Sitting of 19 November 1963

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

  Ngwenyama Sobhuza II
  Mr. Patrick Wall: I beg leave to present a Petition to this honourable House on behalf of Ngwenyama Sobhuza II, Paramount Chief of Swaziland and King of the Swazi nation, who petitions on behalf of himself and on behalf of the Swazi nation.
  This Petition seeks relief on matters of principle arising out of the proposed new constitution for Swaziland and it concludes with the following Prayer:
  Wherefore your Petitioner prays that:
  The honourable House of Commons should direct that the constitution for Swaziland should incorporate the method of election for the Legislative Council as herein set out; provide for the recognition of the Protectorate status of Swaziland, and accord to your Petitioner his rightful status with commensurate powers in the Government of Swaziland.
  The Petition ends:
  Your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCIENCE

    Dounreay
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury if he will make a statement on the work of the Dounreay scientific station indicating its practical contributions to industry to enable Scottish industry to keep ahead of industry elsewhere based on the advances and practical applications of science during the last twelve months.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster-General (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The Atomic Energy
    776
    Authority's establishment at Dounreay is primarily concerned with the development of fast reactors, the commercial application of which lies some years ahead. Science and technology in Scotland have, however, materially benefited from the existence of Dounreay, and, in particular from its relations with the Scottish Universities, the Royal College of Science and Technology, the National Engineering Laboratory at East Kilbride, and with industry.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the undoubtedly great contributions which Dounreay is making to the application of science, will the Minister see that those contributions get more publicity than they are getting at present with a view to ensuring that Scotland, which at present generates some 30,000 new jobs every year, will increase that number to 35,000 or 40,000 new jobs a year?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:The hon. and learned Member is quite right as to the justifiably high reputation of Dounreay which, as the House knows, leads the world in fast reactor techniques. I will certainly consider what the hon. and learned Gentleman says.
    Mr. Crossman:Does the Minister realise that some of us who had a chance of visiting Dounreay in September and saw something of its work of national importance still share the anxieties of my hon. and learned Friend concerning the practical application locally? For example, does the Minister appreciate that the magnificent facilities for training apprentices in Dounreay were being only half-used when we visited the establishment? Is this not something worth looking into from a local point of view?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:I should like to look into the point about apprentices. As regards the more general interconnection of technology in Scotland, I think that the placing by the authority of research contracts with the Scottish universities is useful to both.

    Technical Assistants
    Mr. Boydenasked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury what is the ratio of technical assistants to scientifically qualified staff in Government scientific establishments.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The ratio is 3.5 technical assistants to one member of the scientific officer class.
    Mr. Boyden: Is this not very much more generous than the ratio of assistants to university research workers? Do the Government accept the Robbins recommendation regarding thevery much more prominent part that university research can play in general research, and, if so, what are the Government doing about providing extra technical assistants to university research departments?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This Question relates to Government scientific establishments, and, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the average conceals within it fairly wide divergencies in accordance with the nature of the work. With regard to universities, it may well be that we shall have an opportunity of discussing them later this afternoon.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that it is not only numbers that matter in this but also the quality of the scientists?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I fully agree, and it is our intention to maintain the high quality of the scientific officer class and their assistants.

    South Wales (Research Unit)
    Mr. McBrideasked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury if arrangements will be made for the establishment in South Wales of a research unit of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, or a unit of comparable status in any proposed reorganisation of the Department, in order to co-ordinate all research under this heading, to make available to industry the services of specialists employed by the unit, and to enable the speedy application to industry of lessons learned and methods evolved by the unit.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. The many facilities of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research are already available to Welsh industry through the services of the Department's branch office in Cardiff.
    Mr. McBride: I am aware of what was said in an Answer of 23rd July last by the then Parliamentary Secretary for
    778
    Science, but does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that no apportionment of funds for this purpose represents a reversal of forward thinking? Will he reconsider the decision in order that industry in South Wales could benefit by the measures outlined in the last part of my Question?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir, I do not think so. The D.S.I.R. laboratories operate on a national basis and serve the nation as a whole. I think that Welsh industry gets more advantage from having the service of the whole national set-up through the D.S.I.R. branch office in Cardiff than it would from onenecessarily specialised establishment in the district.

    Industrial Design Techniques
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury what steps are being taken to improve industrial design techniques; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:Action is being taken on all the 14 main recommendations of the Committee on Engineering Design appointed by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, whose Report was published in July, 1963.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, even now, there is a tremendous infiltration of foreign machines, principally from Germany and America, in the factories of north Lanarkshire and other parts of the west of Scotland? Does not he realise that we have the necessary skill and ingenuityin this country but we do not have the industrial designers? Is it not shameful that two out of every three scientists and technological graduates in Scotland are leaving the country to find work, when they could be usefully employing their skills in designing machines to meet the needs of our manufacturers?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:I would not go so far as the hon. Gentleman in some of the things he says. The fact that action is being taken on all these recommendations does indicate the importance which the Government attach to the subject as a whole.
    Mr. Bence: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in going into this matter, try to

    779
    impress upon all industrialists concerned that increasing standardisation of many of the sub-units which go into consumer durables would help considerably in improving industrial design?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Up to a point, there is a good deal in what the hon. Gentleman says, and I take note of it.

    Road Research Laboratory (Geologists)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury if an increase will now be made in the staff of geologists and pedologists in the Road Research Laboratory and at the disposal of Departments which need their expert advice.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. I am advised that the number of geologists and experts in soil mechanics employed at the Road Research Laboratory is adequate to deal with the problems which arise. The advice of the Laboratory is readily available to those Departments which need it.
    Mr. Swingler: In view of the experience, sometimes costly experience, gained by the Government in the construction of the M.1 and M.6 motorways, and in view of the recent statement of the Minister of Transport himself about the need for more research in the construction of roads, does the Chief Secretary really suggest that the present very small and, I believe, overworked staff at the Road Research Laboratory is adequate to undertake this fundamental research?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That question, of course, goes well beyond the original Question about the sizeof the technically qualified staff at the Road Research Laboratory. I am satisfied that that staff is adequate and available to the Departments which desire to use it.
    Mr. Swingler: But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Transport was referring to the need for fundamental research, which implies geological surveys and the advice of more soil experts on the construction of motorways? Will he pay special attention to this point?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have some past experience of precisely that matter and fully share, therefore, the hon. Gentle-
    780
    man's view of the importance of getting the best technical advice generally on the construction of motorways in relation to the land over which they pass. But that does not alter the point which arises on the Question, that, so far as the Road Research Laboratory is concerned, we are satisfied that it is adequately and properly staffed, and, if I may add a word from past personal experience, renders extremely good service to this country.

    Damp Grain (Storage)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to what extent the Ministry of Science has initiated, or participated in, scientific research on techniques of storing moist grain in sealed silos for livestock feeding; what funds the Ministry has directed to such research or made available to other bodies;how many scientists and technologists have been employed in this research; and what results have been achieved.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Research in the air-tight storage of damp grain was undertaken for several years at the Pest Infestation Laboratory. Results were summarised in the Report of the Agricultural Research Council for 1959–60, Cmnd. 1362. Related investigations are being undertaken at the Rowett Research Institute, the results of which are not yet available. It is not practicable to state the separate cost of this research in money and manpower.
    Mr. Swingler: The Minister has not stated how much of this research has been undertaken and financed from State resources.Is he aware of the feeling among many people that inadequate manpower and resources have been given to this project and that many farmers are impatiently awaiting a technical decision by the Government to approve the installation of these very important silos?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:As the hon. Gentleman will find when he has time to study it, my main Answer brings out that work is being undertaken at this moment at the Rowett Research Institute. The reason why I cannot give the figures of cost is that the time of both the manpower and the institutions concerned is, of course, engaged on many other projects also and any

    781
    attempt to break it down would be wholly arbitrary and probably misleading.

    Atomic Energy Authority
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the ChiefSecretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the appointment of a new chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority, an outside committee will be appointed to consider the general balance of the work undertaken by the Authority and the desirability of its devoting such a large proportion of its resources to problems of electricity generation.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir; my noble Friend the Minister for Science is satisfied that the Authority's civil programme properly reflects the importance of the various civil applications of nuclear energy.
    Mr. Digby: Will the attention of the new chairman be drawn to this, since there is uneasiness about it and the showing on marine reactors has not been very satisfactory?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I share my hon. Friend's interest in the possibility of evolving a satisfactory marine reactor, and I shall convey what he says to my noble Friend.

    Building Research Station
    Mr. Boydenasked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury what steps he is taking to enable the Building Research Station to promote, more effectively, progressive ideas in building.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:The Building Research Station devotes about 20 per cent, of its effort to promoting the wider adoption of research results in building design and construction. The total resources available to the Station are to be further increased next year by 6 per cent. This increase will be mainly applied to operational and economic aspects of its work the results of which should be of immediate value to the building industry.
    Mr. Boyden:Are there not severe difficulties in getting the new ideas into the building industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider something similar to the National Agricultural Advisory Service, with officers working
    782
    in the field and spreading new ideas in that way?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman that there has been a time-lag in the passing of new ideas through the industry, but I think that the new Directorate of Public Building Research in the Ministry of PublicBuilding and Works will be able to help to close the gap.

    Trend Committee (Report)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury what action it is proposed to take in the light of the Trend Committee's recommendation that the exchange of personnel between the Ministry of Science, the headquarters of the research agencies, and the stations operated by the agencies, should be facilitated.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As my noble Friend said in his Foreword to the Trend Committee Report, the Government areconsulting the bodies affected by the recommendations before taking decisions.
    Mr. Dalyell: When is it likely that a decision will be reached on Trend?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Trend Report contains a number of recommendations. I should not like to put a particular date on each of them or the sum total.
    Mr. Crossman: In view of the Minister's assurance that the relevant bodies are being consulted, may I ask if he can give a further assurance that this process wil not be hurried, since we have already heard from some of the civil servants concerned that they are being asked to give their views on certain subjects within a matter of days when they had got the impression from the introduction to the Report that there would at least be weeks in which to consider their views?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There will certainly be no undue haste. On the other hand, we want to get on with this important matter with reasonable dispatch.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this Committee has been sitting for about

    783
    two years and that to be asked to give an answer in 12 days is somewhat exacting for people whose future may very well be concerned?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know where my hon. Friend gets the 12 days from. As I said a few moments ago, there is no likelihood of any decision being arrived at in that sort of period. I can assure the House that we want—this is the reason why we are delaying a decision—all concerned to have proper opportunity to put forward their views. However, I hope that they will do so expeditiously.
    Mr. Crossman: In view of the Minister's assurance, which of course, I accept, will he bear in mind that I have here a letter complaining that civil servants have been told that they must get their comments inbefore 21st November? This seems to be a short time, in view of the general impression created in the introduction that everybody would be consulted. May we now be given the further assurance that this was, perhaps, overdoing it and that they really willhave more time than that?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot possibly give an assurance in respect of a letter which I have not seen. I do not know from whom it comes, to whom it is addressed, or the circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman will send it to me, I shall be happy to investigate it. I can give no answer off the cuff now.

    Engineering Design (Committee's Report)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury what action has been taken as a result of the recommendation of the Feilden Committee onEngineering Design that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research should invite the professional institutions to prepare and issue design manuals or data sheets similar to those already prepared by the Royal Aeronautical Society, that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research laboratories and the industrial research associations should be required to give active support in their respective fields, that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research should consider making grantsto the professional institutions to allow
    784
    them to employ the necessary expert technical staff for this purpose, and that the data sheets should be available for sale to non-members.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has drawn the attention of the professional institutions to this recommendation. The Department expects to receive their detailed proposals shortly and has the power to make grants in support of suitable schemes.
    Mr. Dalyell: Since Feilden reported in July, when is "shortly"?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As soon as reasonably practicable.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Woolwich (Office Development)
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, if he will schedule Woolwich as an area for substantial office development.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph):I am considering the general question of office centres to relieve central London, and I have informed the Borough Council that I will bear in mind its view that Woolwich would be suitable as one of the choices.
    Mr. Mayhew: Will the Minister bear in mind that Woolwich is ideally suited for this kind of development and that there is an urgent need for more people to workin the borough instead of crowding the trains into central London? Why does he encourage office building in places like Croydon and not in Woolwich?
    Sir K. Joseph: The places mentioned in the White Paper were given only as examples. I must continue discussions with the planning authorities before coming to any further decisions which can be taken only in the light of the South-East study as a whole.
    Mr. Bellenger: Did not the Minister yesterday give the House the impression that the Woolwich Arsenal site was one of the few available sites in London on which he proposed to build houses?
    Sir K. Joseph: That is of interest to Woolwich, but it is not related to the Question.

    Gypsies
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what progress has been made by the Hampshire County Council in the rehabilitation of the 157 families of gypsies, didicois, and other travellers known to be usually resident in the county; how many sites are contemplated; what is the estimated cost; in what way rehabilitation will be encouraged; how long it is estimated the problem will require special measures; and if the centres will be under the control of district councils or the county council.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield):Four sites are envisaged; one has been obtained and negotiations are proceeding for a second. The estimated cost of laying out and equipping the first site is £20,058. The sites will be under the control of the county council as welfare authority. Questions on rehabilitation do not fall within my right hon. Friend's responsibilities.
    Mr. Dodds:That is great news. Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider in due course sending to other county councils details of Hampshire's enlightened policy so that we in this country can really begin to criticise with some right the conduct of human relations in lands overseas?
    Mr. Corfield: I will certainly consider that. I am glad that the hon. Member agrees with me that this is an enlightened and humane approach.
    Sir Richard Pilkington:Is my hon. Friend aware that Dorset also has this problem and that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) is doing a very good job of work in this respect?
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of the undertakings given by the Kent County Council in July, 1962, to provide 10 sites for gypsies and other travellers in Kent, if he will give details
    786
    of the progress made and the provision that will be available for them this winter; and what measures are being introduced for the rehabilitation of these people with special regard to children and teenagers.
    Mr. Corfield: Two local authority sites for gypsies and other itinerants have already been established in Kent. Work on a third is progressing and it may be completed in time for use this winter. Applications for planning permission to use two further sites are now before my right hon. Friend. The county council is continuing its search for other suitable sites in order to attain the 10 sites which it considers desirable in the county. More permanent sites will be available for these people this winter than in the past and the number of sites should steadily increase.
    Questions on rehabilitation do not fall within my right hon. Friend's responsibility.
    Mr. Dodds:That is not so good. Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that the Kent County Council opposed my application for the Cobham site in July, 1962, on the ground that it was unnecessary? Will he also bear in mind that this is the second winter that men, women and children are still being pushed backwards and forwards on the grass verges of the main trunk roads with no hope, evenat Christmas, of coming within the law? Would the hon. Gentleman therefore press the Kent authorities to get a move on in this respect?
    Mr. Corfield: I share the hon. Member's disappointment, but I hope that the House will appreciate the difficulties. My right hon. Friend and, to a large extent, the county council can only persuade the district councils, but I am satisfied that they are really trying. I hope that we shall have the 10 sites in the not too distant future.
    Mr. J. Wells: May I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister, when he considers these planning applications, to bear in mind the fundamental fact that gypsies and other travellers no longer earn their honest living in the countryside but on the fringes of urban society and to ensure that theseproposed sites are put in places where they can earn an honest living and not resort to petty thieving?
    Mr. Corfield:I am sure that the House will appreciate that we must wait until the applications come before us. When they do we will consider them in the light of all the planning considerations, as we do with other planning applications.

    Rate Revaluation
    Sir Richard Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will make a statement on theprogress of the Allen Committee looking into hardship caused by the recent rate revaluation.
    Sir K. Joseph:The Committee has made good progress in analysing the information already available and is treating the whole inquiry as a matter of urgency. Its field survey is now almost complete, but it will take some months to analyse the results, and the Committee has still to receive much of the evidence for which it has asked.
    Sir Richard Pilkington: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there are people in real and acute distress over this matter? Will he continue to act as expeditiously as he can in this respect?
    Sir K. Joseph:Yes, Sir, but my hon. Friend will be aware that the Gracious Speech contained proposals the contents of which, when published, will, I am sure, be examined with interest by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Lipton:Is the Minister now saying that he proposes to take no action at all about relieving sufferers from the rating system until this Committee has finally reported?
    Sir K. Joseph: No. It is well known, I think, that the Gracious Speech contains some interim proposals, but I stress that they are interim proposals only.
    Sir C. Taylor:Will the Bill mentioned in the Gracious Speech be published before the Allen Committee has reported?
    Sir K. Joseph: The Bill will be published fairly soon. The Allen Committee's Report will not be available until fairly well on into next year.
    20. Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Housing and Local Govern-
    788
    ment and Minister for Welsh Affairs what action he has so far taken to deal with hardship in rate demands arising out of revaluation.
    Sir K. Joseph:The Allen Committee has been appointed to assess the impact of rates on householders with special regard to circumstances likely to give rise to hardship. It will be reporting next year. As an interim measure, I shall be introducing a Bill shortly to give a measure of relief to householders suffering hardship as a result of exceptional rate increases.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend is in communication with the county councils and county boroughs asking whether they will be prepared to assess hardship under his new Bill? Will he give a firm assurance that in the assessment of this hardship, people living above National Assistance will be eligible—that is to say, people in the range of those living on small fixed incomes, in whom I am particularly interested? May I have that specific assurance now?
    Sir K. Joseph: As has traditionally been the case, local authorities are consultedin strict confidence on legislation which might affect them. I deeply deplore it, as I know they would, if any breach of confidence has occurred in this case. As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I must advise her to await the Bill. Obviously, however, since people who benefit from National Assistance are covered already against increases in rates, legislation is bound to deal with the sort of people she has in mind.
    Mr. Wade: If and when this much-needed relief is granted, will the cost be borne by other ratepayers in the same local authority district, by ratepayers in the country as a whole or by the Exchequer?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member must wait and see.
    Mr. John Hall: My hon. Friend said earlier that he expected the Report of the Allen Committee next year. Can we expect to have it early in the new year? My constituents who have been hard hit by the revaluation are vitally interested in this Report.
    Sir K. Joseph: No. There is no hope of an early report from the Allen Committee. My hon. Friend must wait for the interim measure which is proposed.

    River Thames (Flood Barrier)
    Mr. Elwyn Jonesasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he expects to announce a decision regarding the construction of a flood barrier across the River Thames.
    Mr. Corfield:It will not be possible to reach a final decision until the consulting engineers have completed their current investigations. The report is expected early in the new year.
    Mr. Jones:Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the deep anxiety in the Thames area, particularly today, about the risk of flooding, with all the damage and destruction that that would cause? Is he further aware that last March his Ministry told the West Ham Council that consulting engineers were working on the effect of a flood barrier on river conditions and that arrangements would be made to consult die interested authorities about finance and administration, but that not a word further has been heardin the last seven months? Is this another illustration of the Government waiting for election year before doing something long overdue?
    Mr. Corfield: I am sure that the hon. and learned Member would not wish to push any Government into a hasty decision ona matter of such very great technical difficulty. If we are to spend this sum of money, it is clear that we should make proper investigations. As I understand it, the only thing which has held up the consulting engineers' report is the requirement, which has raised technical difficulties, that there should be a minimum opening of 1,400 feet. However, I assure the hon. and learned Member that as soon as the report is to hand there will be the further consultations promised.
    Mr. Jones: Is it not the case that these inquiries have been going on for three and a half years, since the last time the Thames overflowed its banks? Is not this delay quite intolerable, and is the Minister aware that he will be called upon to answer for it?
    Mr. Corfield: We should get the facts right. The steering committee was set up in July, 1961, and reported in April, 1962. It was on its recommendation that the consulting engineers were called in and asked to report.

    Borough No. 19
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs the reasons which led to his decision to propose the name of Bromley for Borough No. 19.
    Sir K. Joseph: In the absence of local agreement, it appeared to me that the best name for this London borough would be that of its main shopping, commercial and administrative centre.
    Mr. Lubbock:Is this not a very misleading Answer that the Minister has given? Is he not well aware that the view of the vast majority of inhabitants in Borough No. 19 was that the name Ravensbourne should have been selected? Does he think that he has made a case for rejecting these views which have been expressed to him by every local authority in the area except Bromley?
    Sir K. Joseph: Except Bromley and part of Chislehurst and Sidcup. Inthis invidious business about names, I am trying to use the objective factors of where the main centre of administration, shopping and use is situated, and that is what led me to the name Bromley in this case.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that by no means all the inhabitants of Orpington would want him to change his decision and that many are very happy with the name Bromley for the new borough?
    Sir K. Joseph
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Paul Williams. Question No. 19.
    Mr. Lubbock: By the nod which the Minister gave in answer to that last supplementary question—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I called Mr. Paul Williams.

    Smoke Control Programmes
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many local authorities have decided to curtail their smoke control programmes because of the uncertainty of supplies of adequate and reasonably priced smokeless fuels.
    Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend knows that some local authorities areworried about smokeless fuels. He hopes, however, that before coming to any decision about their smoke control programmes they will await the statement he expects to make soon.
    Mrs. Butler: Is it not most unsatisfactory that the inability of the Minister to guarantee adequate supplies of reasonably priced, good smokeless fuel is holding up some local authority smoke control programmes? Since we are already in the smog season and the ending of this atmospheric pollution is vital, will the Minister speed upthis review and deal with it as a matter of extreme urgency?
    Mr. Corfield:Yes, of course, we regard it as urgent. We must, however, consult the local authority associations and the Clean Air Council, as in other matters. But any question of guaranteeing fuel is not a matter for my right hon. Friend. All I can tell the hon. Lady at the moment is that the conclusions are that we shall have to make increased use of appliances such as stoves and under-floor draught fires using other forms of fuel.
    Sir K. Thompson:Is not my hon. Friend aware that the Liverpool local authority, for example, alleges that it is being held up in the development of its smokeless zone proposals because of inadequacy of fuel supplies and is receiving no encouragement whatever from my right hon. Friend's Department?
    Mr. Corfield:If my hon. Friend will write to me about that, I will look into it. Certainly, Liverpool is not one of the few local authorities whose names I have been given as being worried on this score.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is eight years since we were
    792
    promised the Bronowski bullets by the Coal Board and that millions of £s of public money have been poured into the Coal Board to produce premium smokeless fuels? Should not my hon. Friendrefer this entire matter to the Minister of Power with a request to kick the pants of the Chairman of the Coal Board?
    Mr. Corfield: I know of nobody better than my hon. Friend for kicking pants. I will leave it to him.

    Plastic Pipes
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of the increasing use of plastic pipes for plumbing purposes, what steps he will take, by reviewing building bye-laws or other means, to ensure that the practice of earthing electricity equipment to the water pipes of domestic houses is discouraged as being dangerous.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what reports he has received in respect of danger from the usage of plastic pipes in houses.
    Mr. Corfield: I have seen recent Press reports of a case in which electric shock was apparently caused because the electrical system of the house was earthed to a plastic water pipe. My right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power are in touch with the water and electricity industries to concert the action to be taken against risks of this kind.
    Sir B. Janner:Will the hon. Gentleman let us know when he expects to have a report concerning this matter? The position is rather serious. Will he urge that the report should be made as quickly as possible so that action can be taken?
    Mr. Corfield: The hon. Member appreciates, I am sure, that the main question here is education. Earthing to metal waterpipes isperfectly satisfactory. I promise the hon. Gentleman that we will push on with this as a matter of urgency.
    Mr. Sorensen:Have any inquiries been made, quite apart from Press reports, regarding this material, both as to its durability, on the one hand, and its liability to prevent electrical leaks, on the other hand?
    Mr. Corfield: I understand that from the viewpoint of durability, there are no difficulties. It is, however, recognised that it is not a conductor and that it breaks the earth conducting system. What is important is that we should reach a situation that, when this material is put into an existing system, people affected will be warned of the likely consequences.

    Mid-Wales (Committee on Depopulation)
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will consider publishing as a White Paper the Report he has received from the Committee on Depopulation in Mid-Wales.
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir. The Report will be published by the Stationery Office as soon as possible.
    Mr. Watkins: As the Report has been in the Minister's hand since June and this is the sixth Report in the last 10 years dealing with rural depopulation in Mid-Wales, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to indicate the next steps which he proposes to take?
    Sir K. Joseph:I have already written to the Chairman of the Committee which published the Report indicating my first reactions, and consultations are now taking place between the Welsh Office and the Committee which produced the Report.

    Land, West Glamorgan (Reservoir)
    Lady Megan Lloyd Georgeasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what is the nature of the consultations he has had with the West Glamorgan authorities about further surveys for suitable land to build a reservoir, thus avoiding interference with living communities and good agricultural land.
    Sir K. Joseph: It is for the West Glamorgan authorities to decide what surveys they should make of possible reservoir sites and I have had no consultation with them on this.
    Lady Megan Lloyd George: Is the Minister aware that there is an alterna-
    794
    tive scheme which would satisfy all the requirements of West Glamorgan and would not involve the flooding of good agricultural land or threaten any village communities and would, therefore, arouse no opposition? Would he not use his influence with the West Glamorgan authorities at least to investigate this site before proceeding with the Gwendraeth Fach scheme?
    Sir K. Joseph: I believe that the West Glamorgan authorities have already investigated a number of sites, though I do not know whether they have investigated the particular site die noble Lady has in mind. But certainly whether or not they have investigated all the suitable sites would be very much a matter to be taken up by me if any inquiry were held into an actual proposition by them to build a reservoir anywhere.

    River Authorities
    Lady Megan Lloyd Georgeasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he proposes to make orders under the Water Resources Act, 1963, to set up river authorities for the appropriate areas.
    Sir K. Joseph:My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I expect to make orders fixing theconstitution of the river authorities in the summer of 1964, and to bring them into existence in the autumn so that they may exercise their functions from 1st April, 1965.
    Lady Megan Lloyd George: Does the Minister not really think that the whole purpose of the Water Resources Act, to plan resources for large areas, will be undermined if great schemes of this kind are allowed to proceed even before the Act is in operation?
    Sir K. Joseph: We really have no power, nor would it be right, to defer essential investigations carried out by water authorities in preparation for making proposals to me for schemes, but when it comes to making actual proposals I will certainly bear in mind the purposes and principles of the Act.
    Mr. Watkins: Would the Minister consider not supporting any Private Bill

    795
    from a water undertaking till the Act's provisions have been put into operation?
    Sir K. Joseph: That really is a different question.

