper, for fear of treading on toes), will get very far by a piecemeal and an unadventurous approach. I am quite sure that we need a more fundamental approach than has yet been shown; and if they did come out with a strong initiative in this way, I think there would be much more chance of overcoming the difficulties which they fear from both employers and trade unions.
7.14 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I would very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, when he said that this had been a very remarkable debate, very constructive and well-informed. I would agree, too, with what all the other speakers have said, when they thanked my noble friend Lord Eccles for putting this Motion down. Not only has he made a most notable contribution to the debate, but his Motion has enabled many of your Lordships with a lifetime of experience of industrial training to make speeches which will be of great value to my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour in forming his plans for the next step forward.
I hope your Lordships will acquit me of any discourtesy if I do not mention every speech that has been made this afternoon, because, alas! my Lords, unlike those who have taken part in the debate, I am navigating in what to me are rather uncharted waters, and I speak this evening with considerable diffidence. But it so happens that when, unlike this afternoon, sailing under my true colours, the White Ensign, I can justly claim to represent a Department with a very good record of achievement in the matters which we have been discussing. We are good employers. Not only do we operate, and have been operating for a very long time, a comprehensive apprentice training scheme for civilians who come into the Admiralty service, but we also undertake a very large programme of Royal Naval apprentice training. On the civilian side, the number of apprentices entered annually is more than 1,300, and they are encouraged to follow courses at schools and technical colleges which lead to the City and Guilds and National Certificate examinations. We
868
want everybody serving an apprenticeship to attend a school or technical college for at least two years.
As for the naval side, about 700 craftsmen annually leave the Navy at ages when they still have a long working life in front of them, and they contribute greatly to the skills which are so necessary in civilian life. Perhaps I might be allowed just one more boast before I turn to the subject proper of this debate, and that is to say that one of the great difficulties in the Royal Navy to-day is the temptation placed before our trained men by civilian employers who know that the training to be had in the Navy is unmatched in the civilian world.
Perhaps, too, I might just be allowed to say how much I agree with what my noble friend Lord Netherthorpe said, about how badly we need a training board in the agricultural industry—an industry in which he and I are both vitally interested.
My Lords, many things have been said in the course of the debate about the inadequacy of our present industrial training methods, but about one thing there has been and can be absolutely no disagreement in any quarter of the House. Everyone agrees that if we are to maintain and improve our position in an increasingly competitive world, we must increase our supply of skilled labour—and, so far as I can judge, the only way that this can be done is by training. It is an interesting fact that ever since the war, except for a very few short periods, the country has been chronically short of skilled workers. To take but one example, in September, 1961, when demand was high but not as high as it had been, there were vacancies for skilled men in engineering alone exceeding skilled men unemployed by more than 20,000; and even last September the figure was over 6,000.
Not only must we increase the amount of training: we must also increase the quality of training. Like my noble friend the Leader of the House, I find it extraordinary that the only essential condition for the successful completion of a craft apprenticeship in this country is to have "served time". The period of time has no relation to the amount of time actually needed to train, or to the amount of time which was used for training. Of course,

869
that does not mean that all the training given is bad: some of it is very good indeed, but it does not necessarily follow. There should be some way of testing the adequacy of the training given and received, and a means of ensuring that the training is given according to a properly detailed syllabus. The City and Guilds of London Institute and the technical colleges have certainly helped to raise standards. So have the specialist education and training officers appointed by many firms—though I do not think there are nearly enough of them. The Training Advisory Service of the Industrial Training Council is also doing invaluable work in helping firms to raise the standards of training; and a further impetus to good training has been the spread of group training schemes, which the noble Lord, Lord Fleck, mentioned, though I think he had some qualifications about them. These schemes have been particularly valuable in enabling the small or specialised firm to undertake training which the firm, by relying on its own resources, would have been unable to contemplate.