    Compulsory Purchase Orders, Metropolitan Boroughs
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister ofHousing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many applications from metropolitan borough councils for compulsory purchase orders are now under attention; and what average length of time elapses before he announces his decision on such applications.
    Sir K. Joseph:Sixty-four orders made by metropolitan borough councils are before me. Twelve were made under the Housing Act, 1957, on grounds of excessive rent. The average time from the end of the objection period to decision for orders of this kind is 13 weeks. The rest are of kinds—mainly slum clearance—for which the average time may be taken as 32 weeks.
    Mr. Lipton:A very long time, but in view of the fact that the new policy of publicly acquiring large areas announced last night is likely to involve bigger and better compulsory purchase orders, would the Minister take steps and give serious consideration to expediting the long-drawn-out procedures, especially in cases of slum properties, to which, I have no doubt, he attaches considerable importance? Will he also circularise local authorities to let them know what exactly his newly announced policy on public ownership really means?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman really must be content with the Answer to the Question on theOrder Paper. I do not think the House would wish to speed up the process of slum clearance in any way to endanger the rights of all interests involved to be heard before decisions are made.

    Betting Offices
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing andLocal Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what powers he intends to give local authorities to exercise planning jurisdiction with re-
    796
    gard to the number of betting offices in their areas.
    Mr. Corfield: None, Sir. It is for the licensing justices to exercise any necessary control over the number of betting offices in their area.
    Mrs. Butler: Is the Minister aware that many local authorities are very alarmed at the growing number of betting offices and their lack of planning powers to control them?Since the Minister has rejected the instrument of the Use Classes Order as inappropriate for this purpose, would he discuss with local authorities their difficulties in this respect, and give them proper planning powers?
    Mr. Corfield: The provisions of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act make it clear that justices can refuse a licence on the ground that the grant would be inexpedient having regard to the demand for the time being in the locality for the facilities afforded by the betting office. This is the function of the licensing justices, and it is not part of the planning authorities' function to duplicate that of the licensing justices.

  HOUSING

    Public Health Act, 1961 (Section 26)
    Mr. A. J. Irvineasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is satisfied with the extent to which, in areas of housing shortage, local authorities are exercising their powers under Section 26 of the Public Health Act, 1961, relative to defective premises; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Corfield:I do not know the extent to which local authorities are using these powers, but if the hon. Member would like me to look into a particular case I would be glad to do so.
    Mr. Irvine: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware thatin constituencies like mine the gravest problem arises from the disrepair of terraced houses which are many years old and approaching the end of their useful existence, and that there is a reluctance to expend money on the repair of houses of that character

    797
    when, perhaps, before long they will have to be demolished and cleared? Bearing that in mind, will the hon. Gentleman recognise the importance of the provisions of the Section referred to in my Question and circularise local authorities inviting them to make greater use of their powers, not necessarily in respect of a particular case, but as a matter of general policy?
    Mr. Corfield: I accept the hon. and learned Member's argument, but I have no evidence that local authorities are not doing that. I think that there are cases where there is a shortage of staff, about which we are endeavouring to help, but my right hon. Friend's powers to intervene in these matters are very limited.

    Factory-made houses
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what progress has been made with the introduction of factory-made houses.
    Sir K. Joseph: My Department knows of some 20 systems which offer good possibilities for building factory-made houses, as distinct from flats. About half of these will be contributing in quantity to next year's programme of local authority housing. The others are in the prototype stage.
    Mr. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I wish I could have heard his Answer, the obstruction coming, naturally,, from the Opposition? Can my right hon. Friend tell me how many orders have been placed thus far and whether he would consider the possibility of selecting one, two, three or more towns to carry out an experiment in this field so as to get the long runs which yesterday he said were necessary?
    Sir K. Joseph:Orders to the tune of several thousand houses, as opposed to flats, have been placed and will be under construction during the coming 12 months. My right hon. Friend the Minister ofPublic Building and Works is using his investment powers to secure longer runs even than any local authority, although several very long runs have been ordered by local authorities in these systems.
    Mr. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that theMinister of Public Building and Works yesterday mentioned a couple of companies which had been approved in this connection? Is it not rather unfair to mention a couple without mentioning the rest? Will not my right hon. Friend consider the possibility ofcirculating a list of the companies which are approved in this field?
    Sir K. Joseph:My Department is always ready to advise local authorities and private industry of the relative position of each of the systems under development. My right hon. Friend yesterday was, I think, blowing a mild trumpet for the Government's own prototype which is the 5M house.

    Housing Associations
    Mr. Abseasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is satisfied that powers are available to recover public funds advanced to a housing association in the event of the housing association erecting flats that cannot be let because of high rents; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not approve schemes under Section 7 of theHousing Act, 1961, unless I am satisfied about the demand for flats or any other dwellings at the rents involved. But substantial powers are available to me both under the mortgage agreement an association has to make with me, and under my statutory power to give directions about the administraiton of an approved scheme and the disposal of assets provided under it.
    Mr. Abse: Is it not clear to the Minister that there are financial responsibilities incurred by the sponsors of housing associations, and is henot aware that in South Wales he is in fact creating funds to endow land speculators who are shedding land at fantastic prices in South Wales for housing associations? Since many of the members who are sponsoring housing associations are linked with landowners, would the Minister not take further precautions to ensure that we do no get high-priced land for flats at high-priced rents in South Wales?
    Sir K. Joseph: No. I reject all of that. My Department, which is experienced in these matters, takes infinite pains

    799
    to check the competitive nature of the land price, the building scheme, the building costs and the market for the accommodation before any scheme is approved. The protection for the public money is ample.

  SCOTTISH TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the divided interests and duties of the President of the Board of Trade have acted to the detriment of Scottish trade, and if he will now appoint to that Department a Scottish Minister whose sole interests and duties will be to develop trade, industry and commerce in Scotland with their relevant imports and exports.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): No, Sir. I do not think this suggestion would be in Scotland's interests or in the wider interests of the country as a whole.
  Mr. Hughes:Does the Prime Minister ignore these two facts, that during the last 12 years of Tory rule 218,000 more people have left Scotland than went there and that Scotland is geographically favourably placed in proximity to Europe to develop industry? No President of the Board of Trade and no Minister of the Government has taken any adequate steps to develop the trade in north-east Scotland. Is there not, therefore, a very good case for making the appointment I have suggested in my Question—for a Scottish Minister to deal with this specific question—especially in view of the appointment of Lord Hailsham for the north-east of England?
  The Prime Minister: No, we put forward proposals for dealing with the questions of unemployment in Scotland and attracting industry to Scotland. I looked with some care at the last words of the hon. and learned Member's Question. It seemed to me that, on the whole, he was trying to give a benefit by separating the trade and commerce of Scotland from that of England. It seems to me that this is the very worst thing we could do for Scottish interests, and that the interest of Scotland's commerce and trade is that Scotland should
  800
  be integrated fully into the national system, not separated.
  Mr. Ross:However misguided, as we think, the policies are which have been pursued by the President of the Board of Trade, we wish him well in what he may do for Scotland, but if it is not a preoccupation of the President of the Board of Trade, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it was that although this House voted £41 million for the purposes of the Local Employment Act only £26 million were spent?
  The Prime Minister: That is another question—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—and I would ask the hon. Member, if he wants to have a detailed answer, to put down a Question to my right hon. Friend. What I do know is that the money allocated to Scotland under the Local Employment Act is between £45 million and £50 million, which is over half that allocated to the United Kingdom as a whole.
  Mr. Ross: And 38 per cent, of the jobs?

  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
  Mr. Jayasked the Prime Minister what responsibilities the Lord President of the Council now retains for industrial development on the North-East Coast.
  The Prime Minister: With the publication of the White Paper on the North-East my noble Friend's special responsibilities for the North-East are concluded. Carrying out the proposals in the White Paper will be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development.
  Mr. Jay:While I welcome that decision, may I ask the Prime Minister to explain why if it was right to introduce the noble Lord into the activities a year ago, it is right to push him out now?
  The Prime Minister: Because, I tell the right hon. Gentleman, there was a special problem, which we thought ought to be studied. I think that my noble Friend's visit to the North-East

  801
  was much appreciated there, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has found his report extremely useful.
  Dame Irene Ward:Will my right hon. Friend kindly convey to the noble Lord our appreciation in the North-East of what he has done? Will my right hon. Friend also convey our appreciation of the breadth of the Report and the fact that it is the opinion of the North that when it is implemented the North-East will be in a much better position?
  The Prime Minister: I will certainly convey that to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Popplewell:In view of the very lukewarm reception, to say the least, which the proposals for dealing with the North as outlined in the White Paper have received, will the Prime Minister say who will be the responsible Minister to answer Questions about north-west Durham, Cumberland and Westmorland and also the northern part of Northumberland, which is not included in the proposals in the White Paper?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has a responsibility which covers the whole nation, and Questions should be put to him.

  SECURITY (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  Mr. Wiggasked the Prime Minister to which Minister Questions about security should now be addressed.
  Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will now state the position as to Ministerial responsibility for the security service; and what steps he intends to take to ensure that all concerned are aware of the method and means of control.
  The Prime Minister: The present arrangements for Ministerial responsibility for the security service are described in detail in Lord Denning's Report. I think all concerned are already aware of the arrangements in force but I have thought it desirable to give a formal direction so as to make sure of this.
  In accordance with the present arrangements Questions about security should in general be addressed to my
  802
  right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, although, of course, all Ministers retain responsibility for security matters within their own Departments.
  Mr. Wigg: Does the right hon. Gentleman's Answer mean that there is a division here between what is normally regarded as Departmental responsibility and the overall question of security? If that is so, as that statement is a reversal of policy, would he be good enough to follow the example of Lord Denning and circulate the new directive in the Official Report? Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman sure that in the interests of all concerned this directive is understood at all levels, and is he satisfied that it will be carried out?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The whole purpose of the directive was to make sure that it would be understood at all levels. I can give the hon. Member that assurance. He suggests that there has been a change in policy since my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) made the position clear. I must point out that there has been no change since then.
  Mr. Hamilton:First, how can the right hon. Gentleman explain the absence of the Home Secretary from the notorious meeting of the five Ministers? Further, how does he explain the repeated acknowledgement of the former Prime Minister that he was responsible for security matters? That was repeatedly said at the Dispatch Box by the former Prime Minister. Will not the Prime Minister concede, further, as we on this side of the House distrust the Home Secretary even more than we distrust the right hon. Gentleman, that in view of the added responsibilities of the Home Secretary for police matters as indicated in the Police Bill, he himself should now revert to responsibility for security matters?
  The Prime Minister:I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will trust me, but if he does not, I shall not lose very much sleep, I must confess. Perhaps I may be allowed to make this clear, because it is a serious subject and I was asked a serious question by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I would make it clear that the Home Secretary is responsible for the organisation of the security services. If in this

  803
  House there should be a wide-ranging Question which I think brings the Prime Minister into the matter, I would then, of course, answer it.
  Mr. H. Wilson:While we shall no doubt be having an opportunity to debate these security questions very soon, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the arrangements which he has described were clearly not known either to the security services or, at any rate, to the five Ministers? On the position for the future, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a significant change here if Questions have tobe put down to the Home Secretary? Can he tell us how many Questions on security the Home Secretary has accepted since 1961? [Interruption.] They have all been put down to the Prime Minister and accepted by the Prime Minister. So will the right hon. Gentleman tell us—because this is a serious matter in his eyes and in ours, if not in the eyes of his hon. Friends—whether this means that he is now giving up his own very special responsibility for the direct supervision of the security services?
  The Prime Minister: As far as a debate is concerned, that is a matter which no doubt we could discuss through the usual channels, but before we have it, I would rather value some conversation with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on certain aspects of security. As far as the responsibility of the Home Secretary is concerned, I think it might be of interest to the right hon. Gentleman if I read to him what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley said.
  Mr. Wilson: We know what he said.
  The Prime Minister:If the right hon. Gentleman knows what my right hon. Friend said, it must be quite clear to him that there is no change compared with that time. I would simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that, as far as Questions in this House are concerned, I would always like to see them on the Order Paper first. If they deal with the organisation of the security services, their discipline, pay and so on, they ought to go down to the Home Secretary, but, as I have already said, if a Question ranges more widely and is concerned
  804
  with the security of the State and brings in the Prime Minister, it would be my duty to answer it.
  Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman seems a little clearer about this than he was. His first statement said that the Questions should be put down to the Home Secretary. [Hon. Members: "No."] Hon. Members opposite will be able to read it in the Official Report tomorrow. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are all familiar with the famous passage to which he has referred, and that some of us drew the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) to that passage at the time of recent debates? But we are still not clear about one thing from the right hon. Gentleman. I am putting this question to him, and I hope we shall get a straight answer, if we are allowed to without interruptions from his hon. Friends. The question that we are putting is not about that statement in 1961 dealing with pay, rations and organisation, but about Ministerialresponsibility. Are the kinds of Question that the right hon. Member for Bromley accepted and answered to be answered in future by the Prime Minister exactly as before, or has the right hon. Gentleman been telling us that there is a big change in the system?
  The Prime Minister:I think that the right hon. Gentleman is really mistaken. This is why I should like to have a talk with him about it—[Interruption.]—because these are matters of importance, as the right hon. Gentleman has properly said, and they must be understood. It is clear that there is a great deal that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] The right hon. Gentleman is, for instance, wrong in saying that the statement of my right hon. Friend the Memberfor Bromley in 1961 dealt simply with pay and rations. It dealt with the whole question of the organisation for which the Home Secretary is responsible. As far as Questions are concerned and how they should be taken, either by the Home Secretary or by myself, I should like to see the Question on the Order Paper before deciding. But I do not shirk, and will in no way shirk, a Question which deals with the security of the State.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Albu.
  Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was impossible because of the noise on the other side of the House to ascertain whether the Prime Minister was quoting from the directive which he says he has now given. I asked him whether he would publish that directive, and I am not sure whether he answered or not. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman was quoting it, under our rules of order, he is required to lay the paper. [Interruption.] I am, however, quite prepared to believe that the right hon. Gentleman was not quoting it. In that case, would he try to teach his hon. Friends—[Interruption.] If I have misunderstood what has happened, it is because I did not hear, in which case I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will plead with his supporters, if not in the interests of good manners, at least in the interests of allowing hon. Members to hear replies given to them.
  Mr. Speaker: I could rule on the point of order were I able to discover what it was.
  Mr. Hale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I put down to the Prime Minister—
  Mr. Wigg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There are two hon. Gentlemen addressing me on points of order at the moment. Mr. Hale.
  Mr. Hale: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. Iput a Question to the Prime Minister on the question of espionage. I received notice that it had been transferred not to the putative father of the espionage service—known as the Home Secretary—but to the Foreign Secretary. It was transferred to the Foreign Secretary for today—a day on which he does not answer Questions.
  So, notwithstanding that it was the end of the salmon season, I went along the corridor and had my Question transferred to yesterday, a day on which the Foreign Secretary answers Questions, although he has no responsibility for espionage. Owing to the volubility of the Foreign Secretary yesterday it was not reached, but I was able to receive in the post today from him the Answer,
  806
  "Sorry, no". I regard the word "sorry" as placative and a kindly word to me, because the right hon. Gentleman would usually have said simply "No".
  Is it not reasonable that hon. Members should have some way of finding out who are responsible, why they are responsible and what they will do about their responsibilities? As the Prime Minister has transferred 90 per cent, of the Questions put down to him, and at the moment appears to be responsible only for questions about partridge shooting, may we have some answer as to the responsibilities of Ministers?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will remember that, much as I should like to assist him, I cannot, on behalf of the Chair, undertake any responsibility for the transfer of Questions. I have had to explain this to the House before. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) was also rising to a pointof order.
  Mr. Wigg:I am sorry that you did not understand my point of order, Mr. Speaker. Apparently I failed to make myself clear, since I put the same point to you in reference to Mr. Profumo and you understood it then. If a right hon. or hon. Gentleman—particularly a right hon. Gentleman—quotes from a document, he is required to lay that paper. I asked the Prime Minister whether he would publish in the Official Report the new directive he was giving. It was impossible to hear the right hon. Gentleman's answer but he certainly referred to the directive. If he quoted from it, he should lay it. I apologise in advance to the right hon. Gentleman if I did not hear, but that was not my fault. It was the fault of the rabble behind him.
  Mr. Speaker:I do not wish to continue any form of misunderstanding. If the hon. Member for Dudley is referring to our rule relating to the obligation to lay, I think that the House knows what that is. I quoted it the other day during the course of the debate on the Address. I would not commit myself to personal recollection of what the Prime Minister said, but we shall be able to read it and I am sure that the rule of the House will be followed.
  Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. Is it not within the rules of

  807
  order for you to direct that matters of national security are better discussed in private than in public?
  Mr. Speaker: I would advise the hon. Lady to study further the contents of the rules of order. Mr. Albu. Question No. 4.
  Mr. Albu—
  The Prime Minister: Perhaps I may be allowed to satisfy the hon. Member for Dudley. I did not quote from a directive. The only thing I quoted was an Answer made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) to a question.
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on to Question No. 4. This situation is not fair to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) whom I have called several times. Mr. Albu. Question No. 4.
  Mr. Albu—
  Mr. Wigg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) asked whether it was permissible to raise matters of security across the Floor of the House. The Prime Minister was very quick to quote from the directive contained in the Denning Report. Why cannot we have the full story?
  Mr. Speaker:Order. It is desirable that we should not occupy further time on this. In terms which, I hope, were not discourteous, I indicated to the hon. Lady that what she had said was not
  808
  a point of order at all. I hope that we shall not continue with this. Mr. Albu Question No. 4.

  NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAMME
  Mr. Albuasked the Prime Minister whether he has yet received the report of the Committee which is considering the future of the nuclear power programme.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The Committee's report is nearly complete and should be ready for consideration by the Government very shortly.
  Mr. Albu: In view of its importance to the future of the power policy and to many of our manufacturing industries, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to promise that the Report will be published? Can he say whether the recent resignation of the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority has any relationship to the length of time this Committee has taken to produce its Report?
  The Prime Minister:No, Sir. I cannot give any assurance about publication since this was an inter-departmental Committee formed to advise the Government. But, of course, I will take what steps I can to inform the House after the Government have hadthe benefit of the Committee's advice. I gather that the length of time that the Committee has taken to Report was because certain prototypes of power reactors had to work for a considerable time before it could come to its conclusions.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  QUEEN'S SPEECH

    DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS
    [SIXTH DAY]
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [12th November]:
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:—
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful andloyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
    Question again proposed.

  SCIENCE AND EDUCATION
  Mr. Herbert W. Bowden: I beg to move at the end of the Question, to add:
  "but humbly regret that the Gracious Speech contains no effective proposals to ensure the full utilisation of the nation's scientific resources and manpower; or to deal adequately with the problems hindering educational progress at all stages".
  3.39 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: The whole House will agree that today's debate is one of the most important that we have had for a long time. I regret, as I think the whole House does, that the Prime Minister has not seen fit to announce that he will speak in this debate, which is wholly related to the modernisation of Britain in the scientific age, since he has personally identified himself with this theme and since it constitutes the big difference, so we are told, between his Government and that of his predecessor.
  But while, apparently, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to proclaim this modernisation issue in Crieff, Auchterardar, Perth cattle market and the Mansion House, he seems unwilling to give his ideas in detail to the perhaps more critical House of Commons. It is necessary to remind him that the long overdue modernisation of this country, especially industry, will not be achieved by incantations or by slogans. What is
  810
  needed is the gold backing of policy, drive and modern, vital, social attitudes in tune with the scientific age—attitudes totally lacking in him and his colleagues. Without these attitudes and these policies he will not succeed in convincing the rest of us that, after all these years, the Government really mean business.
  Whatever differences there may be in policies—and we shall be debating the policies this afternoon; I intend to spend a lot of time on them—whatever differences there may be in priorities, there should be no differences about objectives, the vital need to mobilise the talents of this nation, its skill and science, its ingenuity and its power of innovation, not only to enhance our economic strength, but to strengthen the voice of this country in the world. The whole House agrees that the world does not owe us a living. We live now neither on nostalgia nor past investments. We live, or we perish, on our skilland our science. This means, quite simply, that we have to have more trained people and that we have to use them more efficiently.
  This means what we have not had—a purpose in education, a purpose in science, a purpose in applying the results of science to industry. It is because we have to widen the area of opportunity to all our people, to all the nation's children, that in this Amendment we link education with science. I begin with education, not only higher education and not only Robbins. The great danger is that in their sudden, death-bed preoccupation with higher education the Government will ignore the educational base which underlies the superstructure of higher education, that, rightly, they will be concerned with the thousands and, wrongly,will ignore the millions. In space-age language, higher education is the final stage in a three-stage rocket and, however successfully that stage may be developed, if we ignore the other stages, we shall never get off the ground.
  What the Robbins Report shows is that on the basis of the present and foreseeable proportion of sixth formers having the right qualifications for entry to universities and other colleges, we shall need a tremendous drive if we are to create enough places by the middle of the late 1970s. The second thing that the Report shows is the culpable

  811
  negligence of the Government in entirely failing to forecast the need for places in higher education and to make adequate provision for the immediate needs of the mid-1960s.
  I will come to this question later, but I must make it clear now that even the Robbins programme, imaginative and formidable though it is, fails to make provision for the products of the educational revolution that we need in our primary and secondary school system. The plain fact is that the sixth formers with whom the Report deals are only a fraction of those who could acquire the qualifications for higher education if we tackle the problem where our neglect and sloth have been greatest—in the schools.
  For example, the 11-plus. To segregate the nation's children at the age of II and to decide a child's entire educational future at that age is not only to commit a wrong against a child in its denial of educational opportunity, but a wrong against Britain, because it means that three-quarters of the nation's children are virtually cut off from the chance of higher education by an arbitrary decision taken at the age of 11, save in the exceptional case or in those cases where access becomes possible through a comprehensive system. These cases are still rare enough to make the headlines when they occur. It is still a headline when a child who has failed the 11-plus, in the fashionable jargon, manages to get education in some other way and gets entry to university.
  There is one thing that I am sure about—and the Prime Minister will take this point, as a former Foreign Secretary—and that is that our main industrial rivals, the United States, the Soviet Union and Western Germany, do not permit this segregation atthe age of 11 and do not cut off from higher education three-quarters of their nation's children, because they know that they cannot afford to do it, and if they cannot, we, in this highly ruthless competitive age, cannot afford to do it either. Who are we to say, any of us, that a child's future shall be determined by his success one cold Saturday morning in February, by his success in a so-called intelligence test which, as far as I can see, does not prove more than that a child has or has
  812
  not the same kind of warped mind as the professor who devised the intelligence test? Future historians, looking back on this system of educational apartheid, will describe it as a barbarity unfitted to a civilised nation. It has a great bearing on the question of the entry to higher education.
  In his recent Guildhall lecture, Professor Blackett has shown how the children of manual workers, just as intelligent as those of professional workers, do not arrive at die point of entry to universities in anything like the same proportion. He said:
  "It is clear that these vital, missing bright children of worker families, do not knock on the university door and get rejected: they just don't knock."
  Nor can we conduct an educational advance with present Government attitudes to school building. The Newsom Report description of the slum schools, which we still allow to fester in city, town and village, is a section of the Report to make right hon. Gentlemen opposite blush. We have a new round of promises in the matter of school building, though it is worth commenting that the Government did not honour their 1958 promises in respect of school building. They are all expansionists now, but what of the cuts year by year in the local education authority building programmes? Even this year, the year before a General Election, local authorities asked for permission to start school building in 1964–65 worth £188 million, but the Minister of Education announced in March, this year, that permission to start schemes was not £188 million, but £43 million, and 44 local authorities have no authorisations at all to build.
  We know the Minister of Education's answer. For some reason, the Minister is not speaking in this debate. I suppose that he has had to stand down to accord equality of misery to Lord Hailsham, but we know what answer he would give if he could catch your eye this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. His answer to the 60 deputations who came to see him after his rejection of their building programmes was that local education authority programmes were unreal, that they were "trying it on." This statement by the Minister is a libel.
  Every one of us knows of urgently needed schools which are deferred by the