A typical group consists of a dozen or more smaller firms employing altogether about 30 apprentices under the control of a group training officer who supervises their progress according to a detailed syllabus. The composition of the group is so balanced that the facilities and experience available in one firm complement that available in the other group members. The most successful group apprenticeship scheme is that of the Engineering Industries Association, which has about 800 apprentices from nearly 400 firms organised in groups in many parts of the country. It accounts for well over half the total number in group schemes throughout the country. Also the Industrial Training Council has encouraged the spread of group schemes by making grants to assist with the initial development work. This has been very helpful. More recently the Government, through the Industrial Training Council, have offered exceptional help to the North-East training council for the promotion of a group scheme on Tees-side.
In 1960 a number of courses for apprentices in their first year were started in Government training centres. At about the same time full-time courses of integrated training and education for first-year apprentices were made available in
870
some technical colleges on terms similar to those in Government training centres. The numerical contribution which these courses have made is small, but they have effectively demonstrated that systematic training means better training and quicker training. The continuing shortage—and it is continuing—of skill, and the need to improve the quality of training, have convinced the Government that, in the words of the Command Paper presented to Parliament by my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour:
"The time has come to strengthen and improve the existing partnership between industry, the Government and the educational authorities in the provision of industrial training."
The White Paper outlines—and I emphasise "outlines"—what the Government believe to be a workable scheme, but the details will not be filled in until we have heard the views of organisations and individuals with an interest in the subject. This naturally includes the views of those of your Lordships who have spoken this afternoon. Your Lordships' speeches will be carefully considered. This is a matter of vital public concern, and one of the Government's objects in publishing the White Paper was to promote the widest possible discussion of it. The Ministry of Labour at the moment is having consultations with industrial organisations such as the British Employers' Confederation and with the Trades Union Congress. Discussions with the nationalised industries will follow; and, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, no decision has yet been taken how the nationalised industries will fit into these proposals. At the same time, my right honourable friends the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland are consulting educational organisations.
Generally the proposals in the White Paper have been welcomed, and I suppose the main criticism which has been voiced in this House this afternoon is that they do not go far enough. It has been suggested that the powers which it is proposed the boards should have will be permissive rather than mandatory, that the success or failure of the new proposals will depend on who is appointed to serve on the boards, and that if the boards lack the will to do anything then nothing will happen. As I have already said, no decisions have yet been taken

871
as to what the legislation will contain, but I think this is taking rather too pessimistic a view of things. My noble friend the Leader of the House said that the White Paper proposes that the Minister of Labour should have the power to pay grants to the boards and that he should also have the power to appoint inspectors to satisfy himself that the standard of training adopted by each board is sufficient to justify the payment of a grant. This is a powerful sanction. My right honourable friend the Minister of Labour has gone on record as saying that he has no intention of introducing legislation merely to maintain the status quo.
The noble Lord, Lord Williamson and my noble friend, Lord Ampthill, have suggested that in addition to the national boards there ought to be regional boards with proper arrangements for liaison between them. The noble Lord, Lord Fleck, suggested that instead of national boards covering individual industries there ought to be a series of regional boards covering all industries. I think it is important to distinguish between what may be called the policy making and the executive function of the boards. By policy making, I mean decisions on syllabuses, standards, length of training, and so on. Clearly these are decisions which will have to be taken nationally. One cannot have a system whereby a carpenter would be trained to one standard within two years in the South-West while he would be expected to have a five-year training in the North-East. We are much too small an island to have differences of that sort and it would be quite unacceptable. But when it comes to execution of policies to ensure that agreed syllabuses are carried out, proper arrangements for further education made and so on, I should have thought that that was another matter. It is going to be necessary that the national boards should have some form of regional organisation possibly through regional committees. Perhaps one regional commitee could carry out executive functions for more than one industrial board or maybe all boards. These problems will form part of the detailed discussions which my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour is having with both sides of industry. No decisions have yet been reached on these matters.
872
As for the composition of the boards, the White Paper proposed that the majority of members should be drawn from industry, from management and from the trade unions. This is right, as the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, said. It is the Government intention that there should be adequate representation of educational interests on the boards, and it is generally accepted that both the Ministry of Labour and one or both of the educational Departments should be represented on each board by an assessor. This takes care of the worry which has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Citrine. Power given to the board to impose a levy on firms in its industry is an essential part of the plan.
This proposal for spreading the cost of training more fairly has been warmly welcomed, but not by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. Indeed, criticism so far has been that the proposals in paragraph 11 of the White Paper that firms below a certain size might be excluded from the levy is going too far. There is, in equity, no reason for excluding any firms, to the extent that all benefit from training and all should pay. The intention was only to relieve the boards of the need to collect the levy from very small firms, say of five employees or less, where this could be done only at disproportionate cost. If the administrative difficulties should prove to be less than feared, then the argument for excluding any firms would disappear.
I was interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Todd. In a sense, it was, I think, a little outside the scope of this Motion, but in any event he will comfort himself with the thought that sitting behind me and listening was the noble Viscount the Leader of the House who, wearing a different hat as Minister for Science, was, I know, taking a great interest in what the noble Lord was saying. He is much concerned with this problem and will study the noble Lord's speech and bring it to the notice of the Ministers concerned.
The noble Lords, Lord Williamson and Lord Fleck, drew attention to the way in which the Carr Committee was hindered by the inadequate occupational statistics available. My right honourable friend the Minister of Labour is conscious of this deficiency and has made proposals to industry for the collection

873
of statistics which should go a long way towards giving a clearer picture of the occupational structure of industry. The noble Lord, Lord Fleck, asked about the three-year course for apprentices at Stowe College. The three-year experimental course mentioned by the noble Lord has the approval of both the Scottish Educational Department and the Ministry of Labour—who sat as assessors on the Scottish Technical Educational Consultative Council which recommended the introduction of the course. It is a new departure in this country and is still in an early stage. It will be some time before conclusions can be reached as to how to develop it. It is proposed to make the course the subject of scientific research by continuous assessment of progress throughout the three years. It has been suggested also by the noble Lord, Lord Fleck, and in the last speech by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that industrial training is so much part of our educational process that the Minister of Education should be made responsible for it rather than the Minister of Labour. It is true, of course, as my noble friend said earlier in the day, that all training is part of what we call education and, moreover, that there is everything to be said for the basic first year's training being given in special training schools removed from the demands of production. But for the whole training to be given under these conditions would be both unsatisfactory and highly expensive.
Production work under normal industrial conditions is an essential part of training, and it must not be overlooked that, by contributing to production, the trainee is also helping to meet part of the cost of his training. So, important though the educational element is, the main emphasis must inevitably remain on what is done in industry. This is why I think that it is the Minister of Labour who should continue to be the responsible Minister. But, needless to say, my right honourable friend will continue to work in the closest possible co-operation with his colleagues, the Education Ministers, and he will certainly not reject the idea of a co-ordinating advisory council.
The White Paper refers mainly to the training of the young and, in particular, of apprentices. School-leavers constitute by far the largest potential supply of
874
skilled manpower and it is therefore right that the Boards should turn their attention first to them. But the powers of the Boards will cover all forms of training. The boy who enters industry on leaving school has a working life in front of him of about 50 years. Given the pace of technical change to-day, how can one possibly guarantee that the kind of work a boy is trained to do at the outset of his industrial career will still be needed at the end of it? New skills will be needed and old ones will decline, just as the riveter has given way to the welder and the blacksmith to the motor mechanic. Some industries will contract while others will expand.
It is a terrible thing for a skilled man to find that his skill is no longer needed. But it is no use trying to prop up dying industries. What we have to do is to help men and women who are faced with this problem to obtain new employment—and, if necessary, to acquire new skills—in the expanding industries. This sort of readjustment is likely to be needed on an increasing scale. The training and retraining of adults will therefore have to be accepted as a normal part of our industrial life.