  813
  Minister's decision into never-never. I can think of a small school in my constituency in a slum-cleared area where the newly rehoused children have to travel nearly two miles to their old school, which, by this time, should have been blown up anyway. The Lancashire County Council does not even put this school on the list, because there are even higher priority cases, and even those higher priority cases have been turned down by the Minister.
  On the question of city centres; because of the needs of new housing estates, fine new schools have to be built on the outskirts of our cities, or there would be no schools for the children to go to, but because programmes have been so restricted by the Ministry, no progress can be made by some of the big cities in clearing slum schools in the city and in down-town areas, many of them condemned very many years ago. Are these local education authority programmes inflated? The Director of Education for Liverpool says:
  "Liverpool could cope with a programme twice the size with the greatest ease and could, I am confident, manage programmes very much larger than that."
  This is in an area of heavy unemployment, but school building is not allowed.
  The Director of Education for Leicestershire says:
  "It is, of course, utter nonsense to accuse us of putting in our programmes 'inflationary projects'; every single one conforms to the yardstick of basic need."
  The Director of Education for Lincolnshire says:
  "Many classes have to be held in huts erected temporarily in 1919 and condemned by inspectors as long ago as 1948. Both there and elsewhere classrooms are too small. At a rough estimate there are upwards of 30 boys at any one time who cannot see the blackboards."
  Nationally, the N.U.T. survey this year shows what is the position. Children in more than half the primary schools are using buildings built in the nineteenth century; well over half have no separate dining rooms; nearly half have no assembly hall and 43 per cent, have only outside lavatories. It shows that 40 per cent, of all secondary modern schools were built before the First World War, that half have no dining rooms, 45 per cent, no gymnasium, 28 per cent, no library and that one in three are so
  814
  overcrowded that accommodation away from the main school site has to be used.
  The Newsom Report—and that Report was not given the build-up which the Robbins Report received—said that 40 per cent, had buildings
  "which must be condemned as seriously inadequate."
  In what it called the decaying centres of big cities, 79 per cent, of secondary schools were seriously inadequate. This is Britain in 1963.
  What have the modernisers been doing all this time? Do they deny these facts? This is a doctrinal point. In the lean years between elections the Government cut school programmes. They cut them because they are public investments and are plannable and controllable. But they do not, at the same time, cut out luxury buildings—offices, built as a speculation. They do not cut out some of the less essential parts of city centre development, because that is private and it makes a profit.
  This is their language of priorities. It is just as much a question of priority to cut the one and have no policy of control over the other as it is to take a straight decision that one is more important. Because it all comes out of the same national pool, £1 million spent on less essential building is £1 million less spent on essential building.
  Sir Gerald Nabarro: You want building controls?
  Mr. Wilson: I would point out to the hon. Member that we have building controls.I have been describing the effect of them. We have a strict Government building control on schools that are needed.
  Sir G. Nabarro:Would not the implication of what the right hon. Gentleman is now proposing be the restoration of the physical building controls abandoned by the Tory Government ten years ago?
  Mr. Wilson: I will answer the hon. Member absolutely flatly. If it means a choice between building a school and not building a school, on the one hand, and some less essential building, on the other, we shall introduce controls to see that the schools are built. I say this to the hon. Member, because he should be taking this subject seriously—
  Sir G. Nabarro: I am.
  Mr. Wilson:—and we have said it many times—that if, in order to realise essential programmes, it is necessary to hold up the starting dates of less essential work, we shall do it. The policy of this Government is to hold back on essential work so that the less essential can go ahead.
  Sir Kenneth Thompson: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what was the rate of school building when we did have building controls?
  Mr. Wilson: During the four or five years after the Second World War it was considerably higher than it was after the First World War, when the Conservatives were in office. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite are going to go on relying on the world shortages a year or two after the war they are getting hard up for arguments.
  The question of teacher supply I shall leave to my hon.Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. The House will recognise that that is as grave a problem as the problem of providing school building, if not a greater one.
  I want to turn to the Robbins Report. We do not regard this debate on the Amendment as the full debate which must be provided before long on the Robbins Report, the Newsom Report and the long-neglected Crowther Report.
  First, I want to deal with the immediate crisis referred to in the Robbins Report. In the House last week the Prime Minister said—as he said repeatedly in the Kinross by-election—
  "Our aim is quite plain and it can be expressed in a sentence. It is that every father and mother in the country should know that if they have in the family a child who wishes to pursue a course of higher education, there should be a place at technical college or university for that boy or girl to fill."
  That is the right hon. Gentleman's objective. Let me give him some facts. They might not have been included in the briefing that he got from his hon. Friend from the J. Walter Thompson Agency, who helped him through the by-election. [Interruption.] This is not Colman Prentis and Varley. He gets Walter Thompson in one ear and Colman Prentis and Varley in the other.
  816
  In 1954, 73 per cent, of those with the right qualifications for entry to universities found places, and we still have a long way to go to catch up with other countries. We had the highest figure, of 75 per cent, in 1957. The last figure available was 61 per cent. In 1962–63, it would almost certainly be lower than that. We are now moving into a crisis period, where places will be gravely deficient. During the three years beginning 1965 there will be a shortage of 18,000 in the first year, 20,000 in the second, and 25,000 in the third, a total deficiency of 63,000 places. There will be 63,000 students who are denied places in higher education to which their qualifications entitle them—for one reason only—that the Government failed to provide those places.
  It cannot be said that the need was not known. Even this Government could calculate the numbers likely to reach the age of 18 in 1965 based on the birth rate for eighteen years before that. It is not a difficult calculation. To fail to make this calculation, and to wash their hands of the affair and wait two-and-a-half years for Robbins to report is an act of unparalleled frivolity.
  I am not acquitting the Robbins Committee entirely. It should have put in an emergency interim report on the immediate crisis. But if it did not volunteer it, the Government ought to have insisted on it. This has happened with the Police Commission and many times before on other occasions. Or the Government should have dealt with the crisis themselves by taking urgent action at what was admittedly the eleventh hour. By waiting till now they are past the eleventh hour. In terms of the university entry crisis it is now ten minutes past twelve—almost too late to do anything.
  Last Tuesday I referred to the debate initiated by Hugh Gaitskell in this House on 5th April, 1962—eighteen months ago. I was sorry that in his speech last week the Prime Minister did not reply to this point. I want to repeat the question, and I hope that we shall get an answer from the Chief Secretary this afternoon. If the Government now accept the need for this unprecedented expansion programme for university entry, and also accept the cost involved, both in money and real resources, why

  817
  is it that only eighteen months ago the Government rejected the much more conservative expansion plans of the University Grants Committee? Why did they take their supporters into the Division Lobby on the argument that the country would be bankrupt if it found the extra few million pounds that were needed? Here, in the House of Commons, tile then Chief Secretary made the point that it would be inflation and that we could not afford all this.
  There was a debate in the House of Lords. We find that the Prime Minister then voted with the Government. He voted against the expansion proposed by the University Grants Committee. We must now ask the Government how they justify this sudden reversal between eighteen months ago and the present time. The Home Secretary—then Chief Secretary—referring to the programme that the Government were allowing, said:
  "we shall be entitled to say that no one has had a reduced chance of getting to a university through being born in the top year of the bulge the most difficult time of all, when we are at the peak of the bulge, the opportunities of higher education for each young man and woman should be significantly greater than today. It will be a great British achievement ".
  This was the Chief Secretary, stating flatly that there would be no reduced chance, because of the bulge, in the period 1965–67. Now we have the Robbins Report and we see that that statement involved totally misleading the House—although the figures were available to the Government.
  The Minister of Education then said:
  "If the universities can match with student places this rise of 35 per cent, over five years, then we shall be entitled to say, as my right hon. Friend said today, that no one has had a reduced chance of getting to a university through being born in the top year of the bulge. That would be an achievement of which the nation could feel rightly proud."—[Official Report, 5th April, 1962; Vol. 657, c. 738–72.]
  It would, but it has not been achieved. So the Government have some explaining to do on this, and we shall expect the Chief Secretary to answer it where the Prime Minister failed to do so.
  There is one other thing that they must explain, and I hope that we shall be told the position clearly, because there has been rather a conspiracy of
  818
  silence about it. We all recognise, do we not, even if we did not eighteen months ago, the acute pressure on university entrance? We all know of highly-qualified students who, this year, failed to secure entrance to higher education even though they had the necessary qualifications that would have got them into higher education a year ago.
  Will the Government explain the circular issued on 18th September by the University Clearing House? I should like to have the Chief Secretary's attention here, because I want him to reply to this point—although I know that the Minister of Education is just giving him the answer to the last one. The University Clearing House issued a circular, and I think that the Government might begin in their attack on this problem by publishing it because up to now it has been a closely guarded secret and practically impossible to get hold of—
  Sir Cyril Osborne: How did the right hon. Gentleman get it then?
  Mr. Wilson: This is not a State document, although it reveals a scandalous state of affairs, for which not only are the Government responsible but the tax payers'money has been involved. If the hon. Gentleman would like to see it, I will pass it to the Prime Minister and ask him to circulate it in the Official Report, when we can all see it. The Circular, referring to science and mathematics—and we all know the difficulty of training enough mathematicians and the sheer impossibility of recruiting mathematics teachers for secondary modern schools—said that earlier this year mathematics students were told that they could not get into university mathematical faculties unless they had Grade I, or Grade A at A level.
  Many of them went into other jobs. Many of them, as we all know, because they did not think they would make that other grade, went in for another course—general science, or the like. So we lost a number of potential mathematicians because they were told that the places would not be available.
  On 18th September the University Clearing House panicked. It found that hundreds of places were empty for the new academic year. Headmasters were circularised and told that there were

  819
  now places for D and E level passes for which the pupils concerned should apply quickly. After the B, C and D levels had been turned away—many of them lost for all time—the University Clearing House panicked, and said that the situation was so urgent that pupils should apply for university entrance on a postcard, because letters might take longer to open—or longer to get through. This really is a public scandal, and I would maintain that its concealment is a public scandal. I challenge the Government to publish the circular, and explain, as they should—it is their responsibility—what went wrong in this case.
  As I have said, we shall need a further debate, and I intend now to make only a brief comment on the broader aspects of the Robbins Report. First, we welcome not only the imagination and scope and sweep of the Report, but many of the detailed proposals—and not least the proposal that colleges of advanced technology should award degrees and that training colleges should be brought into the degree field, too. We have pressed for both of those for years—both, I may say, were in the Taylor Report published earlier this year—and we really must end this spurious intellectual snobbery in the technological age.
  Secondly, we are anxious about the scant regard paid by the Robbins Committee to further education as opposed to higher education, and in this connection we press the urgent need for our proposal for a university of the air.
  Thirdly—and, frankly, I do not like saying this—I must express reservations about the Robbins Committee's calculations of residential accommodation. Of course, we support in principle the idea of adequate in-college or hostel accommodation in our universities—and in the old ones—because "digs", which in many cases, are very hard to get in many university centres today, or living at home, are not really adequate for a university education. But for the Robbins Committee to propose that two-thirds of all students in the expansion programme should be provided with residential accommodation means, however welcome it may be as an idea, that we may be making the best the enemy of the good.
  820
  We live, we must admit, in a world of limited means to meet illimitable needs, and every hostel so built may mean less direct provision of university premises. I wish that we could have both—I hope that we can have both—but I very much fear that if we go for hostels we shall get less university accommodation. As I say, as an old university teacher I hate saying it, but in the expansion period we must make more provision for students living at home if otherwise it means that the boy in Bristol or Newcastle must come to London, or the boy in London must go to Exeter or Manchester. None of us likes the suggestion, but if we can have more students going to local colleges we shall get more students in total. We should, therefore, think not only of increasing the approved lodging allowances, but of providing adequate lodging allowances for home students.
  In dealing with school and higher education, we have been concerned, obviously, not just with scientists, but with all forms of education—science, humanities, technology, art and commerce. I now turn to the special problem of science and scientists. We have four problems here: the training of scientists, holding them in this country, using them more intelligently, and ensuring a greater success in applying the results of scientific research to industry. The training and supply of scientists, engineers and technologists is a function of our educational proposals at every level and, let us be frank, some of the great scientists of the future will be found among the social classes which, so far, have not been knocking on the door.
  But we have the great problem of keeping our scientists here when they are trained. I shall not weary the House with the figures of the "brain exodus", but will just recall that the Royal Society inquiry this year recorded that the rate of permanent emigration of recent Ph.D.s is now 12 per cent, of the annual output; that of university staffs is 1 per cent, of the total capital stock of university teachers; and that, in the past year, the University of Sheffield alone lost the professor, a lecturer and a fellow in physics, almost the entire staff, of the department of biochemistry—including a professor, a

  821
  reader, a senior lecturer and an assistant lecturer—a lecturer in inorganic chemistry, a lecturer in economics and a senior lecturer in statistics.
  We all know that many of the scientists who are going from our academic life or from our industrial life are men of the very highest calibre and quality. This has been proved in some interviews that have taken place by authorities going from this country trying to persuade some of them to come back. As has been said, we are not selling the seed corn in the matter of the "brain drain"—we are giving it away.
  For all these grave problems we have the explanation of Lord Hailsham which, I must say, for complacency and irresponsibility is possibly the most crass we have had from any Minister in the last twelve years. This really is the language of superlatives. He blamed it on the deficiencies of the American educational system. He is, of course, wrong—the fault lies not in the deficiencies, of the American educational system, but in the deficiencies of the British industrial system, and in the Government's cheeseparing attitude to the provision of facilities for university research. Since I referred to this at Scarborough, I have had many letters—and I am sure that many other hon. Members have received many letters, also—from many emigre British scientists. And I would refer hon. Members to a recent lengthy testimony published in the Listener, a week or two ago.
  What are the reasons they give? Salary? Yes, but in the universities it is principally the difference in the provision for research and teaching between North America and this country. In industry, is it salary? Yes, again, but it is much more a question of status and prospects. Not long ago I spent an evening in America with a group of British scientists who had left this country. One of them said that the reason was simply that in his field he had, being in his twenties, no chance of promotion in the firm until the man above him, in his fifties,reached retirement age—or, perhaps, had a coronary thrombosis.
  This raises the whole question of the use of scientists, and the status that
  822
  we should give them. Until very recently, more than half of our scientists were employed on defence, or so-called defence—on the vain search for Britain's independent missile—and it would be interesting if the Government were to tell us, in this day of Britain's struggle to catch up on science, how many man-years highly-qualified scientists and engineers spent on projects, missiles or aircraft, which were cancelled as obsolete before ever leaving the drawing board. We gather that there are one or two more on the list this week.
  The problem now, therefore, is to mobilise our scientists, our existing scientists and the increasing number we hope to train, for production research, above all in civil industry, because it is in civil industry that the battle for Britain's survival will be fought. This battle—if I can get right hon. Gentlemen opposite to understand this—will not be won on any playing field. It will be won in the technical colleges and the technological faculties and Government research centres and the research laboratories both of public and private industry; and there will be no room for amateurs. It is a grim struggle now with the players in industrial research.
  I do not think that any hon. Member will underrate in the debate what survival in the technological age will mean. The fifteen years from 1960 to 1975 are seeing and will see technological changes on a scale transcending the industrial revolution of the last 150 years. I will not worry the House with examples which I have given elsewhere of the American programme —controlled machine tool line with an Impulse cycle of one-300 millionth of a second, process control systems which, without the intervention of human skill, can reproduce more machine tools in their own image. We have just read of developments in the American glass industry where 14 men can produce 90 per cent, of all the electric lamp bulbs and radio valves required in the whole of the United States.
  I expect that since his Mansion House speech the Prime Minister will have gone further in the question of automation. He will have realised that it is not one more process in mechanisation, if, by mechanisation, we mean the replacement of human muscle by machinery. What

  823
  we mean by automation is the replacement of hitherto unique functions of memory and selected judgment by scientific means, and doing this with a speed and in a way which goes beyond the capacity of any human being or group of human beings who have ever lived.
  I do not need to remind the House of the social problems created in an automation age, not least that of unemployment. The United States has now as many unemployed in boom conditions as a few years ago it had in the depth of depression. There is almost a law of increasing unemployment in automation, and the impact is on white-collar workers equally with or even more than manual workers. Worst of all, the impact of unemployment as automation proceeds is greatest on the oldest workers and the youngest workers. We cannot escape automation. We all understand that if we try we shall become a stagnant industrial backwoods—and automation of itself will increase juvenile unemployment.
  The Government, in the most favourable conditions, with automation barely introduced and the election boom now well under way, are even today facing a degree of unemployment among school leavers and young workers which no civilised society should tolerate. The Prime Minister told us last week of twelve years of preparations and of acceleration. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman where these have brought him. I quote from the Liverpool Echo of 1st November:
  "The Liverpool Education Department are launching a pilot scheme to give unemployed young people somewhere to go. They are opening a centre for them at Everton Red Triangle Club, Everton Road next Tuesday open three afternoons a week…. A second centre is planned … in the south end of the City, possibly at Dingle. Liverpool Boys' Association are already operating a residential course for unemployed boys at their Heswall camp."
  Well, snooker and woodwork and judo are better than the betting shop.
  I ask the Prime Minister whether, in his tour of the country which he envisages, he will go to the unemployed workers'clubs and will recognise that these lads are just as much part of the nation as more favoured boys of the same age and whether he will come back and tell us that after twelve years of
  824
  Conservative government he can still talk, as he has been talking before the television cameras, of our being one nation, a partnership.
  It is in research and development that we need a spectacular increase in the amount which is undertaken both on public and private account. Private industry should have the maximum tax encouragement for research and the application of research. We have argued this in our Amendments to the Finance Bill.
  As for the rest, there must be more purposive Government sponsorship not only through D.S.I.R., or whatever is to be its successor, but increasingly through R. and D. contracts in civil research. This is what we were talking about at Scarborough. The Prime Minister, in his by-election speeches at Kinross and in his broadcasts, had one idea of what this means, and we got it again and again. To quote his words:
  "The combination of Socialism and automation could open the door to the destruction of personal freedom."
  Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that? Did he really think this one out for himself, or was this Conservative Central Office propaganda? Has the Prime Minister ever heard of N.R.D.C.?
  I was very touched when, at Blackpool, the Foreign Secretary, in his speech, gently chided me for failing to pay tribute to the development of the Hovercraft and the Atlas computer, because I mention these two in almost every speech I make. I willingly confess that my speeches are just as repetitive as those of the right hon. Gentleman. I was grateful to him, because both of these achievements were triumphs of the National Research Development Corporation which we on this side of the House set up.
  The Minister of Education, at Blackpool, congratulated me on having discovered science.I thank him for the congratulation. I think that I was reading a paper to the British Association when he was still at Eton. Apart from that, the right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Second Reading of the Bill setting up the N.R.D.C. was in 1948, fifteen years ago, and, of course, it was the N.R.D.C. which was responsible for these triumphs. When N.R.D.C.

  825
  takes a research discovery from either public or private research, protects it by patent rights, and finances its development to the stage of industrial production, does the Prime Minister really think that this is opening the door to the destruction of personal freedom?
  Of course, N.R.D.C. was only a start. We must extend the technique on a great scale. N.D.R.C. is statutorily confined to research development and I need not explain to the House the difference between its research development job and what might appeal to civil industry. In recent years the Public Accounts Committee has spent much time studying R. and D. in defence industries and has unearthed some ghastly cases of waste. This is perhaps inevitable in a developing defence situation where, in eighteen years of so-called peace, military technology has moved faster than in all the centuries since the discovery of gunpowder. It is difficult to control also, because military contracts are for some necessarily indefinable military product, and research is necessarily blind and its costs open-ended. Nevertheless, having said that, the Public Accounts Committee suggested considerable improvements which are now being adopted.
  Our concrete proposal now is that the nation should engage on a major adventure in R. and D. contracts in the civil field. As I see it, there could be two main types. The first would be where the Government take the initiative. The Government and their advisers, the new Civil Research Board which we propose, must know—we all know—of the technological fields where a clear and obvious break-through is needed and where a break-through could mean supremacy for Britain in a particular department of industry. In these cases the Government could invite feasibility and project studies from public research establishments and private research teams leading to full R. and D. contracts.
  Indeed, the Government should go further. We have all accepted that the speed of industrial expansion is directly related to the speed of expansion of our export sales, though some of us feel that N.E.D.C. is optimistic in thinking that we can get a steady 4 per cent, expansion in production with only a 5 per cent, in-
  826
  crease in exports. But not enough thought is being given to import saving, which is more under our control—and I do not mean by protectionist devices. If we can save imports, production can go up with much more invulnerability. Certain imports—for example, semi-finished materials, semi-finished manufactures, certain chemical products and many items of equipment of machinery—rise very fast when we have a boom in this country.
  I should like to see the Board of Trade, with its detailed knowledge of the growth elements in our import trade, list some of these key imports, and our scientific departments then offer R. and D. contracts to produce an adequate and competitive British alternative which would save imports and develop our exports. I can think of nothing more likely to give direct assistance in our hope of achieving a steady rate of growth without running into repeated balance of payments difficulties.
  The other rôle for the Government in the research field should be passive. The appropriate Department should be available to receive research propositions from any research team—Government Departments, private industry or universities—who have ideas which can be fostered and sponsored. In this connection, I feel that thought should be given to using university research more. The Atlas computer began in Manchester University, and we have stressed in our statements that more of the new universities should be steered not to cathedral cities but to thriving centres of industry. Then research and development contracts should be placed with them to enable the technological faculties of these universities to become the nerve centre of a new local industrial complex.
  Taking one case purely as an example, I recently visited the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes), Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) and Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts). I was told of the great achievements of Bangor University College in electronics. Why should we not, through R. and D., place contracts at such universities for new development? The machining work could be done by sub-contract, and, if a major break-

  827
  through were to occur, Bangor could be the centre of a thriving new industry centred on university research. This example could be multiplied throughout all the industrial areas.
  While some industrial firms give maximum encouragement to their research staffs, in others research is still regarded as a costly luxury. We get the attitude, "When times are good we do not need this fiddle-faddle, and when they are bad we cannot afford it". Our proposals would make the research departments of firms a potential earning asset contributing a reasonable quota to the firms' earnings and, therefore, raise their status.
  Does this mean an interference with human freedom, as the Prime Minister thinks? Of course, it does not. In our view, this advances freedom because it advances security. Surely, we have got away from the old philosophy that it is possible to have real freedom only in conditions of economic insecurity.
  Finally, there is one subject with which I must deal, and that is the question of Ministerial responsibility in science and education. There is a great argument going on—one Ministry or two in the field of education? I do not need to rehearse the arguments; they are familiar. I feel that the Government are making a mistake in looking at this question from too narrow an angle, without bringing the questions of science and technology sufficiently into it. I suspect that the argument now has become something of a power struggle between personalities.
  I begin from the proposition that the University Grants Committee should not be in the Treasury. I have held this view for many years. The Treasury, dedicated to holding Government expenditure within bounds, should not be a spending Department, particularly in a rapidly-expanding growth field. So higher education must come under another Minister, whether a separate Minister, or in education or science or, as Robbins proposed, arts and science. I think that it is realised that whatever we do here will be wrong. If we separate higher education from the Ministry of Education, we perpetuate the present chasm between education up to 18 and education over 18. We end the hope of getting a real settlement to the curricula problem and
  828
  of dealing with such questions as over-specialisation in sixth forms resulting from university entry requirements. On the other hand, if we put it in education, we split Ministerial responsibility for university teaching and Ministerial responsibility for university research, which can be very serious. Therefore, there is no simple answer. It is a choice of evils.
  I believe that we cannot decide this question without reference to the problems thrown up—though not, in my view, solved—by the Trend Report and by much wider considerations. After four years of the noble Lord as Minister for Science, the Trend Report is a devastating indictment of confusion and divided responsibilities. Once again, we have had the case where the responsible Minister fails to take action. It is all left to a committee.
  But there is still one problem left unsolved, even by Trend. When we look at the departmental establishments in this country there is one Ministry which sticks out like a sore thumb, the Ministry of Aviation. It was not assimilated in the defence set-up, for reasons on which I will not speculate this afternoon. My view now is that the creation of this Ministry in its present form was a mistake, though there seemed very good arguments for it at the time. I suggest that its travel function, its responsibility for civil aviation, airports and the rest should be handed back to the Ministry of Transport—though I recognise again that it is a choice of evils—and we then divorce aircraft ordering from aircraft manufacture.
  But, stripped of this function, the Ministry of Aviation, with all its faults, provides a ready-made nucleus for a Ministry of Research and Technology with a powerful expertise and organisation. It is already responsible for Government research over a wide area—principally, though not exclusively, defence research. It has a defence research programme of £400 million a year, a research staff of several thousands of research scientists and engineers, to say nothing of those engaged on extra-mural research for the Ministry through outside contracts. It is heavily weighted on defence research, though not exclusively.
  When the P.A.C. bitterly criticised the Ministry of Health about excessive

  829
  prices paid for drugs from pharmaceutical firms, and the Ministry was finally pressed into "busting" some of the patents licensing the manufacture and importation of some of these drugs, it was interesting to find that it was the Ministry of Aviation which had the job of negotiating the contracts, because it was that Department alone which had the expertise in contracts, royalties and the rest.
  I suggest that the Ministry of Aviation should now be reconstituted as a Ministry of Research and Technology—this would not create an additional Ministry—and should be reorientated more in terms of civil research. Then the Ministry should be responsible for all R. and D. and for D.S.I.R. functions and should have responsibility for N.R.D.C. Whether it should be responsible for pure research is arguable, and I do not pretend to know the answer. I know distinguished scientists and Nobel class F.R.S.s who would go to the stake on this question—some who say that it is not possible to separate applied research from fundamental research, and others who say that it is not possible to mix applied research and fundamental research.
  Then there is the problem of the research councils—M.R.C., Agriculture, Road Research and the rest. I wonder whether those could not now be transferred to the functional Ministries, to the Ministries of Health, Agriculture and Transport. There is a strong case for this. It would enrich those Departments, and any residuum in these Research Councils could be transferred to the Royal Society, which would be helped to become more truly an academy of science and would become grant-aided to do that work.
  If this were done, and if the Ministry of Aviation were reconstituted as the Ministry of Research and Technology, whether or not it had responsibility for pure science, the question of Ministerial responsibility for higher education would then become clear. It could not possibly be included in the Ministry of Technology. In my view, the right answer to follow from this argument—I am sorry that I have been a long time coming to it—is the appointment of a Secretary of State for Education, with a Minister of State for the schools, on the
  830
  one hand, and a Minister of State for the universities operating through and with the University Grants Committee.
  This, one of the most powerful Departments of State as it would be, could then assert the priority which education in all its forms must have and provide the right degree of curricula and other co-ordination to which I referred a moment ago. Then, as a separate Ministry, we shall have for this modern age a powerful Ministry of Research and Technology, well staffed, expert, of high morale, newly deployed, with much more emphasis on civil research as opposed to the other defence responsibilities, to begin the long overdue task of mobilising what I believe are the unrivalled scientific and technological resources of our people—all our people—in the task of creating a new and, so far, undreamed-of greatness for our country.
  4.30 p.m.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster-General (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): This debate, and the Amendment on which it takes place, like old Gaul—and the Liberal Party—falls roughly into three parts: science, higher education and the rest of the educational world.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in a speech in which, if he will allow me to say so, he varied some very thoughtful and helpful comments with some fairly shrewd political in-fighting, touched on all three. I shall endeavour to deal with the three of them in my speech and I know that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, who will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, towards the end of the debate, will endeavour to deal with further points.
  On the scientific part of the discussion, I feel rather in the position of a character who bore the same Christian name as myself and who appears in the early part of the New Testament:
  "Art thou he that should come or do we look for another?"
  Appreciating the zeal and knowledge with which my noble Friend—as I think he still is—has addressed himself to these subjects, hon. Members will look forward nearly as much as will my

  831
  noble Friend to the opportunity which no doubt will be given to him to take part in further debates. I will, therefore, come straight to what was said about science by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
  There is absolutely no quarrel between the right hon. Gentleman and the Government about the crucial importance of scientific research and development in this technological age for a country situated as is our own. I was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman said words to the effect that the world does not owe us a living. That cannot be said too often. I agree wholly with the line that he took—indeed, it was what many of us on this side of the House have said over and over again—about the importance to the future life and livelihood of this country of our remaining in the lead in research and its application to industrial processes. But I do not think that the House can possibly form a fair view, on this Amendment which seeks to suggest that we are doing too little in this respect, without having in mind the enormous advance which has taken place and is at present taking place.
  As I understand it, the issue between the right hon. Gentleman and the Government is not that either of us dispute the importance of this, but that the right hon. Gentleman seems to think we are not doing enough. I am bound to comment—as I shall in my speech—that the right hon. Gentleman himself revealed that he did not know a good deal of what is actually being done. Therefore, on this point I think that I can best help the House to come to a fair decision on this matter by pointing out to hon. Members the very great progress and advance which is taking place, beginning with the amount of money spent.
  The national expenditure on research and development in 1955–56 was running at the rate of about £300 million a year. In the current year the figure is more than £634 million. Or, if hon. Members prefer—I think it is more realistic—in terms of the share of the gross national product it has risen since 1955–56 from 1.7 to 2.7 per cent. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said, I must say that that includes defence research and development.
  832
  As the right hon. Gentleman will know perfectly well, research and development in defence can often pay very considerable dividends to civil purposes, as those of us who have seen what has happened as a result of the vast research and development undertaken for defence purposes by the United States know very well. But I accept that it is civil research and development about which the right hon. Gentleman is mainly concerned this afternoon.
  It is perhaps material that the proportion of our research and development effort going to defence has fallen from 59 per cent, of the 1955–56 figure which I gave to 39 per cent, of the later figure. It therefore follows that civil research is receiving a larger proportion of a larger total. I will give a few details of the break-down of this expenditure. Civil research expenditure by the Government was £45 million a year in 1955–56. It was £140 million in 1961-62. It is over £171 million in the current year. Over the same period civil research expenditure on industry rose from £78 million to £249 million, an increase of about 220 per cent.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that this was a good thing, and I agree, and that it should be given tax encouragement. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will recall it, but that is precisely what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did in this year's Budget, when he provided for the cost of research and development work to be written off in one year. When one takes account of the fact that the investment allowance applies, this means that there could be a write-off at the rate of 130 per cent, in one year in respect of such expenditure. That is a stimulus on top of the very large figures which I mentioned of work being undertaken by industry.
  I think that great importance should be attached to this work, because it is work which is being undertaken by industry for its own purposes and is perhaps more likely than most to result in direct application and not raise the problem which we have to face in a number of directions of the gap which sometimes arises between research work and its practical application.
  As the Amendment charges the Government with lack of enthusiasm, lack

  833
  of drive and—I think the right hon. Gentleman used the word—parsimony, or cheese-paring, in this respect, it is fair to point out that the expenditure in the current year of £171 million compares favourably with the £30 million at which it was left by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Right hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to me to under-rate the achievement and effort of this country compared with other countries. It may interest them to know that this country devotes a larger proportion of its gross national product to research and development than any other,, with the sole exception of the United States of America. I commend to the right hon. Gentleman the O.E.C.D. Report published on 4th October, which was set out as a background paper for Ministers. From that it appears that they have collected the latest figures of the proportion of the gross national product available in industrial countries. There is some qualification as to date, and so on. None the less it is quite clear that the United States is well ahead of anybody. The figure they give is about 31 per cent. There is no one else, apart from this country, above 14 per cent.
  That shows that a charge against us, as a country, of neglecting to apply resources to research and development cannot stand. The comparison with the United States, with its vast resources, is one which we must accept with reserve, but the fact that in this report we do so much more than comparable industrial countries is a striking indication of the importance that this country, under this Government, gives to this matter.
  I agree that as important as the totality of the effort is the direction given to it. I mention, by way of increases which have taken place, some directions in which they have increased enormously in proportion. Research by the learned societies was costing £8.3 million in 1951 and is £26.4 million in the current year. In the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research it has gone up from £4.9 million in 1951 to £23.4 million in the current year, and in the Medical Research Council it was £1.7 million in 1951 and is £6.9 million in the current year.
  834
  I accept entirely the argument that what is essential is that this mass of work should not be allowed to be lost in its value by lack of application in industry. We have given great thought and care to this and the Lord President of the Council has given particular attention to seeing that there are close links between the research agencies and the industries which have to apply it. Again, I do not think the right hon. Member was quite up to date when he suggested that it was necessary to start introducing development contracts. The D.S.I.R. has been doing this.
  To give some examples, a development contract was placed the other day for the control of multi-purpose machine tools, another for electronic map making and another for advanced computer techniques. I agree with what the right hon. Member said about the importance of automation, but the D.S.I.R. is at the moment paying grants for fundamental researches at nine different universities on this very subject. In addition, 20 other projects on it are being worked at colleges and universities.
  On top of that is the work of the industrial research associations where they have the great advantage in most cases of real knowledge of the needs to be met. Then there is the question of keeping the link in the techniques of automation, because no firm can plunge into automation unless it has got clear that the fundamental techniques and linear programming are right. To close this gap, the industrial unit of the D.S.I.R. now runs courses for assistant managers so that they can be brought in touch with the knowledge of the techniques when automation is to be applied. I need not weary the House with details, but there have been demonstrations carried on with particular firms.
  What has been the result? I thought that the tone of the right hon. Member's speech was that this country had been allowed to fall behind in matters of science and development, but that is not so. We had four Nobel Prize awards last year, all in connection with the epoch-making work being done at the laboratory of molecular biology at Cambridge and the biophysics research unit in London into the fascinating material affecting living cells. We are in the lead in the manufacture of commercial

  835
  nuclear power stations; the first two in the world were of British design.
  The right hon. Member did mention the Atlas computer at Manchester, which is the most powerful in the world. Then there is the discovery by the National Institute for Medical Research of interferon, which acts against influenza and other virus diseases. In industry the Spencer steelworks, at Newport, opened last autumn the first strip mill controlled by scientifically designed automation. Then we have the work done on ships' plates by the British Oxygen Company and the Government in collaboration with Ferranti's. In addition, half the world's shipping is equipped with British radar. More than half the world's aircraft fly on British engines. We evolved the Melrose NEP heart and lung machine.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I say this in no carping spirit, but on a visit to the molecular biology laboratory at Cambridge and to Mill Hill it was pointed out to me that, whereas the original break-throughs were achieved in this country, now nine-tenths of this work is done in the United States. Is the Minister aware that bio-engineers are frustrated to have their own ideas re exported to them in the form of American equipment?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the hon. Member is not questioning the Tightness of the full exchange in these matters of knowledge between people working in different fields in different countries.
  In so far as the hon. Member is trying to make a more general point, I think that he will recall that most of the items I mentioned, from the Newport strip mill onwards, involved the actual application and service in this country of devices evolved in this country. This is a point which we have to watch the whole time. There is a very real danger of ideas, thought and concepts which are the fruits and product of British research not being applied as quickly as they should be in the service of our own country. It is precisely to secure this that a great deal of the administrative machinery to which I have referred is directed.
  The right hon. Member for Huyton had some hard things to say about the
  836
  Department of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education. He did not, of course, mention that it was one of the success stories of the Department that it has brought the colleges of advanced technology—which were only started following the White Paper of 1956—to the point at which Robbins rightly suggests they should be granted university status. That is a great achievement.
  Nor was the right hon. Gentleman altogether fair to my right hon. Friend in respect of the school-building programme. My right hon. Friend has recently announced a programme of starts well ahead—further ahead than has been the normal practice. This was to help us to deal with the problems to which the right hon. Member referred caused by the local education authorities putting in a considerable number of items each year. It is easier for them to plan if these things can be planned somewhat further ahead. Nor did the right hon. Member give my right hon. Friend credit for the fact that the annual figures ahead for starts from 1965 to 1967 are one-third more than for the current year and provide for considerable expansion. Listening to his speech, one would not have thought that next summer half our children will be in accommodation built since the war.
  Mr. H. Wilson:In giving the figures, did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that they were one-third more than the current year? If that is so, will he not agree, having regard to the increase in the cost of school building of 15 per cent.—which means that the last allocation programme should now be £344 million, according to a statement of the Minister of Education—that the real increase in the programme is not one-third from 1958, but only one-seventh because of rising costs?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:It is a very substantial increase when every allowance is made for costs. My right hon. Friend assures me that when the fullest allowance is made it is an increase of 25 per cent.
  The right hon. Member passed strictures on the 11-plus, with which I think that many people might not be lacking in sympathy. I was not sure, however, whether what he said about comprehensive schools indicated that he would

  837
  favour a continuance of the grammar schools. The right hon. Member did not make that clear. He does not make it clear now. [Hon. Members: "Answer."] The House and the grammar schools will draw their own conclusions.
  Then the right hon. Member was unfair in a way to the 11-plus. It has its limitations, of course. This is not quite so concentrated on what is done on one cold February day, as the right hon. Member dramatically described it. There is a wide variety of practice such as we would expect under a system of education which is locally administered. Nor did the right hon. Member allow for the fact that later transfer, under some local authorities, is freely provided. My right hon. Friend told me, for example, that he went to a school in Norfolk last Saturday in which 40 out of 266 sixth-formers had failed the 11-plus.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the national figures?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Not without notice. The system is locally administered and the point I am making, which I do not think the right hon. Member's question gets away from, is that he did not give a fair description of the operation of a system on which, I accept, opinions differ. It is not quite so arbitrary as he suggested.
  The right hon. Member was also not fair to my right hon. Friend in respect of the £300 million building programme announced in 1958. It was a full programme which, at present prices—I anticipate his interruption—will probably need about £320 million. There is every reason to believe that that programme will be fulfilled to the letter.
  Now I come to the universities—
  Miss Jennie Lee: Before the right hon. Gentleman deals with the universities, will he say whether he would like to continue a system which enables some local authorities to say that they will not allow more than 2 per cent, of children from secondary schools to pass on to grammar schools whatever the result of their examination at 13-plus?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Lady raises a question which goes to the root of local administration of education. We can prevent administration on those lines
  838
  —speaking personally, and I do not know whether my right hon. Friend agrees with me; I doubt it very much—only if we are prepared to take a great deal of authority from local authorities. That is far too big a question to answer in a speech dealing with other matters.
  Coming to the universities, the Robbins Report, I am sure that the House accepts, was an historic document. Its 178 recommendations were numerically in large measure for the universities themselves, but the major issues are, of course, for the Government. I shall say a word about ministerial responsibility in a moment and also refer to teacher training colleges. Some of these are matters on which it is probably desirable that opinion should be allowed to form and crystallise before the Government take decisions. A number of major recommendations, however, we have accepted—I hope that the House will agree—with some promptness.
  The most important of these is the question of student numbers. Here I come to the very important principle enunciated by Robbins and accepted by the Government in the White Paper, which was laid a few days after publication of the Report. I shall read it to the House.
  "The basic assumption of the Report is that courses of higher education should be available for all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wish to do so. The Government accept this assumption and also the calculations on the number of places, both in higher education as a whole, and institutions of University status, which flow from it."
  That, in its way, is as important a recommendation and decision as any in the social history of this country. The Report sets targets for student numbers in 1967–68 and 1973–74 and some more tentatively in the 1980s. We are working to the firm figures of 1967–68 and 1973–74 in a way consistent with the figure for the 1980s.
  I invite the attention of the House to the social revolution involved in these figures. At present, 13 per cent, of young men and 6 per cent, of girls complete courses of higher education in this country. By the mid-1970s the figures will have gone up to 22 per cent, for men and 12 per cent, for girls. That carries with it the conclusion that the

  839
  same proportion of men will proceed to a course of higher education of degree standard or equivalent as at present receive three O levels or more in G.C.E.
  That is undoubtedly a very great step indeed for this country to take in a period of ten years. The Report brings out that these advances are possible only because, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week, the preparations have been made. In other words, as I told the House in July, we are already in the full flow of the biggest expansion in our universities which there has ever been—from over 86,000 in our universities in 1951 to 125,000 this year.
  The House knows that the finance of the universities is agreed on a quinquennial basis. The plans for the present quinquennium provide over the quinquennium for an increase in student numbers of 30 per cent. When the House recalls that we are dealing not with things which are a possible subject matter of mechanisation and automation, but with institutions whose standards it is vital to preserve, it will recognise that this is a very big expansion indeed.
  It is only because this expansion has been brought forward and continued over these years that this further advance is now possible. That is why the right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong when he spoke earlier of the failure to foresee the increased demand. Was it a failure to foresee the increased demand when we raised the figure from 86,000 to 125,000? Was it a failure when we planned for a 30 per cent, increase for this quinquennium.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Yes.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Then the right hon. Gentleman is setting himself a very dangerous target.
  Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question. On 5th April last year his predecessor told us that no child would go short of a place because of the bulge and that the proportion would be kept as high as was necessary. Lord Robbins tells us that 60,000 children will not have a place. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the Government have failed to meet the demand and that his predecessor totally misled the House?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to realise that I would come to that. In particular, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are faced with this very large increase in the age group up to 1966–67, and the curve then turns down. Under the Government's existing plan the percentage of a generation for whom there are places keeps extraordinarily steady up till then. There are variations between the current year and the peak year of.04 per cent. I think that is the right figure, but I will correct it if I am wrong. After that, with the fall in the numbers, the percentage rises very sharply.
  My right hon. Friend is, therefore, quite right. When my right hon. Friend was taken to task by the right hon. Member for Huyton for not going for further increases, it would perhaps have been fairer to admit that my right hon. Friend was fully maintaining the expansion already initiated.
  Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: I have not quite understood the argument. I can see the Minister's point when he says that he foresaw the need and wanted an increase in the numbers in the universities. I can understand that claim. But does he deny that, having foreseen this increase in numbers, he cut the amount of money which the universities were granted last April—the money which was needed to carry out their plans? The fact that he foresaw the increased numbers makes the cut in the money worse, not better.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the hon. Member is confusing two separate issues. There was a steady expansion which was continuous. What my right hon. Friend, my predecessor, did, as I understand it, was in the economic situation of the time to refuse proposals for further increases. That is quite a separate thing, and it did not affect the general development, the figures for which I have been giving.
  Mr. J. Grimond Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland) rose—
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:I must get on. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was here when I began my speech. I will give way to him in a moment, but I think that we shall have a rather more agreeable debate if I am allowed to deal

  841
  with one point and one hon. or right hon. Gentleman at a time.
  The fact remains that if one looks at Table 61 of the Robbins Report, page 260, one sees endorsed there all that I have said. It brings out that for higher education other than the universities no additional expansion is required at all on our present plans to meet the 1966–67 target. It shows that to meet the Robbins target in all respects an expansion of about 20,000 is required. We have asked the University Grants Committee to make recommendations in respect of this and we have assured them that the finance will be available.
  Mr. Grimond: I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman, and if I missed the opening sentences of his speech, I apologise. I came into the Chamber fairly early.
  I am interested in the question of universities and I should like some information. He says that the Government have begun the expansion of universities, and I understand that this will be a continuing process. Is it not the case that the universities have lately been asked, not necessarily by the Government, whether they can very greatly accelerate their expansion, and that they have been asked for an answer in a fairly short time?
  Does this mean that the Government are prepared to give guidance to universities on the question whether pupils are to be taken into hostels and whether they will get extra laboratory and library space? Or is it to be on the basis of the steady expansion about which the Prime Minister has spoken?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman's intervention, though not brief, shows that he does not fully apprehend the system as it operates. As I said before he intervened, the University Grants Committee has been asked by the Government to make proposals in consultation with the universities as to the method of achieving these targets on the assumption that the money would be available. It is the essence of the University Grants Committee system which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, was warmly endorsed by Lord Robbins in his Report, that the matter should be handled in that way. Of course, there is continuous consultation
  842
  between the University Grants Committee and the Departments concerned, but the planning has been with the universities through the University Grants Committee. As I have said, we have already asked the Committee to undertake that.
  This all involves very large financial commitments, about £3,500 million over the next ten years. It involves doubling the annual expenditure in ten years and trebling it in twenty. These are large commitments which will place a heavy burden on our community.
  I come back to the Leader of the Opposition, because I was puzzled by his speech at Scarborough. I think that many people were. He said, "As Lord Taylor has said in the Report, our aim must be at the earliest possible moment to provide facilities for higher education for at least 10 per cent, of our young people instead of the 5 per cent, at which the Tories are tepidly aiming". It seems to follow that the right hon. Gentleman does not realise that we touched 10 per cent, last year that in ten years' time it will be not one-tenth at which the Tories are "tepidly aiming"but one-sixth. It looks as if the Labour movement so-called is fitted with rearward facing seats.
  I come to the point which the right hon. Gentleman raised about Ministerial responsibility. As he raised the question he may well like to hear the answer. The Government are determined to push forward with the expansion of higher education and have been giving thought to the best arrangements from the point of view of Ministerial responsibility for the carrying out of this policy.
  As the House knows, evidence was given on behalf of the Treasury to the Robbins Committee to the effect that the growth of expenditure on the universities rendered it no longer appropriate for Ministerial responsibility for these institutions to continue with the Treasury. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman took the same view. There are obvious difficulties, both of principle and of practice, in the Department concerned with the control of public expenditure being itself responsible for a large and growing field of expenditure. As has already been announced, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has invited my hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council

  843
  to be responsible for co-ordinating the work of Departments concerned with higher education. As soon as the Lord President of the Council is in a position to answer in this House, my right hon. Friend intends that the Departmental responsibility for university matters, including of course the University Grants Committee, at present carried by Treasury Ministers, shall pass to him. Until then the present arrangements will continue. This does not mean, of course, that even in this interim period there will be any slackening in the Government's drive forward. My hon. Friend and I will work closely together. By way of example, we shall both be seeing the Committee of Vice-Chancellors on Friday of this week for the purpose of discussing with them the immediate steps to be taken by way of university expansion.
  The Government recognise that varying views are held on what are the best arrangements for the machinery of Government in the field of education and civil science. As has already been made clear, the Government will not reach a final decision on this subject until those concerned have had an opportunity of expressing their views. The arrangements for the immediate future which I have outlined are entirely without prejudice to what may ultimately be decided about the scope of Ministerial responsibility. The Government hope to be able to announce their decision on this issue some time in the new year.
  We have covered already in this debate a very wide field and we have certainly covered a very wide increase in expenditure. I have already given the House massive figures for the increased expenditure on research and development. In the field of university education we have seen in the lifetime of this Government expenditure rise from £36.7 million in 1951 to £146 million this year and we have seen expenditure on the rest of education rise from £377 million to £1,119 million in the current year. Even more significant, and I should have thought even more reassuring to the House, is the increase in the share of the gross national product from 3.2 per cent, in the last year of the Labour Government to 4.8 per cent, in the current year.
  In the face of these figures, I do not think that it lies in the mouths of right
  844
  hon. Gentlemen opposite to charge us with not dealing adequately with the problems hindering educational progress. In fact—and the figures speak for this—we have given and intend to give high priority to education. This is a tremendous expansion in science and in education—in the whole sphere of this debate. It shows, I suggest to the House, vitality in this nation; and it shows a confidence in the future and a determination to provide in the present for the things—and scientific and research and education are notably the two—on which our future depends. That, I think, is the clear lesson to be drawn from the figures which I have ventured to give the House and from the facts which I have put before it.
  Mr. H. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has told us plainly that the Government accept the Robbins Report. Now he is gathering together the arguments of the Government's approach to education as a whole. Will he answer my other question? They have accepted the Robbins Report. Do they accept the Newsom Report?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I did not say that we had accepted the Robbins Report. The right hon. Gentleman should not put that in my mouth. I said that we had accepted certain recommendations, which I specified, and I went out of my way at some length to explain that several of the others were matters on which we wished information sought. The Newsom Report will be considered. It contains one major recommendation in respect of the school age, about which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education has already told the House that he will make a statement in due course. The other matters are of great interest but they are essentially for discussion in the educational world before decisions are taken. But we certainly welcome this Report as being a most helpful contribution.
  I must come back to what it is that the Opposition want. Is it that in the light of what I have tried to tell the House they are still saying that our efforts are inadequate and that we ought to spend even more money in these directions, vital and important though they are? If it is, it is a little difficult to reconcile with the assertion

  845
  of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that we are already on a spending spree. He said that we are on the biggest spending spree any peace-time Government in this country have had. It is perhaps noteworthy that the hon. Gentleman is not here this afternoon. That speech of his underlined the basic weakness of the Opposition—their childish wish to have things both ways.
  5.10 p.m.
  Mr. W. Howie: As a rule I am not terribly keen on traditional things, but there is one tradition I am very keen on at the moment. I refer to the tradition of tolerance to a Member making his maiden speech in this august assembly. However, there are duties which go with that tolerance. There is a duty upon me to be as non-controversial as possible. In a sense, it is a pity, because we have the highest authority for directing all our attention and all our speeches towards the coming General Election. I cannot really do that and at the same time remain un-controversial. Therefore, I shall not attempt to speak about the coming General Election.
  However, in passing, I will mention the by-election which brought me here. It was caused by the translation of my predecessor to another place, a destination from which no traveller returns, it might be thought. Who knows? We may yet see my predecessor back in this House purified and cleansed and ready to take up other duties here.
  Leaving aside any political differences I may have with my predecessor, I should like at the outset of my Parliamentary career to pay a few tributes to him. He was a man of striking personality and of independent spirit. He attained great eminence as a public figure. Indeed, he attained eminence as a public figure even before he came to the House of Commons. Therefore, it is a man of very considerable stature that I must attempt to follow. In addition, my predecessor was a very hard working and substantial constituency member, for which he enjoyed a good reputation in Luton. In the coming years I sincerely hope to emulate my predecessor in that regard.
  846
  I want now to focus attention on an attitude which I think underlay one part of the speech of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster-General. The right hon. Gentleman spoke at great length, as people often do when talking about science, about research and such topics. The great shortage is not really a shortage of boffins, researchers and people of the highest quality. The real shortage in Britain is one of engineers at the professional level and of highly trained draughtsmen. Anyone who like myself has been an engineer for about twenty years trying to carry out engineering constructions throughout the country realises that this is our great shortage. There just are not enough engineers to go round. We should talk less about the need for more scientists and more about the need for more practical engineers.
  This is very important, because Britain is a highly complex industrial society. In essence, an industrial society is an engineering society. The Industrial Revolution should have been called the "Engineering Revolution". Unless this country keeps pace with the production, not of things or materials, but of highly skilled, trained and qualified engineers achieved by our competitions, we shall decline into a Portugal, a country with any amount of illustrious imperial past but with very little modern future. It is easier in Britain today, and it has been for some time, to get doctors, lawyers, accountants, journalists and advertising men than it is to get engineers. It is even easier to get politicians than it is to get engineers.
  Why is this so? This is the crux of the matter. I believe that there are three main reasons for this unsatisfactory state of affairs. The first reason is the poor status of the engineer as a member of society. It is noticeable that engineers never become Lords, not as engineers. They sometimes do because they are businessmen, but as engineers they are never ennobled. Engineers are never selected to be the heads of Royal Commissions. These are matters of status which the Government can attempt to put right. However, I should not like it to be thought that I suggest any particular engineer as a candidate for such treatment.

  847
  The second main reason is the relatively poor reward by way of income enjoyed by engineers. When I was enjoying my short period of limelight a few weeks ago I was rung up by a reporter on an evening newspaper. He asked me what I thought of the large drop in salary I would suffer through coming to this assembly. I pointed out to him that for a professional engineer the drop in salary is not all that large. The reporter was a little surprised. He said that I sounded a little bitter. I was not bitter. I was merely telling him the true facts in a blunt manner.
  A few years ago a Royal Commission on doctors'pay listed the incomes over a working life of about thirty years of half a dozen professions. Incidentally, doctors came fairly near the top of the list. Engineers were one from the bottom. Architects, I am glad to say in a sense, were worse off than engineers. Pilkington's conclusion was that doctors should get even more and become even more highly paid than engineers. I do not complain about doctors having a proper income. In our society we should pay some of the more important people just a little more. Then some of them might stay in this country instead of going abroad.
  The third main reason for the shortage of engineers is engineering's low status as an academic study. No real genius of the highest quality wants to become an engineer. He wants to become a nuclear physicist or something highly exciting of that order. Engineering is thought to be too impure; it is thought to be too applied a study for the real ivory towered engineering institute. This has led to colleges of advanced technology being thought worthy only of granting diplomas and not degrees. Such snobbery as this underlines my point. I am glad that this state ofaffairs is now to be changed.
  I took my degree about twenty years ago at Glasgow University. I received all my teaching at the Glasgow Technical College, which was good enough to teach me but, apparently, not good enough to grant a degree of its own, which is ridiculous. That example no longer applies, because the College has become a college of advanced technology and is soon to become a university.
  848
  It is a dreadful commentary on the sort of corrosive medievalism of this country that the Glasgow Technical College will, when it becomes a university, call itself the University of Strathclyde—as though Sir Walter Scott invented it. Why it has not been able to give degrees from the beginning I shall never understand.
  Britain will never get off the ground in the modern world in which we live until the profession of engineering is up-graded and until people are prepared to pay the same sort of attention to me when I was an engineer just three weeks ago as they appear to be paying to me now as an hon. Member of this House. I have not changed much, although the way people look at me has.
  I wish to be brief to allow more important speakers to take part in the debate, though I must make two references to my constituency. Firstly, there is in Luton a college of technology. It may not be in the forefront of academic life—looked at from the point of view of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and such places—but when will the adventurous ideas of Robbins and Taylor come into being in a place like Luton, so that it may have a technical university of its own? It is a populace area in which industry is vibrant and in which industry could feed a technical university.
  Secondly, I have referred to the coming General Election which, we are told, is not far off. The General Election really started about three weeks ago and, in the preliminary skirmishes of the first battle, a minor victory was registered for this side of the House. I look forward with interest and enthusiasm to the coming months of campaign that will lead us to the General Election.
  5.23 p.m.
  Mr. Angus Maude: It is a happy coincidence that I, who am making what might be called a second maiden speech, should have been called to speak immediately after the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie). This is the first time in my Parliamentary career that I have had the happy experience of congratulating a maiden speaker. We are glad that the hon. Member for Luton is now able to say that he has got this ordeal behind him and he can be assured that he has

  849
  equipped himself very well indeed. The House always appreciates a blend of expert professional knowledge with an understanding of the wider national problems involved—and leavened, as in his case, with a pleasant touch of humour. I congratulate the hon. Member.
  I said that I was myself making what might be called a second maiden speech, but I shall not attempt to ask for the indulgence of the House in that regard, partly because by not asking for it I shall be able to be a little more controversial than if I did. But I do hope not to be very controversial, unless provoked.
  I am pleased to see the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in his place, because I intend to comment on one or two points he raised. He was, as my right hon. Friend said, a little unkind about the record of the Government in education; not merely unkind but, perhaps, somewhat misguided. I regret that he used this platform language about the Government having "cut" education when he must know that this is a grossly misleading use. So far from the Government having cut the provision for education, it has been steadily increased and the proportion of the gross national product given to education has risen from about 3 per cent, to about 5 per cent, in the last 10 or 12 years. This cannot conceivably be called a cut, particularly when one considers that not only has provision been made for the enormously increased number of children coming forward to fill school places but that during the last 10or 12 years not merely the number but the proportion of the age group staying at school after 15 has something like doubled. This is a considerable achievement, and I confess that I was surprised to find that the right hon. Gentleman could not see the extraordinary lack of cohesion between what he said about the availability of qualified students for universities and his comments on our failure, as he called it, in secondary education.
  It is precisely the enormous increase in the proportion of school leavers who are now qualified to enter a university that testifies to the success of the Government's policy in secondary education. One has only to read the appen-
  850
  dix to Robbins, which deals with this matter, to see that the proportion taking three A levels, two A levels, or five or more O levels has enormously increased. It is this which has made the availability of university places proportionately smaller than it previously appeared it would be.
  I thought that the Leader of the Opposition was less than fair when he dealt with the question of the tripartite system of secondary education and the 11-plus. He did not appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education has for some time been giving overt encouragement to local education authorities, not merely to experiment with new kinds of selection for education but with new groupings of schools. This gives our educational system flexibility, for it gives local education authorities the opportunity to experiment according to their needs without having arbitrary political directives clamped down on them from Curzon Street with such statements as, "You will have nothing but comprehensive schools as from tomorrow." The ability to experiment with other types of school has, as we have seen from Leicestershire to Bournemouth, made this one of the most stimulating periods in the organisation of secondary education. The rigid tripartite system of education is virtually dead or is dying. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] Hon. Members who do not realise this cannot know exactly what is going on.
  Mr. George Thomas: In furtherance of his argument, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what proportion of children go to comprehensive or bilateral schools compared with the proportion which has to find a place in grammar schools?
  Mr. Maude:Yes. It is still lower than it should be. What I said was that the rigid tripartite system was dead or dying, and it is. The whole trend all over the country is away from rigid selection for a tripartite system at 11-plus, and this is resulting, in many authorities—and, believe me, many Conservative authorities—in the proportion of young people staying on at school and receiving a grammar school-type of education doubling in some cases

  851
  and increasing in very substantial proportions in others. This trend will certainly continue. Provided it does not involve the wanton destruction of an established grammar school with traditions—and as far as I am aware, my right hon. Friend has always set his face against that sort of murder—I can see nothing but good coming out of this period of experiment and flexibility which secondary education is now going into.
  There were one or two other points in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition with which I would have dealt were he still in the Chamber, but he is not, so I will pass on to the question of higher education and science. It is, as I have said, largely owing to the very great improvement in the facilities for the education of children over the age of 15 that the opportunity for enormous expansion, of which Robbins gives us the blueprint, has now come before us. This is a perfect example of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about expansion and acceleration being based on what has gone on in the last twelve years..
  Had it not been for the improvement in secondary education and, in particular, this doubling of the proportion staying on after the age of 15, this expansion simply could not have taken place, and not merely because of the great expansion in the number of school-leavers with the right qualifications but because the teachers simply would not be there for the expansion had this expansion of secondary education not previously taken place.
  As regards the Robbins Report, which clearly we are not debating in detail today, I have not the slightest doubt that the expansion which it envisages is possible, is desirable and will benefit not merely our society but the economy as a whole. I have no fears that it will result in a general falling of standards. I accept completely the Robbins Committee's statement that as regards first and second class honours degrees there is no reason whatsoever why standards should fall..
  I have not the slightest doubt that we ought to increase the provision for and the output of scientists, technologists
  852
  and, perhaps at this moment above all, mathematicians, in which we are very short at the moment and on which much of the scientific and technological expansion will depend..
  The only part of the Robbins blueprint about which I have some doubt is the question of the expansion of arts faculties and the division of universities between arts, scientific and technological faculties. We have had this argument ever since the war—if we increase the proportion of scientists and technologists in universities, should we try to increase the arts faculties in proportion in order to endeavour to keep the balance? It is there, if anywhere, that some fall in standards might take place. I am inclined to think that it would not matter very much if some fall in the average did take place because, by and large, an arts graduate is bound to be a much more useful member of the community wherever he goes than if he had not been to a university..
  I will now pass briefly to the question of scientific research and development for which, again, Robbins gives us a jumping off place for a very considerable expansion and improvement. In his speech, my right hon. Friend said that our record in the proportion of gross national product which we devoted to scientific research and development was ahead of that of any other country except the United States. As a matter of fact, if my memory serves me aright, the Advisory Committee on Scientific Policy said in its Report a year ago that, though this was a very difficult thing to estimate, it thought that the proportion of our gross national product spent on research and development was approximately equal to that of the United States.
  If this is not in fact giving us the relative results that it ought to give, one or other of several things must be wrong. Either our research is not as good as that of other countries—and I think that from the top level, at which our research is initiated and directed, this is not true; I think that ours is as good as that of any country—or we are researching into the wrong things, which in some respects is probably true—though I cannot go into detail now—or we are falling rapidly behind in the application and development of the research discoveries which are made.