At present most of the training and retraining of adults is done by individual firms themselves. But the Government play a part. Training in about 40 skilled trades is given at the 13 Government training centres run by the Ministry of Labour. So far, the numbers trained at these centres are not large—something less than 4,000 a year at present—but, as my noble friend said earlier in the debate, three new centres are being established in areas which are particularly affected by redundancies in the coal-mining industry. My right honourable friend the Minister of Labour announced in another place a few days ago that he was prepared to enlarge the rôle of the Government in this field as new industries start up in the areas of high unemployment. Those industries will wish themselves to retrain many of the people they take on, but the Government should provide a safety net to ensure that all those who need and can benefit from training do not lack the opportunity.
My noble friend the Leader of the House referred to the opposition which the Minister of Labour has received from some of the unions concerned. We all

875
must hope that this will be overcome, as without an adequate supply of skilled labour there can be no industrial expansion. Just as important, the livelihood and well-being of many men and their families are at stake in all this. I think that we all should agree with the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London, with the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, and with my noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton, that on these matters with which we have been dealing this afternoon we are dealing with people, with individuals, and that people are more important than productivity. Let me repeat that the speeches made in this debate will be carefully studied. I think that it would be true to say that, on the whole, the afternoon's proceedings in your Lordships' House will have encouraged my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour, both by your Lordships' reception of the White Paper and by the assurance that, in advancing as quickly as possible, he will have the advice, the support and the co-operation of your Lordships' House.
7.35 p.m.
LORD ECCLES: My Lords, in opening this debate, I ventured to say that many of your Lordships were more expert in the field of industrial training than I am; and so it has proved to be. I am sure that the speeches to which we have listened this afternoon will be of real help to the Government, and also to many people in industry and the education services, in filling in the policy of this White Paper. I think your Lordships will agree upon two things: first, that it really is necessary to do something on a scale which is different from what has been done before, though building on the past; and secondly, that the kind of plan which is outlined in the White Paper, though one may agree with it in broad outline, is bound to raise a tremendous number of extremely difficult administrative problems.
That being so, what are we to do? A number of your Lordships have said, "Apply sanctions". If I remember rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, said that he had found planning commonly fruitless without sanctions. That may well be true, and I believe that it is necessary to have sanctions in reserve. But, in my modest experience, planning is also
876
fruitless without enthusiasm. What I hope is that there will be among the public in general enough enthusiasm for a great advance in industrial training to carry along with it the objections which we shall meet without doubt in one quarter or another. It was my hope to persuade your Lordships that that enthusiasm can come only if (in the words which my noble friend Lord Carrington has just used) we prefer people to productivity. I believe that that is the only way in which we shall carry forward a great movement. If it is seen that this is being done for the young people of the country and, in another aspect, for redundant workers, then we shall get the production. We shall get the agreement on these difficult problems concerning the boards, however they may be modified.
I have but one other thing to say. I remain adamant in my opinion that to continue drawing a line between education and training is now against the public interest. I regret very much if attempts should still be made to say that there are two responsibilities, one responsibility in the factory and one in the technical college. The truth is that the training of workers is being done more and more in technical colleges. The training of building workers is an example. There is no valid separation between the two. I do not judge whether that means a single ministerial responsibility—that is a matter for the Government to work out—but I join very much with my noble friend Lord Todd when he said that we now must work out for technicians (I am sure that they come within the ambit of industrial training) a coherent educational policy that goes far beyond any particular kind of technician. If we do not do that, we shall not get these technicians. Therefore, I hope that the educational side, even if it does not win the whole battle now, will receive more supporters as time goes on, because in the end the educational element will have to be predominant. I thank your Lordships very much for all the wonderful, well-informed speeches we have had. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion and the request for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  BEEF IMPORTS FROM ROUMANIA
  BEEF IMPORTS FROM ROUMANIA