  853
  That has been very true in the past, but I doubt whether it is as true now. It is difficult to be sure, but the impression I get on coming back to this country after three years abroad is that we have begun to pull up our socks and to accelerate the development of scientific discoveries at a much faster rate than just after the war. But certainly a great deal remains to be done in this field and I think that we ought to remember—I do not want to make too much out of this nor do I wish to make any political point if I can avoid it—that to some extent both sides of industry have been responsible for the relative slowness in developing scientific discoveries and inventions.
  It is not quite as true as it was just after the war, though it is still true, that in many firms the direction of productive enterprises is getting into the hands of the accountant and that this is making the life of the production engineer very difficult. We all know firms where the accountant, having succeeded in writing off the historic cost of the plant to £1 in the balance sheet, recoils from what he considers to be the grossly excessive cost of the new plant in which he is asked to invest now.
  For some time after the war the influence of the accountant—and I apologise to any hon. Member who is an accountant—was, I think, a very baleful one in British industry. I think it probably true to say that there has been some improvement in the last few years, but not enough.
  Sir C. Osborne: There were some exceptions.
  Mr. Maude: No doubt.
  On the other side of industry we must not overlook the fact that—while, again, I recognise that this is not as serious as it was once and that a considerable advance has been made—the determination of some trade unions to keep certain new processes and plants over-manned in operation and, in particular, sometimes to resist the efficient operation of the plant on a two or three shift basis has been responsible for a considerable unwillingness to invest in new plant.
  One can give a number of examples of this, and the direction in which, I
  854
  think, this has been most unfortunate is that it has in some cases prevented us in this country from developing industries for the production of plant, machinery and machine tools on which we could have based a considerable export business. The reason is that, unless the manufacturers of this plant are able to count on a reasonable home market for their product, they cannot possibly compete in export markets.
  One obvious example, of course, is the manufacture of high-speed printing machines, in which we have fallen far behind not only the Americans but the Germans and the Swiss, largely because the printing unions have invariably insisted on over-manning nearly every piece of new plant which has been introduced in this country. One could mention other things. The docks provide another example.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am following very closely what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Will he accept that there is an important subtle difficulty here? People such as biological engineers agree that firms are prepared to help them when there is almost certainty that an item will be successful, but they are frustrated when no one can be certain whether it will be successful or not. The trouble is that, for instance, until one has made a prototype of a high-pressure oxygen therapy machine, one does not know that it is going to work. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, perhaps, the Government should help by providing risk capital where there can, inevitably, be no scientific certainty?
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with what is clearly a somewhat specialised application of the general point I was making. Very often, as far as I understand it, what he is speaking of is not really the normal industrial process but, virtually, an extension of research. This is a rather different matter, and I agree entirely that there can be cases in which, if industry cannot provide the help or guarantee required, there is an argument for the Government, through one of its agencies, providing it. That is so, but the point is not really relevant to what I was saying when the hon. Gentleman intervened, which is that, on both sides of industry, partly through the conservatism and the

  855
  unwillingness of those I call the "figure boys"to be adventurous and competitive in the matter of new plant, and partly through the determination of certain trade unions to get agreements which over-man new plant and machinery, we have not only kept back the productivity of our manufacturing industries but we have lost the opportunity greatly to increase our national share of the export market for plant and machinery, particularly machine tools.
  This is something to which, when we talk about the development of science and technology, we should devote rather more attention. It is no good simply increasing the amount spent on scientific research if it is not going to emerge at the end past the development stage. Much of what I am talking about comes after the development stage; it comes at the stage of employment and utilisation, and it is here, perhaps, that we have in this country been most remiss.
  Mr. Dalyell Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Maude: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me? I am very anxious, in this my reappearance in the House, not to trespass upon the indulgence of hon. Members by taking too long. I want to cut my speech as short as possible.
  I believe, nevertheless, that we ought to be spending more money on research. The supply of gifted researchers is not by any means unlimited, but I have no doubt that the provision of laboratory space, in particular for medical research, is quite inadequate in our universities and other research institutions and that something should be done about this, and done soon.
  In talking as the Leader of the Opposition did today, and as we all tend to do, about science, modernisation and the modernising of Britain, do not we tend to overlook some of the secondary side-effects which the acceleration of the process will produce in our society? Considering that we have known industrialised man for only about 200 years out of perhaps 7,000 years or so of civilisation, and considering that we are now going through an acceleration of the process of scientific and technological innovation which makes the Industrial Revolution look like a mere hic-
  856
  cough on the graph of progress, it would scarcely be remarkable if we found the process a little difficult to grasp and if certain social and psychological, let alone economic and industrial, problems did not arise and require solution. Of course, they do. We have not only to face the fact that the problems of structural unemployment will increase and that automation will provide us with difficulties of redeployment and retraining of labour but we have also to face the fact that we are beginning to have to deal with something which requires an entirely new dimension and category of thinking.
  I do not want to wax too philosophical about this, but we must accept that, whereas the human species and the human brain have not substantially evolved in the last 2,000 years or so, the mathematician or the physicist who is working with a computer which can do a decade of calculation in a few minutes has become a new kind of man. Moreover, scientists and mathematicians of all countries are now beginning to work together to exchange information and to interact one upon the other. In this situation, we are dealing with an acceleration of innovation of which we have not even begun to foresee and grasp the consequences. If we do not begin to foresee and grasp them, the pace of change which is generated will overwhelm us.
  Good heavens—in a decade, or perhaps in little more than a year or two, not only will scientists tell us that they can control the weather—and what problems and difficulties that will bring—but, sooner or later, they will tell us that they can, if not actually create life itself, at least determine the hereditary characteristics of children as yet unborn. We have not yet begun to think of the social and moral problems which that sort of development will raise. But we had better begin to think of them, because they will come. There are no questions which man will not ask of nature and the answers to which he will not, sooner or later, find. We shall discover that our social and political institutions are quite inadequate and will be broken by the force generated by these powers, unless we begin to think far farther ahead into the future than we have yet done.

  857
  We have only begun to touch the fringes of the spread of the neuroses and stress disorders which the technological age has already introduced into our society. Perhaps, if we spent less money researching in pharmaceutical laboratories into new tranquilising drugs to palliate the disorders and a little more on fundamental research to discover what are the causes of these stresses and strains and how we could prevent them or cure them at an early stage, we might run into less trouble than I suspect we shall run into in the future.
  5.48 p.m.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: This is one of the most interesting debates we have had in the House for a long time. It is carrying out the purpose of Parliament, because we are discussing what isto be the position of Britain in the new scientific age. We have had two maiden speeches, if I may call them both such. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), I suspect, left us and this country a little time ago because he was disgusted with his own party and despairing of the country. He went to help build up another land. We are relieved that he has come back to this country and that he is now in a more optimistic frame of mind. We shall listen to his developing thoughts in the future with pleasure.
  It is a particular pleasure for me to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie). He made a speech full of wit and with a pawkiness which, perhaps, betrayed his origin. Nevertheless, he showed a great fund of good common sense, and as an engineer I can see that he will keep us down to earth in our discussions in future.
  I have no wish to be controversial in putting blame on anyone for Britain's condition today, but I think that the debate so far has been on the optimistic side. My view is that Britain is still not "with it", to use the modern jargon. I do not think that we are approaching the problem in anything like a scientific way. Everything is much too haphazard. The Chief Secretary, who delivered a most interesting speech, gave us the details of what the Government have done and of what they propose to do, but he seemed to be pointing in a multitude
  858
  of directions without giving us any idea as to where we were going. I feel that the bus of progress is going ahead and that we do not have a very clear idea of the direction in which it is going or sufficient determination to catch up with it.
  The main difficulty in this country regarding the scientific age and our approach to it is that we have not defined our purpose. What is all this science for? What are we doing all this for? We are producing scientists and we are teaching science. What will be the outcome? If we said to the scientists, "Here is a job to do", they would get down to it.
  As the Chief Secretary knows, after the war I was honoured by the Minister in being made responsible for research and development in the largest area in this country. It was fascinating to see the splendid work done by our scientists. They had a very definite purpose—to develop the finest aircraft that the world had ever seen. Most of our scientific work has been done in response to some vital need, such as war and the necessity for defence. A great deal of our scientific work is bound to have been done on aircraft, bombs and missiles.
  After the war, our scientists were able to dispense with all the trial and error methods of pre-war days in designing guns and bombs. They could work out these problems on paper hypothetically. With the aid of computers, the work will be done even more easily.
  My experience during that period was that very largely industry in this country was simply not interested. Let me give one or two examples. The National Gas Turbine Establishment, of which Air Commodore Whittle was one of the pioneers, developed a knowledge of gas turbine science unequalled and unexcelled in the world. Every development which was made was embodied in aircraft. However, the men at this establishment were heartbroken because industry was not interested in making use of their scientific skill and knowledge. When I went to the Scottish Office, I found that John Brown of Clydebank had gone to Switzerland to buy from Brown Boveri less valuable knowledge than was available

  859
  to that concern in the National Gas Turbine Establisment at no cost. This is typical.
  To bring matters up to date, Ferranti, which has been mentioned before, is now working in conjunction with Edinburgh University on research. The Americans have been there. They say that the inventions of Ferranti concerning automative processess in tooling, milling and things of that kind are ahead of anything in America. Industry wants the Government to give it something for nothing and to pay it for using something which would take its own engineering ahead of the world. This is the problem. British scientists have produced ideas, but they have been developed in America and elsewhere and not by this country's industry.
  Some years ago I made a speech upstairs on shipbuilding. I pointed out that Germany and Japan had gone ahead and made use of science in improving their shipbuilding technique. I suggested that, unless British shipbuilders were prepared to do likewise, they would be left lying on the shore. That is exactly what is happening today. British shipbuilding firms are closing down. British shipbuilding is shrinking because the industry has not kept alive and made use of science, and, like the Government, it is scrambling at the last minute to catch up with the bus. British shipbuilding has a great deal of responsibility for its position today, because it was far too late in waking up to the new shipbuilding situation in the world. In the last year or two Japan has been the biggest shipbuilding nation in the world.
  I have not objection to private enterprise. In fact, I spent 25 years in it and did my best to make it a success. What I object to is the lack of enterprise. The Government must be shocked to find how much money is not made use of in industry. One of our leading scientists—I think that he was a Nobel prize winner—wrote to me some time ago because in Scotland graduates were not taking up scholarships and research facilities being granted by the Government. He said to me, "Frankly I do not think that either Scottish industry or the Scottish universities have quite come to terms with this age of science and technology".
  860
  I should make one exception in Scotland. I am very proud of the way that Scottish farmers sit on the doorstep of the universities and colleges of agriculture waiting for new ideas to come out so that they can put them into practice. That is, perhaps, because they are fairly well off and have a bit of money to burn. They are not now tied down to the plough as they used to be. They are waiting for science to help them and are prepared to test it out. They are not afraid of common markets or anything else, because they are ahead of farmers all over the world in doing their job.
  For some years the Government have made the money available, and they will make more available. As I say, all this is rather haphazard. I should be more enthusiastic if I knew that there were possibilities of spending the money. We heard at Question Time today that the Government offered £46 million for certain developments and that they managed to spend only £23 million. The fact is that a great deal of the Government's programme involves buildings, the creation of new institutions and the use of our construction industry which, however it develops, will, in my view, never be able to do half the job which the Government propose it should do. I therefore think that we delude ourselves if we think that the building industry can build universities, schools, houses and everything that it is being asked to build within this programme. I am all in favour of the programme, but I simply see the limitations of the building industry.
  I have had experience of this. We had a scheme for building junior colleges. They were very desirable, and I wish that they could be built now. That was in 1948, after the war. We have never been able to build a junior college, because to build one would mean having to stop building about 120 houses. With the housing situation as it is in Glasgow and elsewhere, who would say that we should build a junior college and stop building 120 houses?
  What has happened with the Government's plans, even during this period, is that whenever they have given permission to spend more money, there is a run-around of the bricklayers from one job to another. One job goes on, then

  861
  it slows down, another goes on a bit and one gets an auction sale among the builders and the construction engineers. Even at this moment we cannot get tenders for some of the building that we want to do. How all these new universities will be built is beyond my comprehension.
  I propose, therefore, to try to make a constructive proposal to reach the target without trying to tackle it in an impossible way. I do not believe that it is possible in the near future to train all the university lecturers. We are told that we must maintain the standard. Where are the people to come from? Even if we put up the buildings, where will we get the professors without lowering the standards? I can tell the House that we shall not get them unless we do what ought to have been done long ago: that is, that scientists themselves should use science in education. This is something which they have not done. Therefore, we ought first to define our purpose and not simply spend money at large without knowing where we are going.
  The late Lord Stansgate used to tell a story about engineers who built a wonderful engine, a beautiful locomotive; but they had no idea where they were going, so all they did was to blow the engine whistle. After they got their head of steam up, they blew the whistle. It is no good building a machine unless we know where we are going and what we will do with it. The Government have not put forward a purpose and they have not defined a plan so that even our scientists can see what is wanted.
  Let us make a start by making Britain science conscious. That is one of the contributions made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in his speech at Scarborough. He certainly shocked the nation into feeling science-conscious. It even shocked the Government into feeling science-conscious. I sometimes lecture on how Parliament works. I am careful to explain that this is not a dictatorship, that the Government of the day yield to pressure of opinion on both sides of the House, that very often debates convince the Government and that it is only when we fail to convince them that we have to vote against them to show that they have not
  862
  agreed. Most times, however, they agree.
  Although it has not recently been in office, the Labour Party has influenced the Government greatly. As soon as we put out a programme which is good and wise, the Conservatives adopt it. There will soon be no programme left if the promises incease in the Conservative election manifesto. There will be nothing left of the programme which we have developed for years. All that the Conservatives do is to promise what they have so far failed to do.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has had, perhaps, the greatest success of all in bringing about this debate and making the Conservatives become science conscious. It is true to say that we are all scientists now. In some cases, however, just as when it was said that we were all Socialists now, some of it is done with tongue in cheek.
  The fact is that education is breaking down. The Minister of Education is bound to agree with this. There is a shortage of teachers. Children go home without being taught. In due course, there will be fewer teachers if this goes on and the system will run down. The speed of scientific development is outstripping the science teachers There are any number of science teachers in the schools who keep themselves up to date only if they watch television. Sometimes, they find that the children are more ahead with science than they are because the children watch television and the teacher does not. Something must be done even to keep the scientist in school up to date as well as the scientist in the university. What we have to do is to tell the scientists and the educators to start using science in their own trade.
  When America had a labour shortage and could not get labour to carry out its production, it adopted machinery which took the place of labour. Electricity and science was put at the elbow of the worker who was able to multiply his efforts considerably. This is the basis of the problem. Education isunwilling—or until now has been unwilling—to get down to the problem of using science.
  In schools and workshops, teaching is done with the tools of our grandfathers. There are schools where teachers are

  863
  teaching in the same way as their grandmothers did. They have not improved one iota.
  Mr. G. Thomas: They must be in Scotland.
  Mr. Woodburn: Judging from some of the Welshmen we meet, it must be happening also in Wales.
  Mr. Thomas: Surely, my right lion. Friend is aware that there has been a revolution in teaching technique and that the teaching profession has been abreast of scientific advance more than most professions.
  Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Woodburn: I do not dispute that there are some wonderful teachers, both in universities and in schools, but anybody knows that it is one of the most difficult things to get a teacher who has been immersed in old methods to use a new method. In some cases, I have known a young teacher coming out of the college with new ideas being told by a headmaster, "Forget all that modern rubbish which you learned at the college. You will do it this way."
  It is no good my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) trying to make out that the teaching profession is perfect and that something is not needed there. That is not the case. Even the ideas of our grandmothers are still being conveyed, and they are being carried into television and the radio. I heard something on the wireless the other day in a broadcast to children, some fairy stories about Japanese emperors who would not eat and have their palace built because people were starving. Why do we get that kind of nonsense in this day and age? Surely better use than that could be made of the radio. I wrote to the Director-General of the B.B.C. and suggested that he might find a better use for the wireless.
  The Minister of Education (Sir Edward Boyle):These things are sometimes quoted outside this House. The right hon. Gentleman is not doing justice to the very great change in teaching methods that is taking place in so many schools. I wonder whether he has
  864
  experience, for example, of French teaching in a large number of primary schools by modern methods which help children to communicate in a language which may not be suitable for learning the academic grammar, and so on, that we associate with French teaching in the past. What the right hon. Gentleman says may be true of Scotland, but it is not true of the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Woodburn: I have taken part in this new scientific development of the teaching of languages and I am enthusiastic about it, but it is only a recent innovation and in most parts of the country it is still a novelty. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister how many of these machines exist in Britain. I have found that television is in only a very few schools and that a good many of them did not make much use of it when they had it. So all this talk about television and instruments in schools depends upon whether use is made of them.
  That bears out my point about the use of science in education. Science has been with us for a long time, but only now has it come in. I do not talk without experience, because even though I was, perhaps, a lazy lecturer, I believed in using visual methods 30 or 40 years ago and was one of the first to use slides and still films in lecturing. Therefore, I do not talk without some little experience.
  The question is, are we to wait until teachers are trained or can we short-circuit the difficulty by using scientific methods? With modern methods a great deal of the building programme, of this waiting for Godot or whoever it is to turn up as teachers, can be solved. Even now a child's success might depend on his luck in getting a good or a dud teacher of mathematics. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West will not insist that they are all geniuses.
  Therefore, it is important that every child gets the best teaching. With modern science every child in this country can have and should have the services of the best teachers, the best visual aids, the best methods. When my right hon. Friend was talking about the university of the air he was talking of something which is now practicable.

  865
  It was in 1954, in a Committee Room upstairs, that I made a speech suggesting this. It seemed to some then quite a novelty, but now it is ordinary in die United States. This can now be made available to every student—and to everyone in the country, for I would hope we are not going to restrict science to the students, since all the people who are now working need some science: they need the benefit of education, and it can be got in this way. So I would support this idea of the university of the air.
  Being a practical person, however, I realise that there are only a certain number of hours for services on the air, and that it is a most expensive form of education, spending £1,000 for an hour's lecture and its distribution. Of course, it is right that the country should spent on the preparation of a lecture, but the lecture should be taped, transferred to a sound recording and to a film which can be made available in the libraries of schools so that it can be used over and over again. I have heard on television a lecture on electricity, a lecture which a teacher could not have given in his own school because there would not have been the apparatus, but there was in the studio all the apparatus and machinery, even Faraday's original apparatus. That lecture could have been put on film and become a tool for every teacher in the country to use. There could be television colour films for use in schools on closed circuits.
  This applies not only to education in science generally, but to the teaching of medical science as well. Colour television has been in existence in London for years in the teaching of medicine, but it is not available in every university, and some students have been quite excited to have seen it when brought in by a private firm. Why should it not be made available for teaching medical science? Why is it necessary for a hundred students to go round listening to the heartbeats of a person who is ill when electronically they could all listen to the heartbeats which the professor listens to? These aids should be got into the hospitals, the universities, and the schools.
  Then there is the film strip apparatus which I think is one of the most efficient methods of teaching, and it should be
  866
  made available to assist teachers in personal follow-ups. I am glad to say that there are film-strip libraries so that film strips can be used by students all over the country. It is a most valuable method of teaching, as I am sure my hon. Friend agrees.
  Some teachers not only spend all day teaching but spend hours at nights and at the weekends trying to create methods and means of making their lectures interesting and their teaching successful, and I think that they should be assisted by being supplied by the nation with some of these aids to assist them in their task, to enable them to get the best out of their teaching and to ensure that the children understand it.
  I am very interested in the impact of television in the United States, and I think I ought to take time to give the House some information about it. There are 45 educational TV stations—though the number has probably increased since I got this information. There are 1,800 hours of educational programmes each week. A typical station broadcasts five days a week, and eight hours and forty-five minutes a day. In the year prior to that for which I have the information there were 117 colleges, universities and schools systems offering 464 courses. Chicago has the first two years of college by TV courses, and students can learn physics over the national TV networks from one of the foremost teachers in the country.
  So what I am suggesting is not illusory, but something which is actually in practice. After I had spoken about this on a previous occasion I had a letter from a lady who said:
  "I think more co-operation might be forthcoming if the teachers could see for themselves those actually working with this medium,"
  She said that a week or two in Buffalo, New York State, would be the finest thing for them as Buffalo, with the cooperation of all departments in the school system, puts out programmes excellent in teaching value. Everything is included—music, both vocal and instrumental; mathematics, all grades; English, all branches; foreign languages, mostly live ones. There may be Latin and Greek, but she says she does not know about that. Crafts and hobbies are encouraged, too. She points out

  867
  that this is given out even to the country, and the children in districts out in the country can enjoy all these advantages without coming into the towns at all to participate in them.
  So I come to the question, what is the job of science? It is not an end in itself. Science is an instrument. Medical science has the job of teaching us how to live healthily and of curing us if we do not. Mechanical science has the job of making the world a good place to live in. Economic science has the job of solving the problems of production and distribution. Cultural science, which 1 hope will not be forgotten, has the job of making it possible for us to make the best use of our faculties and of developing our well-being to the greatest extent.
  Science has lengthened our life span. Already, in only 20 years, it has lessened the disabilities of disease, and people have to spend far less time in bed because of illness than they used to do. It has made darkness light because instead of sitting by wax or tallow candles we can now sit almost in daylight all through the night—but I hope we do not. Science has brought the marvels of the world into our home. We do not need to travel the world to see them. The world travels before us inside our own homes. And it has nearly given us peace, because it has now invented a weapon which makes it almost impossible to make war. This is the challenge of our age.
  Give scientists a job to do, and give them the power to use their tools. The party opposite has the unfortunate name, conservatism, which, in its very essence, means trying to keep things as they are. What we want to do is make the world as it ought to be. That is the reason I am in the party I am in, because I believe that that is its purpose. Our country could be reborn as a great new power in the world, with new greatness, and we could lead the world. I hope, though, that we shall not be selfish, because many of these benefits of science are as yet very largely confined to our own country, and large numbers of people of different colours and races have not got them. This is the cause of the revolt in Africa, the revolt in the East. There will never be peace in the world till
  868
  those peoples are entitled to get some of these benefits which we have so long enjoyed.
  I hope that the Government's programme will be realised, if not by the present Government, by us, and by others who follow; but unless the purpose is defined, unless there is much more determination to see that direction is given to it, I am rather afraid that it may be like other programmes—simply something on paper.
  6.19 p.m.
  Mr. Airey Neave: First, I congratulate very much indeed my hon. Friend who has just returned to this House to represent Stratford-on-Avon upon his most excellent speech. He described it as his second maiden speech in the House. I can tell him that in his absence he has not lost any of his debating power.
  My hon. Friend drew attention to some of the implications and possible dangers of the present enthusiasm for scientific progress, about which I yield to none in my own enthusiasm. There are obviously social and economic implications which we have not yet thoroughly thought out. For instance, in his excellent maiden speech, the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) pointed out that what we ought really to be thinking about in addition to the shortage of professional scientists is the shortage of professional engineers. We have not heard nearly enough about that, particularly in regard to mechanical engineering, in speeches around the country during the Recess.
  In July we had a debate in which the future of Government scientific organisation was very fully discussed. Some reference was made to the future organisation for civil research in industry. I thought that the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), while I admit that there are some shortcomings in research for industry, was unduly severe. Private industry has enormously increased its investment and the number of profestional scientists and engineers employed in it during the past few years, at any rate in the period about which he was talking.
  I should like to take the point further. The F.B.I. issued a pamphlet called "Civil Research Policy", which was mentioned by the hon. Member for

  869
  Edmonton (Mr. Albu) in that debate. Since that debate, a very interesting one, we have had the Trend Report and its recommendations and the Report of the Robbins Committee also, and there has been a great nation-wide discussion about the whole question of the future of science. I happened to hear the speech by Sir Zolly Zuckerman to the Institute of Directors in the Albert Hall the other day, a very interesting speech, in which he said what a large number of generalisations were being bandied about, such as that 90 per cent, of the scientists who ever lived are living now. But they do not possess, said Sir Zolly, 90 per cent, of the scientific knowledge. There were also such phrases as "Science is growing at an exponential rate"—whatever that may mean. I do not know whether anybody really knows what it means.
  We also had the speech of the Leader of the Opposition at Scarborough. It contained a very large number of platitudes about science. The right hon. Gentleman made one printing error, if I may so call it, in "Labour's Plans for Science", which he has had published. I wish to refer to it because it relates to my constituency. There is an inaccuracy, and I hope that the attention of the publishers of the pamphlet will be drawn to it. If I may correct the slip, the right hon. Gentleman was reported as saying that Harwell and Capenhurst are running down and that "hundreds of trained technicians will be redundant." He should have said "Aldermaston and Capenhurst". Since Harwell is in my constituency, perhaps I might tell him that, according to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, there is no prospect of redundancy of trained technicians at Harwell at present. The right hon. Gentleman was, I think, referring to Aldermaston, where there is a run-down and where it is hoped that part of the run-down will be achieved through natural wastage, though the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority told me this morning that there may be some difficulty in certain engineering grades.
  Ever since 1945 continuous efforts have been made to produce more professional scientists and engineers, and particularly to remedy the shortage of
  870
  mechanical engineers. The hon. Member for Luton said something about the status of the professional engineer. This is a very important point. I wonder whether those concerned with technical education and the whole question of improving our scientific manpower will look at this point in some constructive manner. Could we not have some status comparable with what we find on the Continent? The hon. Gentleman referred to that, and I support what he said.
  What we have been engaged in, perhaps too slowly in some cases but certainly increasingly fast in recent years, is putting science to work to develop new products and new industries. During the period since 1945 the annual output of scientists has trebled, and in the last seven years the population of professional scientists and engineers has increased by about 40 per cent, a figure which applies also to the increase in the number of scientists employed in private industry. I am glad that this is so.
  However, there still remains a very big demand to meet the needs of industry. Although in British industry—this is why I said I thought that the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire was being a trifle severe—there have undoubtedly been shortcomings, British industry has increased its own research and development expenditure from £68 million to £213 million in the past few years, a very considerable increase. As I said, there has also been a substantial increase in the employment of scientists and engineers.
  But until recently we have not seen the results of our investment in terms of economic growth. The time will come when we certainly shall do so, but we must continue this investment and ensure that it pays off. The real problem of industry is not the basic research, which concerns only about 10 per cent, of the total outlay. It is the applied research which is really important for new products and new industries. It involves for industry new risks. That is why the F.B.I, proposals referred to last year were made.
  Since then the Trend Committee has reported. The F.B.I, proposed that the Government and industry should each

  871
  provide an additional £50 million over the next five years for development contracts. These would employ an extra 12,000 qualified men in private industry. This was a proposal which was generally welcomed, although the major question here was what was to be the selection machinery for the contracts. That still remains the big subject for discussion. The Trend Committee has now made a proposal for a selection authority which I shall shortly discuss.
  The F.B.I. in its Report made a distinction between the situation where the Government are buyers and the situation where they are not, and it laid down certain principles which are very important because they appear to a certain extent in the general outlook of the Trend Report. First of all, it said that private industry must finance a very large proportion of its own research and development. I think that most people concerned with industry would feel that that is absolutely right. Private industry should continue to do so to the full extent of its resources.
  The second thing—this is very important for those who have actually been concerned with the practical side of research and development contracts—is that research does not lend itself to too rigid a system of cost control. Those of us who have been connected with these problems will realise that this may involve special methods of monitoring. But the question that we come back to every time is, who are to be the choosers of the firms? The F.B.I, wanted a committee of industry, the D.S.I.R., the universities and perhaps N.E.D.C. Now in the Trend Committee Report we have an entirely new set-up suggested, which I wish to discuss.
  This is called the new Industrial Research and Development Authority. In paragraph 89 on page 39 of the Trend Committee Report there are very interesting arguments as to why this authority should be set up, including one which I think is very important, and I hope that whoever replies to the debate for the Government tonight will comment on this and say how the Government envisage this method of selection of firms for development contracts. The Report says:
  "We feel that if research and development are to make an effective contribution to in-
  872
  dustrial growth the responsible agency must be more executive in nature than a research council. At the same time we believe that the techniques required in this field are more likely to be operated freely and without inhibition by an independent organisation than by a Government Department."
  That is what it is suggesting.
  This certainly may be a sound policy in respect of the situation in which the Government are not buyers but where there is financial contribution for certain development contracts. But what I do not quite understand from the Report is what happens when the Government are the buyers and where the Treasury must provide money. The question of Treasury control in regard to the matter of research and development contracts is constantly being faced in this House, and previous to the Trend Committee it was suggested, I think by some hon. Members on both sides of the House, and also in the F.B.I. Report, that Government Departments should on their own authority place certain development contracts with industry, with, of course, funds allocated by the Treasury.
  When we talk of modernisation, one of the first things we should consider is the modernisation of the machinery of Government and, possibly, the machinery of the procedure of this House. Modernisation of Government machinery in relation to the Treasury is very important where the Government are to buy. I should like to see the big spending Departments have a certain amount of autonomy, and I would place the responsibility for decisions not upon officials but upon Ministers of State especially appointed to these Departments to deal with questions of finance.
  This question of research and development would apply whether there were a newly-organised science Ministry or any other authority to deal with development contracts. Having made these brief observations on civil research in industry, I hope that the Government will explain what is in their mind about future organisation, with particular reference to the question of development contracts. This is a most interesting debate and I congratulate the Government on the steady progress made so far.
  6.31 p.m.
  Miss Jennie Lee: I, too, congratulate the two hon. Members who

  873
  have made maiden speeches today. Both were highly individual. One brought commonsense to bear, based on direct experience, and made an appeal about which I wish to say something later. The other—the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude)—^brought back to the House his very special capacity for communicating philosophic doubts.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition gave a well balanced presentation of both the needs of children in the secondary schools and of those in the higher reaches of education. From the Government Front Bench, however, very little indeed was said about the younger children. I recognise the difficulties that time imposes on all of us, but I want to begin by restressing that we cannot possibly tackle this problem of education unless we accept the fact that a whole generation has to be given an upward thrust if we are to adjust ourselves to the needs of this new technological age.
  I have begun with the most bread-and-butter argument—that, to earn our living in the world, we shall need these new levels of skill among the minority who qualify for technical colleges and universities; but we will also need a pervading atmosphere of greater optimism, greater self-confidence and a good deal more information among all our younger generation who are now going into industry.
  That is why I was grateful to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon for at least introducing the problem of the 11-plus and the tripartite system. It is fascinating, in a debate of this kind, to find how many ideas are common to both sides of the House. We are all agreed that we want more university places and more scientific and educational opportunities. But, just as fascinating as the destinations we agree about, is the rate of pace at which each side wishes to travel.
  I say very respectfully to hon. Members opposite that they have to start hurrying up. It is no use expecting us to go on year after year on these benches explaining how, not only on the bread-and-butter level of earning our living but also in terms of the personal happiness and fulfilment of individuals, such
  874
  things have to be done, when hon. Members opposite deny our arguments year after year and then, at the last gasp, in a piecemeal and ineffective way, begin to accept part of them. In our debate yesterday we were even on the verge of public ownership of land. I should like some hon. Members opposite to have private talks with some of my hon. Friends on that issue.
  On the question of younger children, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said that perhaps we should give attention to the causes of many modern discontents and tensions rather than to scientific investigations into tranquilisers and the rest, and I entirely agree. But I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not underestimate just how great a tension it is for a home where children are studying for the 11-plus. Occasionally, of course, everything works out all right if Johnnie goes to grammar school and Jimmie stays in secondary modern school. But very often such distinctions cause a great deal of unnecessary tension and unnecessary hardship.
  Another very important factor is that, from that earlyage, we begin to give to the great majority of our young citizens a sense of failure, unless they are specially good at passing academic examinations at the regulation age of 11-plus and, later on, at 15 and other ages. This is wholly bad and that is why some of us on this side of the House care so much about the comprehensive principle in education.
  We do not ask that it should be applied identically in every part of the country, but what we do say is that we must abolish the secondary modern school. We can have grammar schools, comprehensive of various kinds, but we cannot possibly expect to have two-thirds of the school children in schools, a few of which are excellent indeed, but the great majority of which are just not up to standard in buildings, teachers, turnover of teachers, equipment and the rest.
  What is so said is that sometimes even when children from secondary modern schools, with infinite effort, pass the 13-plus to move into a grammar school they are still not accepted in the general stream of grammar school children. The teachers often consider it a nuisance or a handicap that they have

  875
  had no teaching in French or other languages and they are put in a special stream. Yet they are relatively lucky in making the grade to grammar schools.
  I cannot accept that it is right for any local authority to decide the percentage of its children that should pass in this way. However, I do not want to get bogged down in argument about the 13-plus, because the basic case is that if we want to do the best in terms of the good life, of a balanced, reasonably serene life, for the younger generation, at least they must have comparative esteem, with the same playgrounds, the same uniforms or similar status uniforms, and certain subjects in common until some go on to more academic levels and others go on to work.
  Even more was I fascinated by what my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) had to say about engineers, because I want to give a warning to the House that we should not make the same mistakes about the 15-plus that we have made about the 11-plus. Slowly, painfully and laboriously we are correcting the 11-plus mistakes and moving forward to the comprehensive principle. At this moment—and this is one of the criticisms I make of the Robbins Report—there is far more emphasis placed on the students who will go to university or higher technical education. I agree that we must give the utmost opportunity and bring the training at colleges for teachers and the colleges of advanced technology up to university standard.
  What will be the situation when one lad in a family—or girl—begins to earn his living at 15 or 15-plus—and I hope that it will soon be 16—while another member of the family goes on to higher education, doing nothing to earn a living until in his twenties and sometimes in his late twenties? I foresee social, psychological and industrial difficulties unless we apply what I have called the comprehensive principle to the problems of those between 15 and 20as well as to the younger children.
  By that I mean that many a boy or girl, because of home circumstances or because he feels like doing so, leaves school and starts to earn a living at 15, but must have kept open for him cross country routes back to the colleges and
  876
  universities at later stages of his development. We have some of those routes now, but they are too narrow and too few. For instance, I was delighted to find a National Coal Board college in my own constituency teaching young colliers whose first trip underground was with a tutor. This is a revolution in the attitude to the youngsters, to their fears and pride and nervousness and all the other things which make up a young man starting to earn his living. One youngster may go underground wanting to do nothing more than routine jobs—although even routine jobs now require a great deal of skill—while another may be a great mining engineer of the future, or just that highly qualified engineer so much needed. But he may not develop until he is 16, 17 or 18.
  I mean these cross-country routes to function both ways. There are sometimes youngsters, pressured by their families or their natural abilities, who are excellent at passing examinations when they are 11 or 15, but who are sick of it by the time they are 17 or 19 and who begin to feel the tensions and the pressures too much and who want to start to earn their own living. It is dreadful if they have to start doing so in an atmosphere which says that they are failures.
  In the past, it would have been impossible for us to tackle this type of problem, because class and caste divisions were too great. It was assumed that one element in the community would do the hard, under-recognised, underpaid manual labour, while others, because of their birth and home, would never work, or would have clean-hand jobs and would have higher education of some kind. One of the reasons why there has been so much revolt about the 11-plus is that we are dealing with children not from different social environments or different homes, but often from the same home. This applies at later ages. One brother may go into industry to earn his living when he is 15, and another brother may go to college. The generation which starts to earn its living at 15 and which helps to pay for the education of its brothers at technical colleges and so on will not accept a sharp distinction in status, in remuneration and in everything else that goes to make up later social life.

  877
  If as a nation we are adjusting ourselves to the needs of the future, I hope that we will keep that cross-country journey in mind when tomorrow we debate the apprenticeship system. I do not want now to deal with subjects appropriate to tomorrow, but in passing I will say that it is not good enough for the young wage earner to be at the mercy of the location in which he lives or the factory where he works. It may not be the fault of the employer and the firm may be too small to have an apprenticeship scheme, but part of the education system between 15 and 20 should ensure higher level apprenticeship schemes for those who go into industry and adequate adult education courses to make sure that we give every possible help to cross-fertilisation between those who start with practical work and those who begin on more academic levels.
  Like other hon. Members, I am worried about the possibility of implementing an adequate university building programme in the next few years. We need not waste much time hitting a man when he is down and the Government are very far down, but even a Labour Government will not be able to make up for the shortcomings of the last 12 years in the first few years of office. A Labour Government will have to face facts in its priorities of building new and extending existing universities, but I hope that in this development, especially in the large industrial centres, there will be far more communication than now between university, technical and other students who are pure science or pure literature students and those whose subjects are taught by the more direct application of immediately earning a living.
  The building of residential accommodation for two-thirds of the expanding university population must be considered, but it is a major proposition and might not have the same priority as providing the maximum number of university places. Going round universities, like other hon. Members, I find great differences in the standards of amenities provided for students, especially in the newer universities. I do not see why we should not give priority to an imaginative type of students' union—the majority of students are poor—so that they can
  878
  come from their bed-and-breakfast lodgings and have a club, a gathering place, a union, which is heavily subsidised and devised with imagination and where they can have food at reasonable prices and a place to discuss everything under the sun, with all the advantages of the new technological age in the form of television and everything else which can help their studies.
  I am one of those who believe that the University of the Air has a great future. We may be surprised when we find not only the students of the familiar student years, 11, 15 and 20, but men and women starting at 20 or 40 or even 60 to refresh their minds by taking opportunities which only a very few could win for themselves in days when they had only books to help them. This will not only refresh their private lives but be of considerable benefit to the nation.
  I conclude by reinforcing what has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton. Pure science is splendid. We want to lead the world in that field and provide every possible opportunity for it. But if Britain is to earn her living, as she must, and not develop a society of neurotics, she must take not one but many diverse steps in order to ensure that the great majority of her youngsters who go into agriculture and industry, not unskilled but nevertheless needing to acquire a considerable degree of skill, are given every opportunity in terms not only of remuneration and status for the practical work they do but also of moving over to the academic level if that be their wish.
  6.50 p.m.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) for once again directing our attention to people. All that we have been talking about today are the statistics that go with them. The subject nevertheless concerns individual people of all ages. It is all too easy to forget that individuals are involved when we talk about these percentages and the vast outpouring of millions of pounds. But in the hon. Lady's approach she seems to overlook the kind of task that has faced us since the end of the Second World War. The first thing that we had to do was to try to

  879
  provide a sufficient number of secondary educational establishments in order to ensure a secondary education for all.
  In carrying out this task we have become to some extent world leaders in school architecture, apart from anything else, and people have come from all over the world to admire what we have done—although I sometimes wish that the architects who designed these buildings were made to teach architecture in a room one wall of which consisted entirely of glass, outside which a considerable amount of public activity was taking place, because they would then understand why many education authorities are having to buy Venetian blinds. Generally, however, the buildings are a credit to us.
  We must now ensure that in addition to all the modernisation that has gone on while we have been providing secondary modern schools, we deal adequately with the primary school problem. On top of this we have had thrust upon us the colossal problem of having to build new universities and colleges of advanced technology. Let us not forget that it is less than ten years since we began the creation of these colleges. There were none ten years ago. When the hon. Lady says that twelve years have been wasted she is not giving a fair presentation of the facts. I believe that on reflection she will regret that remark, because it is so inaccurate. Whatever else one may say it cannot be denied that there has been a remarkable advance during the last twelve years.
  Right hon. and hon. Members opposite must tell us whether they would be prepared, if certain things are desirable—and who would deny that this is desirable?—to let the economy go rip in the process. If they would be, let us consider what would be the net effect. The value of the pound would fall. We should get less value than we are now getting for the money we spend—less than we would have got if we had cut our clothes according to the cloth. That has been the problem all through. I wish that the Leader of the Opposition were here so that I could say this directly to him.
  We have this problem still before us. We ended the war impoverished. We lost most of our reserves. We have been investing long and borrowing short, and
  880
  our reserves have not been sufficient to bridge the gap. We are still in that position, yet we have been doing things which, if they had been done by any commercial company, would probably have caused it to go out of business. Yet we have managed it, and it is greatly to the credit of those people who have contributed to the effort. It is a great mistake on the part of the hon. Lady, or anybody else, to run down what has been done. It is a remarkable achievement, and the Government deserve full credit for its part. But the Government would be the first to say that it was not only they who had achieved this success; it has been a great task for the teachers.
  If we consider the tremendous advance that has taken place in respect of teacher-training colleges we appreciate what a major achievement is involved. What would have been the use of building all the buildings to which the hon. Lady referred if we did not have the teachers to teach in them? One of our aims is to reduce the size of classes, as I am sure the hon. Lady would agree. Many classes are still far too large. We must therefore make sure that we have the people to take advantage of all the building we do, and that classes are kept down to a size which will ensure that the pupils derive the fullest benefit from the enormously expensive education which is now being provided.
  I am glad that the hon. Lady has got us back on to the subject of individual people, because I want to refer to the most important person in education, namely, the Minister. We have had the Trend Report as well as the Robbins Report, and there is one aspect in which both Reports agree. It is that the Minister for Science should be brought into education in a big way. In opening the debate today the Leader of the Opposition dealt with this problem to some extent. He seemed to think that if we could manage to alter the purpose and structure of the Ministry of Education there would be no need to have to face the question of whether or not education, higher and otherwise, should be in the hands of two Ministers or one.
  I suggest that, owing to the very recent date on which both Reports were published, it would be a very rash person who rushed to any final conclusions, but I have formed certain tentative opinions

  881
  about the recommendations contained in both Reports. It seems to me that there is a case for bringing the Minister for Science into scientific education, especially at higher and university levels. But I am quite certain that if he is brought in it will be essential to reduce or sub-divide his scientific responsibilities. The task which the Minister for Science has, especially if the Trend Report is implemented, is so enormous that he would be able to take only such a cursory interest in education that he might just as well not be there at all. The matter might as well be left in the hands of one Minister who is generally interested in education.
  We must face resolutely the problem of what is to be the machinery of Government and Ministerial control in the great task that lies ahead, and in our efforts to meet this great task. The first requirement before implementing either the Robbins Report or the Trend Report should be to get the Ministerial position right. It has been my experience that if one does not get the headquarters right, one is less likely to succeed in an eventual struggle of whatever kind it may be. Unless we get the Ministerial structure right in this matter, we shall delay getting the correct machinery of Government below Ministerial level, and the longer that delay lasts the less likely it will be that the rest of the structure will be adjusted properly.
  I was glad to see the tribute to the existing structure in the Trend Report. The way in which that has grown up is remarkable and a good example of what happened to Topsy—it "just growed". Our scientific arrangements for the various efforts in which we have indulged have been extraordinarily haphazard in their growth, and yet repeatedly the Trend Report quotes the Haldane Report of fifty years ago in which was foreseen the situation prevailing today. This might be recalled by hon. Members opposite because that Report was available when they were in office and they decided not to implement it. It may be that at last we shall be able to do so. I am certain that the present situation demands a big change in the structure. Whether such a change is overdue is a matter for debate. Personally I consider it would be a rather abortive discussion because it deals with the irredeemable past. But our
  882
  present position results partly from delaying too long in taking steps which should have been taken following the recommendations of the Haldane Report.
  I hope that before anything is done to implement the Robbins Report or the Trend Report we may come to a decision regarding the Minister or Ministers. Having done that, either the one or the two Ministers could then work out the necessary sub-divisions and put recommendations to the Cabinet. That is the way in which we ought to proceed, rather than to implement all, or a greater part, of either Report and then take a decision about the Ministers; because if that is done, we may find that we have set up a structure which would have worked better under some different Ministerial arrangement. Either a Government govern or they do not. It is not much good having Ministers unless they control their Departments and report to this House on the work of their Departments. It is possible to get the cart before the horse—but perhaps "cart" is a rather unfortunate analogy in these days. I should like to reserve judgment on the rest of the Trend Report until that decision has been taken.
  The machinery of Government is a subject which for some extraordinary reason all too quickly becomes boring to politicians. Yet it happens to be about the most important part of Government and something in which hon. Members ought to take an interest but very rarely do. There is a real risk that we shall aim at excessive tidiness and create one of those lovely charts rather like the new defence White Paper—with lines on it and little loops where one line jumps over another line, and all that. And there may be all the little boxes in little separate compartments and at intervals dotted lines to show that there is occasional liaison between two Departments. That probably means that the heads of the Departments lunch together at the Athenaeum, or something like that. We must be a little careful about all this.
  The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has done a wonderful job over the years. The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) suggested that the first person to draw attention to these matters was the Leader of the

  883
  Opposition in his speech at Scarborough. I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Cooperation, and some hon. Members on this side of the House, produced a pamphlet on science and industry over a year ago. The pamphlet contained some recommendations which we are delighted to see reflected in the Trend Report. We did not visualise the disappearance of D.S.I.R. I do not know whether this new organisation, the Industrial Research and Development Authority, is the right one to replace D.S.I.R.
  We have a number of other organisations. There is the Advisory Committee on Scientific Policy which has its critics. In the Trend Report the suggestion is made that a new body be formed to advise the Minister and be called the Advisory Council. That would be a rather more robust body and do a great deal more work—in that it would meet more often—than the old Advisory Committee on Scientific Policy. This Committee which reports each year to Parliament has done wonderful work, especially in connection with the need for scientific manpower. I thought that the Leader of the Opposition could not have read the careful study, made at the request of the Minister for Science, of the reasons why scientists emigrate and the specific recommendations which have been made.
  It is suggested that the salaries in universities should be reviewed, and the number of senior posts in universities should be increased. It is suggested that research grants should be awarded at the maximum speed; that the research budgets of university scientific departments should be increased by a system of annual grants from Research Councils, and that ties up closely with paragraphs 53 and60 of the Trend Report. It is also recommended that there should be an increasing scale of technical assistance at all levels for university research and that post-doctoral fellowships be awarded, to be held on their return, to outstanding men before they leave for research experience overseas.
  In paragraph 22 of the Report of the A.C.S.P. we have the assurance that these six proposals are under considera-
  884
  tion and action has been taken on some. I award full marks for that. It shows that the machinery we have is working. The Advisory Committee on Scientific Policy sets up a special Committee which reports to the Minister and steps are taken to implement the Report. That is the object of setting up such a body.
  One of the great difficulties of Members of Parliament is to keep abreast of the Reports which are issued. There is the Report of the Advisory Committee on Scientific Policy and the Annual Reports from all the Research Councils. We can also get the Reports of the Research Associations of each industry and those of D.S.I.R. and N.E.D.C. and the Atomic Energy Authority. There are the Estimates and all that, and now we have the Trend Report and the Rob-bins Report. It requires effort in order to keep abreast of all these Reports and I sympathise with any hon. Member who, like myself, does not possess a scientific degree—or for that matter, any degree at all.
  This matter of science is one over which it is all too easy to mislead the public. There are certain bits which permit of demagogy and they are not the bits which really matter. The bits which really matter appear from the outside to be as dry as dust and they nearly all involve the machinery of Government. I consider therefore that the Government are to be congratulated on having set up the Trend Committee and I think that its Report contains far more than people have yet realised. I am delighted to note that so much is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation and other hon. Friends and myself reported on about a year ago. I hope that at the proper time it will be implemented and Parliament will be enabled to have a full-dress debate on what should be the machinery of Government in this connection. The last time we had a debate on science, about 12 of us attended throughout the debate. It is not the sort of subject which normally lends itself to attracting great attention in this House, but it is very important. We could waste thousands of millions if we got this wrong. The sort of sums we are dealing with are colossal.
  Let us get the Ministerial decision right. First, who is to be the Minister

  885
  dealing with this subject? Should there be one or two Ministers? If there are two, what will be the consequence on the second one and what will be the variation in his own present job? These things must be decided first. I hope they will be decided and that we shall get Cabinet recommendations on them so that we can go ahead to seek early implementation, but time is short. The Robbins Report has shown that time is short from an educational point of view, but it is also very short from a scientific and industrial development point of view. We have had some good ideas put before us. It is up to us in Parliament and in industry to see that we do the right thing as soon as possible.
  7.12 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: I wish to begin by echoing the congratulations offered by everyone who has spoken in this debate to the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) on his very stimulating maiden speech. I particularly enjoyed it as a fellow engineer. I heartily agree with the hon. Member in the remarks he made with reference to talking more about engineers and less about scientists. I shall follow his advice later in my remarks. Although some hon. Members opposite have said that his victory was "the end of the chapter", we can all at least agree that his maiden speech in this House was a very emphatic punctuation mark.
  I also enjoyed very much the speech of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), although I found that rather too theoretical for my taste. I cannot be quite so complimentary about the speech of the Chief Secretary, which seemed to contain no policy whatever. He said about the Robbins Report that the Government White Paper contains everything the Government want to say about it at this stage. He was not going to deal with the Newsom Report until some one interrupted him. I think he said that the Newsom Report was something for consideration.
  On the Trend Report, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman referred to anything but amounts of money spent on research in the last few years. We have listened to an interesting speech from the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), but on the problem
  886
  of Ministerial control, all that the right hon. Gentleman said was that certain interim arrangements have been made. They seemed conditional on certain things happening in the coming by-election. I suggest that the Government should not push their luck too much in that respect because one day the result will not be what is anticipated.
  Dealing with policy, not as electioneering as the Chief Secretary could be described as dealing with it, the Government say they have accepted the principal recommendations of the Robbins Report that courses of higher education should be available to every child in the country who is capable of benefiting from them. That does not compare very well with the actual situation described by the Leader of the Opposition in his opening speech, in which he quoted from the Robbins Committee Report. There we are told that from a peak of 75 per cent, of children qualified to enter university actually doing so in 1957, the percentage has declined in the most recent year for which figures are available to 61 per cent.
  I should like to go into the reasons why this has happened. First I think the idea of a pool of ability has been demonstrated to be a fallacy. That was exposed very thoroughly in the Robbins Report. The expansion of universities which has taken place so far—we admit that much—has not been accompanied by any lowering of standards or an increase in the failure rate in the students at universities.
  There is still a vast amount of ability going to waste. The Robbins Report tells us that 97 per cent, of children of manual workers are not getting any higher education at all. This, it says, is not due to any difference of innate ability but to environmental factors which are always under-estimated. It is now agreed by educational experts that there is no such thing as an objective test of intelligence unaffected by a child's home life and school life. As both improve with better provision of secondary education and a rise in the standard of living, there is bound to be a vast rise in the number of children capable of benefiting from a university education. This has not been taken into account in previous calculations by the Government.

  887
  It is quite true that some of the international comparisons which have been made in the past are misleading and it is easy to be superficial about this. We had certainly imagined that they would show this country in a less favourable light than Robbins shows it, but in one respect we are right at the bottom of the league table of European countries and the United States and the Soviet Union. That is in the proportion of first degrees in technology to those in science and technology as a whole. The Robbins Report says that science not only attracts greater numbers but also attracts students of better quality than does technology. It goes on in the same paragraph to say that means must be found to attract more of the abler students to technology. This is a pious hope with which Robbins, in the terms of reference given to that Committee, was not able to deal.
  It may be that granting the C.A.T.s university status and establishment of the S.I.S.T.E.R.s, as they are becoming known, will help by focusing public attention on technological education. It will certainly deal with one of the three factors mentioned by the hon. Member for Luton as discouraging students from entering upon a technological career. But I think something more will be required. It demands a complete change in the attitude of both parents and teachers to technology compared with their attitude to science.
  Several hon. Members referred to the snobbery which still pervades the thinking of those guiding young people on this subject. That came out very well in the Report by Professor Peterson on Technology in the Sixth Form, published earlier this year. It is true that the demand for scientists and technologists has been increasing faster than anyone anticipated. It is important to note the reasons why this has happened. It has been established that many more scientists and technologists are going in for careers where they do not necessarily use professional knowledge.
  That came out in the 1961 census in which it was found that 50,000 of the 260,000 scientists and technologists in this country were employed in jobs where they were not making full use of professional qualifications. The same point was made in the Report of the
  888
  Committee on Scientific Manpower. Mainly as a result of this, but it is not the only reason, we have dangerously under-estimated the requirements for scientists and technologists, particularly technologists. Only in 1961 Sir Solly Zuckerman forecast that there would be a rough balance between demand and supply by 1965, although he said there would still be a surplus of scientists and a deficiency of technologists by that date.
  His estimates were based on the principle of separate assessments of the requirements of different technology-based industries. This technique has had limitations which the Robbins Report points out. We get new industries growing up which had not been foreseen at the time the assessment was made. We also get the other factor I mentioned of many engineers and technologists going into posts where they are not actually using their qualifications. Against this increasing need we have an alarming drop in the number of technologists qualifying below the accepted number. This is brought out in the last Report of the Committee on Scientific Manpower published this October.
  The rough balance which Sir Solly Zuckerman said we could expect by 1965 has been delayed indefinitely and there will be acute shortages in certain disciplines, particularly in electrical and mechanical engineering. This comes out from the Report I have mentioned. The Prime Minister has used a superficially attractive phrase to which several people have referred, "Acceleration from a prepared position", but unfortunately when it comes to higher education and higher education in the specialised disciplines to which I am referring we cannot expect the machine to respond instantaneously to touches on the throttle.
  In spite of all the talk one hears in this House and outside about the importance of technology to future growth rates, I do not think that this has yet been realised in the country as a whole. I endorse very heartily the remark made by Professor Sir John Baker some years ago; "Science earns no dividends until it has passed further through the mills of technology. "I ask the Government to tell us how they will rectify this expected short-fall in these important disciplines—important from the point of view of growth in the economy.

  889
  I agree that in this debate we ought to be discussing Government machinery. I very much enjoyed listening to the speech of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely. I think it a pity that more speeches in the debate have not concentrated on the vitally important question of Ministerial responsibility. The hon. Member said that it was probably too early for us to make any firm proposition, but I think that the more discussion of it that we can have the more likely we are ultimately to reach an acceptable decision. We have two proposals. There is that of Robbins for a Minister of Arts and Science responsible for the complete and much enlarged range of autonomous institutions financed from the new Grants Commission and also absorbing the functions of the Minister for Science. Then we have what one might call the Shearman system. Mr. Shearman made a minority recommendation that the whole system should be under one Minister leaving the functions of the Minister for Science to be dealt with as a completely separate question.
  The crux of the matter seems to be the treatment which expenditure on research in the university might be expected to get under the two different systems. University teachers believe that the Robbins solution is the better one from this point of view. A friend of mine who is a professor wrote to me the other day to say that a Minister of Education responsible for the whole of education, higher and lower, must necessarily be weighted towards teaching, but he admitted in the next paragraph of his letter that experience with the C.A.T.s does not bear this out. He maintains that this is because
  "the universities exist as a model, independent of the Ministry, to which the C.A.T.S have been pressing to conform."
  I think that the safeguard is the existence of the Grants Committee principle and the extension of that principle to this much wider range of autonomous institutions, and a reaffirmation of the doctrine that individual items of expenditure recommended by the Grants Committee will not be queried by the Minister responsible. I do not think that any system which it is possible to devise could prevent the type of interference which happened last year and
  890
  to which reference has been made several times in the debate. I do not think that it would be politically possible for either the Minister of Arts and Sciences or the Minister of the much enlarged educational system as a whole to dictate to the new grants committee the relative amounts of money which are to be spent on teaching and research.
  On the other hand, there is a danger in the Robbins proposals which the university teachers have not spotted. The proposed Minister of Arts and Sciences would control earmarked grants as well as the total U.G.C. sum, and I think that it could be a temptation to him in certain circumstances to adjust the total of these earmarked grants in the light of the U.G.C. recommendations in order to confine expenditure on research within some completely arbitrary limit.
  More and more children are staying on at school anyway, whether we accept the recommendations of the Newsom Committee to raise the school-leaving age or not, and I think that this is another factor which strengthens the case for a unified Ministry which could coordinate the whole of educational policy from primary school level up to Ph.D. It will appear from my remarks so far that I very much favour the Shearman proposals against those of the majority of the Robbins Committee.
  On this subject of the school leaving age, we had a promise from the Minister of Education last November that he would make an announcement during the lifetime of this Parliament, subject to certain conditions, and I think that there has been a renewal of that promise given to us by the Chief Secretary this afternoon. But if the decision is not made now we shall lose the opportunity of doing it at a point in history when the number of children reaching the age of 16 will be the minimum. If it is delayed thereafter, beyond the 1965 entry, as proposed in the Newsom Committee's Report, the change-over will be a very much more expensive and difficult matter.
  One ought also to be considering at the same time changes in the law in order to make the age of transfer between primary and secondary education more flexible. We have heard a lot about the unsuitability of the age of 11

  891
  for transfer from primary to secondary education. This age was arrived at as a result of working backwards from a school leaving age of 14, when that applied. If one is to have a higher leaving age than ever before, the way is open for reconsidering the whole question of the age of transfer, and logically this study ought to be completed in time for its results to be implemented at the same time as the school-leaving age is increased to 16, which I hope will be 1965.
  I want to say a few words about the Trend Report and some of the things which have been said on that subject this afternoon. It is axiomatic, as Trend himself said, that Governments should play a greater part in future in stimulating civil research and development. This is made explicit in paragraph 87 of the Report:
  "We have felt obliged and entitled to assume that it will be the Government's purpose to promote industrial research and development more intensively than hitherto, as an essential element in the sustained growth of the economy."
  In passing, it was a pity that the terms of reference of the Trend Committee were not rather wider so that the Committee could have considered the amounts by which Government expenditure on civil research should be increased, as well as the machinery by which this was to be brought about.
  I seem to detect an inconsistency between this strongly expressed opinion of the Trend Committee and the remarks which were made by the Chief Secretary in his speech. There was a note of self-satisfaction in that speech about the amount devoted by the Government to civil research, yet we have the Report of the Trend Committee saying that not enough has been done and that the amounts must be increased.
  One of the ways by which this should be done, according to Trend, is the use of civil development contracts, and the Chief Secretary mentioned this particularly and alluded to three examples. I believe that I am right in saying that these are the only three examples so far of civil development contracts given direct to industry, and I agree with Trend that a great extension of this technique is highly to be desired.
  892
  What we have to discuss this afternoon is the machinery for determining scientific policy rather than the scale of effort, and this is exactly the opposite of what the Chief Secretary tried to do. Whatever is done with the semi-autonomous bodies through which the research and development effort is coordinated, the problem still remains of how science and technology can be brought to the service of policy making within the main Government Departments rather than being thought of as essentially separate from it and requiring a Ministry of its own. For example, there is nothing in the recommendation of the Trend Committee, that three separate agencies should be substituted for D.S.I.R., which will help with this problem at all. In paragraph 97 the Trend Report lays down a principle which I think is of very great importance and to which I should like to refer. The Report reads:
  "… where a particular research establishment is predominantly concerned with research which is of a relatively immediate and operational nature and is related to an executive function of Government which is wholly or mainly the responsibility of one Department, the advantage will generally lie in vesting the control of the station in that Department."
  This, I think, is a very good principle and one which ought to have been followed, but in the next paragraph of the Report we are told that the Trend Committee decided not to recommend the transfer of the Road Research Laboratory and the Building Research Station to the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Public Building and Works respectively. This question, the Committee said, had been examined at some time in the past and a decision had been made against it. The arguments, it was said, had not changed since that previous occasion on which it was examined, and the Trend Committee decided that the stations should be left where they were. But it seems to me that the main reason that this obviously sensible change has not been recommended is that there is no one in the Departments concerned who would be capable of exercising supervision over the work of these establishments. There is not enough scientific and technological "know-how" within the Ministers concerned for them to be able to assume this function.
  The same reasoning applies in one other case—that of the Laboratory of

  893
  the Government Chemist. I think that it is inappropriate to put this under the I.R.D.A. considering that it does no direct work for industry whatever. If the rule which I have quoted were followed, this Laboratory should be transferred to the Customs and Excise for whom it does about 60 per cent, of its work.
  One final comment on the Trend Report: I am not certain that the division of the functions of the Science Research Council according to disciplines is the correct move. Many of the most exciting new advances in science are being made at the boundaries between the different disciplines. The Trend Report itself points out the dangers inherent in this method of dividing the effort.
  But however civil science is to be reorganised in the future, we have to remember—the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely made this point—that a tidy and logical administrative structure does not necessarily mean a measurable improvement in the returns which one can expect from the effort being put into civil science. Conversely, the existing machinery, haphazard and wasteful though it may seem to us, has not prevented Britain from reaching a leading position in many scientific disciplines. The Chief Secretary mentioned some of them, including nuclear energy, and I would name one in which I am particularly interested—radio-astronomy.
  I hope very much that although we may disagree about the means of carrying out scientific policy, the House will be unanimous in demanding from the Government that science and technology will be given a more central place than ever before in every Department of Government.
  7.35 p.m.
  Miss Harvie Anderson(Renfrew, East): I hope that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) will forgive me if I do not follow the latter part of his speech. In a few minutes I hope to come to the earlier part of his speech, where I do not share his view.
  It is true to say that probably all hon. Members share the belief that
  "sufficient colleges should be set up in which the arts, science and rhetoric should be taught
  894
  and that no one should be denied the opportunity, because of poverty, of a place at these colleges. From these colleges our university recruits ought to be selected."
  I do not know whether the Robbins Committee took any evidence from the Book of Discipline upon which the Scottish educational system is based. It was written in 1516, and it seems to me that our aim has not altered materially from that date to this.
  I wish to refer to only three points. They arise out of the Robbins Report. Although this is a very restricted field in the terms of today's debate, I do so because I believe it important that at this stage we should set the pace for the progress of the recommendations envisaged by the Robbins Report. The first point to which I wish to refer is the staffing problem which the recommendations create. Very little has been said about that in the debate today. The second is its effect upon the distribution of manpower nationally. The third is the possible pool of ability from which these requirements are to be met.
  On the staffing problem, in a recent article in The Times, Professor Jones of Aberdeen University made it clear that in many cases staffing is already overstrained. He made the additional point that any overloading in the immediate future was likely to be to the detriment of research. I think that most of us are aware of the problems presented at present throughout our universities and higher education establishments, particularly where many of those on the staff are faced, as in the schools, with too many people to teach. But with university education this is probably a far more important aspect, since it means, in effect, that the time which staff have available to devote to research is inevitably restricted.
  I think that the necessary influx of staff required for too quick a promotion of the Robbins ideas would create the difficulties throughout the whole of our educational system of understaffing and restricted research. This is shown on page 140 of Appendix 3 of the Robbins Report, which shows that at present some 12 per cent, of the general output of graduates already return to teaching. And 48 per cent, in the humanities already return to teaching. This is a very clear warning of what we may run into

  895
  if we move too fast. I believe that a breakdown would show that the Robbins recommendation would be that all graduates in certain fields would be required to go into teaching for the next five years or so. If this is so, it follows that there would be great difficulty in the national distribution of educated manpower.
  What is our essential requirement for industry and for defence? Surely it is prudent at this stage to carry out a further analysis of how best to divide the limited manpower available between our three national requirements? Even if we put the educational system as the first priority, we surely cannot neglect the interests of industry, which must pay for the educational system, or of defence. Should we not consider the Robbins recommendations in this light? We cannot forget the school requirements, because it is inevitable that we are drawing and we shall draw to some extent from the schools to staff our further education facilities. This more than anything else should surely dictate the pace, because buildings alone will not suffice. It is essential for us to have the teaching staff of the quality that will bring the success we have come to expect.
  This brings me to consider the pool of ability. Here I differ from the hon. Member for Orpington, because I believe that such a thing exists, however regrettable we may consider it to be. It exists for reasons beyond our control to a certain extent. I have read with great care the arguments advanced in the Robbins Report. In my view, sufficient emphasis has not been placed on the point that a pool of ability can be gauged only by judging it on existing conditions or standards. That is generally accepted. Any estimate or judgment we make as to the future can only be guesswork, because the only factual judgment we can make results from the present standard and the present conditions. Professor Jones, of the University of Aberdeen, recognises that the number of students is a much more tangible factor than the quality of the students. If the standard is altered or lowered at any level, the percentage pool created will automatically be altered. I do not believe that sufficient attention has been paid to this point, because our educational system at
  896
  present subscribes to present standards and conditions. Yet we are looking into the future, but not taking the logical step of deciding what standards or conditions, if any, we will change immediately and thus create additional numbers.
  I have not taken into account the social aspects, to which hon. Members have referred. I refer to the aspects which alter the emphasis or the percentage of the pool of ability which is accounted for by the reaction of the pupil to further education, the reaction of the parents, or the child's reaction to the social conditions in which he lives. We all hope these will move towards encouraging the numbers prepared to go through to higher education, but there is no evidence that this acceleration is very marked at university level.
  I believe that on the present standards and conditions of our education system 11 per cent, to 16 per cent, are able to qualify for entry to a university. I am not satisfied with the arguments put forward in the Robbins Report that this percentage will increase immediately at a very noticeable pace. I say this because one of the two persons who has done most research on this is a distinguished Director of Education in Scotland, where the bar to the entry of a student with ability has been very considerably less for the past few centuries than it has been in England, and the increase in the pool of ability where the facilities have been offered has not been as great as many people had expected. This trend has been considered consistently since approximately 1930.
  Mr. Lubbock: It is undeniable that there are some children who would never be capable of benefiting from a university education. I said that only 3 per cent, of the children of manual workers were benefiting from higher education at the moment. The comparable figures for the children of higher professional classes is 45 per cent. Either one accepts that there is some innate difference of ability, or by improvements in schooling and environmental background we should bring the children of manual workers up to the same percentage as that for the children of higher professional classes.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: I am in entire agreement with the hon. Member that it is

  897
  desirable to bring up that percentage. The social conditions which I mentioned a few moments ago obviously have a great bearing on this. However, it does not alter my point that in the system which it is very much easier for the very persons of whom the hon. Gentleman speaks to go on to higher education the proportion so doing is less than one would have hoped. I am not saying that it is a good thing. I am merely pointing out that such research as has been done shows that it is less than one would have hoped. For three centuries there has been a wider range of opportunity in Scotland than there has been in England.
  If this argument were to be pursued it would be found that the pace must not be in excess of the numbers who would benefit from the full stretch of education. I suggest that we estimate the number to be catered for by higher education having accepted that we want the maximum possible graduate success and the minimum possible failure rate. This would probably be readily accepted. The Leader of the Opposition made great play with the restrictions on entry. However, he did not make the point which is brought out in Table 18 of the Robbins Report, that our success rate in graduates is relatively higher than that in any other country. Perhaps I should omit the United States here, because it is extremely difficult to get a comparable figure, for two reasons. First, except in a few instances degree courses in the United States are not comparable with our own. Secondly, although the percentage of those receiving higher education is much higher, the resulting diploma or degree is a lower qualification than its equivalent here.
  I was very impressed by a visit I made a month ago to an American university where there were 19,000 students and where there was a failure rate of 50 per cent. I do not believe that this country wants such a failure rate. The U.K. rate now is approximately 14 per cent. In time it may be possible to advance an argument to the effect that one year at a university is better than none, but, in view of the difficulties to which I have referred, I do not believe that at this stage we are prepared to face that. The pace which we must consider for the very near future to achieve the progress
  898
  set out in the Robbins Report is a pace which must bring a realistic return for investment. This will not be done either by starving the rest of the nation, including our schools, of very scarce educated manpower, or by seeking to include in our university system at present those whose ability and attainment on present standards would fail to meet the degree requirement.
  7.50 p.m.
  Mr. David Ginsburg:The hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) spoke of the allocation of scarce resources, particularly in relation to teaching manpower. I am sure she will agree that this important point applies not only to the items she selected for discussion but also to the whole problem of our scientific policy; and I intend later to refer to this subject.
  I intend to concentrate my remarks on two main points; firstly, the rather more controversial section of science and its bearing on the policy of the Government in the context of the modernisation programme and, secondly—on something less controversial—some conditions which must be satisfied if we are to have a successful and effective scientific policy.
  Last Thursday we debated the general economic strategy of the Government. Three spheres came in for critical examination; the Government's policy on our balance of payments, their policy towards regional development and their new policy for public investment. It is important to realise that science is not divorced from any of these three objects. It has a direct bearing on them and should be viewed when considering any facet of Government policy.
  Listening to Ministers last week I felt that there was a definite tendency on their part to under-estimate the seriousness of our balance of payments position. There was a tendency not to realise that as the boom got under way the importation of stocks would grow. There was also a tendency for them not to realise the extent of the cost of servicing our overseas debts, which have risen from about £50 million to about £750 million a year now. Thus if we do not keep the balance of payments position in the forefront of our thoughts we will run into serious trouble.

  899
  This has a direct bearing on our policy towards science and this must be crystal clear from what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said earlier today. He spoke of the vital need for savings in imports, the need for research programmes and scientific endeavours designed to ensure over a long period that we do not have to live indefinitely with the stock boom and the need for us to reduce our dramatically heavy import bill.
  Let us consider the export problem and look at it through scientific spectacles. We noticed last week a certain complacency on the part of Ministers. The President of the Board Trade spoke of the export drive rather exclusively in terms of large units of production. He gave the impression that the export drive should be viewed in terms of selling large numbers of finished British-made articles to foreign export markets. Consider the problem of the motor car industry. If the Government back that ploy—of increasing our exports too far—I suspect that we will again have serious trouble in the future because overseas countries will in time make the goods which we are exporting to them now.
  When one speaks in terms of greater exports one is really in the long run speaking about our exporting components, particularly highly sophisticated ones; generally exporting "know-how" and not always finished, mass-produced goods. It is important, therefore, for Ministers to realise that scientific policy has an important bearing on our export strategy. I hope that in the months ahead we will see this need recognised.
  Now the main new feature of Government economic thinking is, we are given to understand, regional economic development. If this policy is to mean anything it must involve surveying the industrial structure of a region, determining whether there are too many old industries and, if so, whether new industries must be established, particularly industries of a high scientific content. In his speech on Thursday the President of the Board of Trade mentioned studies that were in hand, but the whole thing sounded very haphazard. They appear not to be systematic studies and the teeth to reinforce them seemed lacking.
  I now wish to put a local point to the Government. What, for example, is being
  900
  done when regional development is spoken about for the West Riding of Yorkshire? The President of the Board of Trade said nothing about this, and although the Economic Secretary had a few words to say on the subject we have had no indication that the Government really intend doing something for this part of the country. As is known, the West Riding of Yorkshire has some of the best, though oldest and stationary, industries in its area. There are declining opportunities for employment and one need mention only the N.E.D.C. Report, in which it was estimated that the decline in the next four years in the manpower of the wool textile industry will be about 10 per cent, in all.
  The wool textile industry has a good record of scientific research. It is particularly true that, compared with the United States, the British industry has a good showing, but the possibilities in this changing society for building scientifically based industries around what exists in places like the West Riding of Yorkshire in the wool textile industry seems extremely remote. What plans do the Government have of a specific nature for this area, particularly from the point of view of introducing new scientifically based industries?
  The general policy of the Government aims at lifting the economy from the depression it was in last year to a new level of activity by a marked increase in public investment. That is the key of their general policy. The Prime Minister asked the Opposition last week what we would cut if we did not like the Government programme. Strictly speaking, the question should be thrown back at the Government. When the economy begins to get into difficulties and when pressures develop, along with threatened cuts, may we have an assurance from the Government that their public investment programme will not be cut?
  If the Government proceed, because of their difficulties, to chop and cut their public investment programme—as they have done in the past—more harm will be done because many plans and programmes of a scientific character are under way and these plans will yield dividends to Britain only if they are seen through to fruition. But if they are to be at the mercy of the Treasury axe in

  901
  two or three years, then this public investment programme, valuable though it sounds at the moment, could be a very unfortunate thing indeed.
  I come now to the Government's programme for science. In what one hears sometimes from Ministers, there is an assumption that, if they mend their ways, if they modernise enough, if they spend enough on science, all will be well. It is most important to remember that science is not a talisman the magic effect of which can be turned on and off. I wish to examine some of the essential conditions for a successful scientific policy. I put three considerations to the House.
  First, the outlay on scientific research and development should not be wasted but should be rationally applied; in other words, there should be a rational calculus in the application of science. Second, we should have patience, realising that the pay-off in scientific research and development is extremely long term and may not be seen for many years. Conversely, of course, the follies of today and the failures of the Government to do the right thing may not be noticed by us in the House for some years but will be felt by future generations. The third consideration I put is that a substantial scientific superstructure such as we are, quite clearly, creating in this country can be singularly ineffective and uneconomic unless we have a scientifically educated society.
  First, as to the deployment of scientific resources, we must bear in mind always that there is the danger of a reaction setting in. As those who have read a recent article in the Financial Times will have noted, in the United States a reaction is already setting in against heavy expenditure on research and development. There is this reaction because no apparent immediate result is forthcoming. I concede that this is a difficult problem. On the one hand, financial criteria for the choice of research projects are necessary, and the necessary studies to establish the criteria must be put in train. On the other hand—those with experience of the subject will confirm this—it is possible in science to press financial disciplines too hard and too far. Science is not just another investment in plant and machinery; it is much more sophisticated than that.
  902
  It is very easy for a reaction to set in against what is regarded as over-lavish expenditure. Of course, it is possible to make mistakes. Mistakes have recently been made in this country. Only today, the Prime Minister was asked about the nuclear power generating programme. This programme was launched on an over-ambitious and uneconomic basis, and it is clear that the Government have not yet made up their minds what the future of the programme is to be.
  I want the Minister who is to reply to the debate to tell us whether the Government are satisfied that, within the Ministerial and Civil Service machine, adequate studies are being made of the deployment of scientific resources and of the profitability, to call it that, of the sort of scientific investments which we undertake. One of the reasons why we on this side of the House have often criticised the present structure of the Ministry for Science as being too weak and meagre numerically is that the Ministry as at present geared cannot physically undertake this extremely important work. The proper deployment of science is a very sophisticated business indeed. It involves more than just the scientist. It involves the accountant and the salesman. If we have a society in which these three, and others, do not understand one another and do not all speak the same language, there is the great danger that our scientific effort can be weakened and misdirected, with ensuing waste of resources and effort.
  The second consideration I put concerning a successful scientific policy referred to the time-lag, the fact that the fruits of scientific research take far longer to mature than is generally realised. We are today paying the price for post-war, and even pre-war, neglect in science, and, what is more, any failure of foresight by Governments today will be felt and paid for not by us but by those who come after.
  In this connection, I mention what, in my view, is an extremely important article which recently appeared in the National Institute's Economic Review, giving a comparison between the plastics industry in this country and in Germany. The article tells us that German production of plastics per head is over half as

  903
  great again as production in this country and greater even than in the United States. The question is posed: why is the German plastics industry today, after a devastating war and the long years of recovery, so much in the lead over this country's plastics industry? Not because of the costs of raw materials. Not because of any advantage that Germany has in the costs of labour. Not because of plant costs. Quite simply, the reason is technical progress in Germany, technical progress in terms of research expenditure, in terms of the number of patents taken out in the German plastics industry, and in terms of the number of commercial innovations introduced.
  The really shattering and important fact to realise is that this advantage which the German plastics industry has gained over ours and even over that of the United States dates from a period even before the last war. In other words, it is due in part to the fact that I. G. Farben spent more on research and development 20, 30 or 40 years ago than did any comparable firm in either Britain or America. It is for this reason that the German plastics industry leads ours today and has been able, despite war-time dislocations, to overhaul us once again.
  Mr. Arthur Holt: The hon. Gentleman may be right in that reason for the development of the German plastics industry, but is it not possible also that it may have been due to economic pressures before the war, when raw materials were not available to Germany under Hitler, which gave a great stimulus to all developments in synthetics?
  Mr. Ginsburg: I did concede that there are other factors; but Germany did not have any advantage pre-war except in this field of scientific research, something which goes back not just to the 'thirties or to the 'twenties but even to the previous century.
  It is important to remember that a technical lead in the scientific field and other fields like it is worth 10 to 15 years to a country. It is true that countries with their own research traditions like our own can catch up on some-
  904
  one else's commercial innovations; but it is also important to remember that in the plastics industry Germany and the United States can catch up on someone else's innovations in, it is estimated, two or three years, whereas at the moment we can only catch up in five to seven years. I therefore think it right to say that scientific outlay must be seen as a long-term process and that we should all realise that the dividends will not be seen for very many years.
  The third condition for a successful scientific policy is to create a climate where the fruits of scientific research are fully used. I think that it is worth referring again to the article on the plastics industry which I have mentioned. Comparing this country with Germany, it is pointed out that the high consumption of plastics which Germany enjoys against us is not due to the modern industries. The modern industries in this country are equally versatile in their use of synthetic raw materials. The advantage which the Germans enjoy is that the more traditional industries, the older industries, are using these modern materials. In other words, their older industries have become more scientifically orientated and more sophisticated. Particularly it is true in Germany that the building industry is far ahead of ours in its use of plastics.
  It is worth pointing out, too, that from a study of the technical literature it can be seen that British and French scientists more than hold their own in the history of academic research into plastics. It is in the application of scientific research into plastics that Germany scores; or, to put it another way, too small an effort in this country was directed to the commercial development of promising fundamental work. This suggests that social barriers between the academic world and industry are still far too great in this country.
  That brings me to my concluding point. In this country we need not only more scientists but more technicians, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, and more technologists. We need a more scientifically orientated society. Quite recently the Westminster Bank Review wrote of the need for the oily overall to carry as much prestige as the laboratory coat. In recent months there has been an inevitable reaction in

  905
  this country against the power of the classical scholar, but we must be careful that we do not substitute for the power and influence of a classical elite a new tyrannjr—the tyranny of a scientific elite in the Royal Society. If the scientific revolution is to mean anything and to be effective, it can be only as part of a genuine democratisation of our educational and social system in the fullest and widest sense of the word.
  8.15 p.m.
  Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: I always find it extremely difficult to talk about this subject. It is one upon which nobody, least of all I, ever finds it possible to be wholly candid. Also, as has been pointed out with special reference to our business today, it is a subject upon which nobody ever docs his homework. I have struggled hard, and I make a small bet that I have read as much—I will not say as intelligently—and spent as much time on all these White Papers and Blue Books as almost any other Member. But I am deeply conscious that I have by no means read them in such a way as I should have considered made me, in the days before I was a Member of this House, competent to talk on them.
  I have a senile privilege on this occasion. I can remember my father talking about the Bill which became the great Balfour Act, and I can remember some of the consequences observable then. Of course, I can remember very directly and personally—and I do not want to be interrupted by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)—the passing of what came to be called sometimes the great Butler Act. For all that I have to say to the contrary, those two great Acts were the two greatest Measures which this House of Commons has ever passed, and have done most good. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to regard them with one's critical faculties completely asleep. One should learn on this occasion, I think, a little from what one may regard as having been defects or misfortunes on those occasions.
  I will not go back to the Balfour Act, although I have some interesting things which I could say about that. Let us stick to the Education Act, 1944. Before 1944, secondary education always meant grammar school education. I do not
  906
  think anyone in this country will doubt that. Of course, the purpose of the 1944 Act was this. My hon. Friend—I have forgotten whether the present Foreign Secretary was my "hon. Friend" or my "right hon. Friend" then—let us say that my right hon. Friend, being due for promotion, was removed to an office where he might be involved in the habitual process which has happened during the several wars which I have lived through. We begin by saying, "You must fight to serve your King and country, and, whatever else you do, you must never treat war as an act of policy."Towards the end of the war we begin to promise people all the fruits of policy that they have wanted if they will just see us through for another 18months. So the Education Bill was pulled out of its pigeonholes and became the Education Act which we now enjoy.
  What I am asking the House to notice about that process is this. I am not criticising anyone, but many of the people for whom the work was done and whose children were to get the results of the work—and they and their children are getting them to this day—felt cheated because, as they thought, they had all been promised secondary education. The House agreed with me three minutes ago that at the time the promise was made everyone took it for granted that secondary education was grammar school education. Of course, they found that they did not all get it. On this occasion, when we are promising university education, if not to every child at least to every what is called "qualified" child, it is important that we should remember that story.
  I have a word or two to say about qualification. I know that this is arrogant of me, but I think that I am right in saying this of everyone who has spoken today and Robbins. I know that it is very dangerous to criticise Robbins. It is bad enough to be rebuked by the editor of The Times, but to be rebuked by the ex-editor of the Economist, as he rebuked the editor of The Times the other day, for having suggested that there might be some criticism of Robbins is a challenge to arrogance. I know it is dangerous therefore to criticise Robbins.
  "Qualification" is used as if the special examination or the outside examinations accepted in lieu of one's

  907
  own had been intended by any university—I think I am right in saying that they never have—to be a warrant of admission. Such qualifications were never intended or used as anything else but something without which one could not approach the thing at all. They were never meant by themselves to provide a positive qualification.
  There can be no one who owes more than I do to scholarships and to encouragement to go to the university and I hope, without boasting, that no one has tried harder than I have to assist other people along the same path. Yet in trying now to promise the maximum of university opportunity to the maximum number of children, we ought not to make the argument dishonest by misusing, as unconsciously almost all of us have done today, and as the Robbins Report itself does, the word "qualification". [Interruption.] I am sure that the conversation now going on between right hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench is far more interesting than my speech. If they carry it on in such a lively manner, my jealousy makes it almost impossible for my saliva to run. I do not speak very often and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would do better to speak a little less for the moment, if they will.
  What we are doing here is remarkable and it has not been remarked half enough today. We are making arrangements, as Balfour made arrangements for secondary education, at least for some secondary education—a thin end of wedge secondary education—to be public, and then the 1944 Act did much the same as we are now doing with secondary education. Now we are doing it with tertiary education. In both the first two cases there were a good many unexpected results.
  We ought this time to try to ask what the results will be, or may be. One such question is this. What will the result be on Parliamentary Government and democracy and all that? It is a little difficult to know. Take what we are doing today. There has been nothing strikingly democratic about the process. We all know how these Reports are produced. The Government get to the point when half of them say, "We shall have to do something about this." The
  908
  other half says, "By God, we cannot do anything at the moment. "They then say to each other, "Let us ask Mr. or Sir Somebody", or whoever is the top civil servant in the office most closely concerned. All top civil servants have in the second drawer of the left-hand side of their desk a list of useful people for putting on committees and commissions. They pull the drawer open and fling out the list. Then a commission or committee is appointed which consists half of leatherworkers and half of persons accustomed to worship by Diana of the Ephesians. After two and a quarter years, out comes a report saying, "If you would only issue sandals for everybody, with silver buckles, all would come right." That has happened on this occasion.
  On this occasion, however, none of us has had time to read the Report. The only time I have ever agreed with the Leader of the Opposition, in our now fairly long acquaintance, was when he said that we ought to count this not a debate on the Robbins Report but have a straight debate on the Robbins Report some day. I think that we ought. Before that, we ought to have a qualificatory examination, in which the Leader of the Opposition and I might be joint chairmen, to find out who is fit to be considered for entry, especially as this Report, like all education reports, has altered the whole vocabulary and we should have, for instance, to ask ignorant back benchers whether they knew the difference between a "Sister" and an "Institute". It is not so easy as you think.
  How are we going to do this operation? We are engaging for all this, and Robbins tells us of the immense cost. I think that it is right to do this—on the whole, on balance, and with qualifications, and all that; but Robbins is most right, I think, when he tells us that the public will not put up with this enormous mortgaging of its resources unless it can rely—I am not quoting exactly, but I think this is a fair paraphrase—rely upon the teachers being competent and having the highest professional standards, and upon the students equally feeling bound by their status to work as hard as they can and so on.
  This is an enormous responsibility on the new Minister, whether he is going to

  909
  be a single person or whether he is going to be, like the Kings of Sparta, two, or whether he is going to be, if I may say so without blasphemy, like the highest of all, some kind of trinity. How is he going to do this? I put this question very seriously. I do not know that I can expect an answer today, but I hope it will be answered some time. Hon. Members have all been so optimistic and enthusiastic today: but the question is, what sort of machinery and what sort of standards do they foresee by which the Minister or Ministers will be able to be sure that the teachers and the taught are deserving these enormous sacrifices by all the rest of us? And what methods and standards do Members of this House think are going to suffice to enable this House to judge whether the Minister is right or wrong?
  We had a speech only this afternoon saying the only thing to do with secondary modern schools, though some are very good, is to abolish the lot. I have heard other people inside the House, I think, and outside the House certainly, people outside the House who are more or less of a Leftish persuasion, say that the only thing to do with secondary education is to abolish the grammar schools. Because they do not feel that the promises which they were given in 1944 are being fulfilled, they say abolish the lot, or else have nothing but comprehensive schools, which is one way of abolishing the lot, and so on. How do we know nobody is going to say that and that tertiary institutions should be abolished? Really, we ought to have some idea how, and I think that at some stage, perhaps not on this occasion, the Government ought to explain this to us.
  This has been a remarkable debate. There has been only one Scotsman speaking, so far as I remember,and one Scotswoman, and she was the one I did not hear because I was unhappily having my slice of ham. The only one Scotsman speaking, I doubt will ever go back to Scotland again, if he reads Hansard tomorrow, because he said several memorable things, but easily the most memorable was that the only Scotsmen who had had the sense to make money out of science at all were the farmers. Whether he will go back to Scotland or not, I do not know.
  910
  The last hon. Member to address us, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg), who is not here, but I do not blame him, because he has probably gone for his slice of ham, said that science was not a talisman; it could not be turned on or off. Of course, one of the odd things about science is that, to some extent, it can. The glory of science—leaving out the very top scientists—is in being perhaps in a sense so organised and systematised, that scientists form an organisation to organise knowledge produced in organised institutions by persons organised to subserve one another's work. Therefore, we can to a very large extent turn it off and on—and on by paying more money. That is one of the frightening things about science. One cannot produce more good speeches, more unforgettable sonnets or more pictures like those of Botticelli, however much money one spends. But science can to a large extent be turned off and on.
  The same speaker went on, with some inconsistency, I think, to say that we are now paying for post-war and even pre-war deficiencies. Of course, that is true. We are also enjoying incomes from post-war and pre-war activities. This brings to my mind Dr. Dalton. He has perhaps been dead long enough now for me to be able to describe him, without being accused of bad taste, as the silliest of Chancellors of the Exchequer. I remember him talking about having come in to inherit a poor bag of assets. I do not know what he would have done if he had been appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer and come into the office before any of those assets were created. Presumably, he could have lived as long on dandelion roots as the rest of us, but I do not think he could have done much for our State economy.
  I return for a moment to the question how we can know that university education is going to be university education. For the sake of argument, I admit, though not everybody does—many of the most competent witnessess do not—that the pool of schoolboys who are considering going to universities and are fit to gain considerably by doing so is very great. I think it is great. However, I believe that people are putting too much optimism into this, too many "veries".

  911
  That is one of the reasons why I am worried about how this House and Parliamentary Ministers will see that this thing becomes a reality.
  For the sake of argument I grant that even the most optimistic about the supply of schoolboy potentiality are right. I cannot do the same for optimism about the supply of first-class academics. If one is absolutely right about the schoolboy potentialities, it may well be that in 20 years 'time there will be a greatly increased number of first-rate academics. But 20 years is a long while. We are performing an operation which is enormously costly and which will never be completely performed unless without much dishonesty it can be represented as a success while we are performing it, and this operation has got to start paying for itself or looking as if it is soon going to pay for itself, long before the 20 years are up.
  Where are all these first-rate academics to come from? I was surprised at the Robbins figures about dons at universities. I remember only roughly, but, I think, rightly, that their percentage for Cambridge is 67 or 68 with firsts or what are called good seconds. I think that that Committee must have been counting in as university teachers a good many people whom I should not have counted in—not unless the last 20 years have altered things very much. I can remember hardly any don at Cambridge—I can remember two or three rather special cases, some very able and special cases—who had not got a first class and, for that matter, a good first class. The whole of the Robbins Report presumes that a don has got what is called a decent second, especially if he has what a writer in The Times described as fire in his belly. I do not know how one tests that at 11-or 17-plus and my experience is that chaps with fire in their belly tend to have an awful lot of wind there, too.
  It is not I who am assuming that under the new regime dons are likely to be, by the academic tests for what they are worth—and they are worth something in this connection if in no other—it is not my assumption, it is admitted in the Report, and in all the other reports I have seen, that the dons
  912
  will not be of as high an academic class as before. And this is at a moment when they are more than ever wanted outside the universities.
  Twelve per cent, of the annual harvest—if that is the word—of graduates during the next five years, and presumably this means the best of them, will be wanted for the universities. But what is to happen with the average adjusters, the solicitors, the sugar brokers and the rest? They, too, will want people whose intelligence, if not heightened or guaranteed, has at least indicated by university courses.
  Even if we do not adopt the Robbins target but leave the aim as it stands, our minimum need is 75 physicists per annum—40 per cent, of all the physicists who get Ph.Ds. I am not necessarily assuming that because one has a Ph.D. one is a good physicist. But if we are to adopt all this stuff about giving status and granting degrees we have to treat degrees as indicating something. Forty per cent, of all the physicist Ph.Ds., even without Robbins, will be wanted for the universities: 60 per cent, after Robbins.
  Incidentally, Robbins agrees with Zuckerman and me—although I do not think he knew about that—in being delighted that many physicists and other persons with higher degrees in various branches of science are making useful contributions and are, no doubt also exploiting their ability and education, in ways of life where their subjects are not directly relevant. I am glad of that, too.
  But we must think of the fact that until recently 25 per cent, of such people went on to university staffs, 25 per cent, went to Government service, 25 per cent, to industry—I am glad that proportion is going up, however, because these people are going into industry not only to be physicists but, in the case of some, in order to stop being physicists—and 25 per cent, went abroad. Robbins will alter these proportions.
  There is a good deal of fear among some very intelligent people on this issue. My old friend Sir George Thomson, formerly Master of my College, is one of the most distinguished physicists in England and perhaps the one who has done most to serve government. The other day he wrote clearly frightened that the way to make pos-

  913
  sible the figure suggested by Robbins might be to recruit the extra men needed by taking them from university research. I am sure that that would be a very great mistake. There has been the suggestion that we should have what the Germans call "extraordinary professors". Mainly engaged elsewhere, they would put in a week in every month, or a day in every week, helping with teaching. Something might be done that way, but I do not know how much.
  I am certain that it requires a great deal mere thinking than anyone has yet given. I am certain that however right Robbins may be, and Newsom and Trend and Zuckerman and all the rest, I am sure that the House is wrong in this sense, and perhaps our procedure makes it impossible, that I do not believe that any of us has very much of an idea how these questions are to be solved. We have begun at the other end. We have begun by putting more meaning on the use of the word "qualification" than it can honestly bear. Then we say that every such person is to have full and equal opportunity of the highest and best tertiary education, and it is all to be looked after by Government, and almost all on Government money. Now we do not know whether we want one Minister or three and, this is very important, we do not know how the Minister is to operate. Presumably, the Minister will not be sending inspectors to listen to lectures, nor will Ministers be shuffling over examination papers to see whether this year's were as good as last.
  On this subject Robbins was rather naive, and, after all, Robbins himself was a professor. When dealing with questions in which the principal factors are imponderable, one must not condemn the other chap at the other side of the table if he does not give exact weights of everything. The use of examination results, as if thereby there can be produced a set of syllogisms to prove intellectual standards have gone up, or down, unless there has been an enormous change in a very short period, with more or less identical examiners, is a very dangerous thing to do.
  How is the House to perform its duty and how are Ministers to perform theirs? How anyone is to find anywhere anything like enough first-rate aca-
  914
  demics, I do not know. I have said in this and other Houses of Commons several times, but I do not apologise for saying it again, that a great deal more could be done to increase the number of scientists and improve the scientists and also improve the intelligence of persons who are not and do not want to be scientists, by the expenditure of a very few thousands of £s, or at least a very few hundreds of thousands of £s, on improving the teaching of mathematics. Zuckerman says in his Report, on a date of which I have forgotten, one or two years ago, that the supply of scientists is almost in balance, just about in balance, but required much more analysis by disciplines. He means that we have about the right number of scientists, but that too many of the scientists are botanists and not nearly enough electricians and so on. Again, more and better mathematics.
  How are we to get this right? We will not get it right easily if we pretend that these questions are not serious: if so, we are setting out upon a fallacious enterprise which has been recommended if not by fraudulent at least by deceptive arguments, and I think it of the greatest important that the House, and particularly Ministers, should be conscious of the difficulties of what they are hoping to do.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Mary-hill): The speech to which we have just listened illustrates why the present Government, like our education, is in a parlous state. At the beginning of his remarks the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) said that he had not given any study to this problem.
  Sir K. Pickthorn: No, no, no. On the contrary, I said that I was prepared to take a small bet that I had read as much of all these Reports, or spent as much time reading them, as most hon. Members, but that I was not prepared to say that I had read them as I ought to have. I doubt whether any hon. Member has.
  Mr. Hannan: I accept what the hon. Member says in correcting the impression which he certainly conveyed to me in the earlier part of his speech. The people to whom he has been addressing

  915
  himself are not hon. Members on this side of the House but right hon. and hon. Members opposite, in the personnel of the Government. It is they who have become suddenly enthusiastic about the Robbins Report. The remark which the hon. Member made at an earlier stage—that it was a senile privilege for him to return to the Balfour Act—would have been more indicative of the position if he had just said that he had the senile privilege—full stop.
  I want to address my remarks to the Government's policy, or lack of it, and their new-found enthusiasm for education. The Government can be charged with the failure, first, to end the disgrace of over-sized classes; secondly, to recruit the necessary qualified teachers for those classes; thirdly, to end the 11-plus examination, and, fourthly, to provide sufficient university places according to the recommendations of past Reports and other information supplied to them.
  There was one matter in respect of which I agreed with the hon. Member for Carlton—and it was about the only point. He spoke rather scathingly of the number of Reports submitted to the Government in past years in respect of technical education and the rest. He forestalled some of the things that I had intended to say. I have with me no less than four Departmental reports presented by the Scottish Education Department's own section. One is the Apple-ton Report on the Shortage of Teachers in Mathematics and Science in Scotland, published in 1955, and another is the Knox Report on Measures to Improve the Supply of Teachers in Scotland, published in 1958. In all these Reports, in debates in this House, and in many Questions, attention has been directed to the vital need for the provision of more universities and university places for the training of teachers in the 1950s. We have tried to point out that every year insufficient national resources were being devoted to education.
  Last week, and again only yesterday, Ministers were pointing to the fact that the percentage of the gross national product devoted to education had increased from 3£ per cent, to 4 per cent., and that it was likely to increase still further. Although that may be correct, the
  916
  expenditure on advertising and expense accounts is greater than that on education.
  To indicate the problem with which the country is faced, I would point out that in Scotland no less than 7.4 per cent, of school classes are overcrowded. The education code for Scotland provides that there should be a maximum of 45 pupils in primary classes, 30 in senior secondary classes, and 40 in junior secondary classes. In Glasgow 12.6 per cent, of the classes are overcrowded. In Dunbartonshire they are over-sized to the extent of 12 per cent, and in Lanarkshire by 10 per cent. The Government have allowed this frightful position to continue without doing any of the things they could have done in the past 12 years in order to rectify it. Glasgow needs 1,200 teachers and since the mid-1950s the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Education Department and the Government have known about this—
  Mr. E. G. Willis: Where is the Secretary of State for Scotland?
  Mr. William Ross: Where is he usually?
  Mr. Hannan: They ought to have taken steps—
  Mr. Ross: The Under-Secretary of State is present, but she is not the Secretary of State yet.
  Mr. Hannan: The Leader of the House ought to exhibit a little decorum in this matter. The hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is bored to tears already because she has heard all this so often. But despite reports and speeches, no action is taken. It is no use the Government coming, in a "death bed repentance" after 12 years of neglect of educational problems to try to convince the nation and hon. Members on this side of the House that they believe in the case which has been advanced, because very few of us will believe them.
  This is the "bonus year", just before the election, and the idea is that hon. Members opposite can make any promises they like because if they were to win the General Election—it will not be won by hon. Members opposite—but if they were to win, they could revert to

  917
  the former policy of cutting down. I will not bore the House with details which are contained in the four Reports which I have before me, except to say that by 1966 Scotland will be short of 5,000 teachers if the education quota is observed. Of course, all this means that buildings will have to be erected and extra expenditure undertaken. But the Government have refused to face the problem until today and, as the Robbins Report indicates, we are now faced with an immediate crisis in these schools.
  As was said by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Government have neglected the problem created by lack of school buildings. At the beginning of this year the figures submitted by every local authority in respect of school buildings were cut. The hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State knows this and. in a recent speech she tried to excuse the cuts which had been made.
  In 1958, which was also a "bonus year", just before the last election, in a publication entitled "Education Scotland—the next step" which was part of the election propaganda it was stated:
  "If every pupil is to be able to pursue to the limit of his capacity the education suited to his individual needs, the most urgent requirement amongst other things would be buildings and equipment that satisfy modern standards".
  Everybody would cheer that. These are sentiments which any normal parent or citizen would applaud. It was also stated
  "Scotland has too many schools housed in nineteenth century buildings which remain much as they were when first erected."
  The hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State for Scoltand knows that when the Scottish Committee debated Estimates in June and July, hon. Members spoke of the growing problem of buildings and it was indicated clearly that in 1958 about 50,000 places were provided. The next year that figure was down by 10,000 and has remained at about the same figure. Next year the number of places is likely to show an increase. But this is an old "dodge". It is the same as the business about the interest rate. In 1951 it was 3½per cent. Under the tutelage of the present Government it rose to 8 per cent, and then went down to 6 per cent. The Government say, "Look what good boys we are, we have reduced the interest rate from 8 per cent, to 6 per cent." They think that the
  918
  people have been hoodwinked and have not noticed that the rate of interest has been doubled since the date on which the Government took office.
  I shall not dwell on the building programme any longer, but turn to what was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) and other hon. Members. None of us dissents from anything that is to be done for the provision of more places in universities for our young people. Their course is quite clear from primary school to senior secondary school and then to university and the professions. What some of us are more concerned about in the present state of Britain's development is the forgotten army of 65 per cent, or 70 per cent, of young people in junior secondary schools, who also are due for some consideration.
  It is from these young people's ranks that we shall get the technicians, the engineers, the draughtsmen and skilled people in factories who will produce-more efficiently we hope, and with the aid of science—the material goods upon which this country depends for exports and its very life in future. It is to the great shame of the present Government that after 12 years, despite the Reports and speeches, they have only recently, when an election is imminent, come round to the view that these young people matter to the nation.
  The background of many of these young people, their home, social and environmental background, is not helpful to success. The very fact that they have been allocated to junior secondary schools is a blow to their self-esteem. This fact is misinterpreted by the general public, by their relatives and parents as a mark of failure. This is to be deplored because there are different ways of being clever in this world. The girl who is a skilled nurse or matron in a hospital is as valuable to society as a physiotherapist. Incidentally, why have we not paid sufficient attention to the ability and aptitude of girls at school to follow many of the jobs which men do?
  These young people will respond and achieve modest success if they are stimulated by the real things of life and the happenings in the world rather than by ideas and concepts. We should try to link junior secondary schools with local technical colleges so that the best

  919
  products can go on to the Royal Technical College and university status. We want to see for a large precentage of these young people a highway marked out from the primary school to something akin, perhaps, to junior secondary school but certainly a school where their aptitude and abilty will be enhanced. Those whose aptitude lies rather in their hands than in their brains should be able to go on to further instruction.
  I come to the Government's failure in the recruitment of teachers. The only success the present Government have had was when they united the teachers of Scotland in a mass demonstration against themselves in the Kelvin Hall, Glasgow, Then 5,000 or 6,000 took a day off from school to protest against the Government's actions. In Scotland we need more university graduates for male teachers. Despite that knowledge, the Government failed to make provision for the necessary increase in places. As far back as 1955, in debates in the House, the need for increased places at universities has been mentioned, but in 1962 the present Government cut back the amount for the universities, despite the desire of those institutions to provide for our young people.
  In the House we have been met with complacency and evasion. For the last 18 months the Government have sought refuge in the need to await the Robbins Report. Now we have that Report. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will galvanise the present incumbent of the Scottish Office to take action about it.
  The Robbins Report says that at least one university ought to be provided in Scotland, and probably two. We have been pleading for this for 18 months. May we not have at least a decision about that? Let the quarrels about teachers and other matters wait, but give us a decision about a university for Scotland. We recall the disappointment when seven new universities were provided in England Wales and none in Scotland. We have the ingenuity and the enthusiasm, and a site is already available at East Stirling. Surely it is possible for the Government to give a decision on this university for Scotland and to try to make up for their past errors.
  9.2 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Willey: May I begin by echoing the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee)? What we are debating is the pace of the advance. The need to expand our educational provision is generally agreed, and the issue is whether we are expanding sufficiently for us to hold our place in the world.
  I am sure that the House wishes me to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) on his maiden speech. Everyone enjoyed it, and it was made as though he had been in the House for years. One would not have thought that it was a maiden speech. It was a very useful contribution to the debate, and I am sure that all civil engineers are delighted that they have an articulate voice in the House. It is perhaps significant that on the last occasion on which I wound up a debate on education I congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr.Merlyn Rees) on his maiden speech, for it is significant that hon. Members who win by-elections feel that they should speak on education at the first opportunity in the House. It is an issue which divides the parties.
  I am sorry that the Minister of Education is not taking part in the debate, particularly because, with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon), I was due to debate the Robbins Committee's Report at London University, the issue being whether the Government were capable of implementing the Robbins Report. I have been informed by the President of the Union that, despite repeated efforts, he has been unable to extract any adequate opposition. He pointed out that he had been trying since May. I am sorry that it is impossible to debate the matter with the Minister of Education either within or without the House.
  But I welcome the opportunity of speaking before the Leader of the House. He provides me with a peg upon which to hang my speech if not to hang him. May I first welcome him back to the Front Bench, where he ought to be as long as the Conservatives are in office. But he has had a cardinal personal responsibility in the three matters which we have mainly been

  921
  discussing today—teachers, school buildings and universities. May I help him make his speech? Why in 1961 did he single out the nurses, the teachers and other groups of professional people least able to protect themselves, because of their social responsibilities, and treat them as he did? Why did we have the monumental folly of the Remuneration of Teachers Act last Session? If we have a desperate shortage of teachers, is this the way to treat teachers?
  Let us put this in its context. The first speech I made from these benches as party spokesman on education was devoted entirely to the shortage of teachers, and it was in 1961. Lord Eccles replied and said that I had made an interesting speech but that it was too late to do anything and that nothing could be done. In 1962 we returned to the same issue. The right hon. Gentleman had had 12 months' warning, and he produced the scheme of auxiliary and short-terra training—and immediately the debate was over he forgot about it.
  It was only after we had wasted all that time that the Minister of Education made his proposals to extend the training colleges, not only too late but too little, for everyone in the training colleges knows that £7 million is inadequate to expand the training colleges to 80,000 people. Moreover, he has not honoured his obligations. As I said last time, training college after training college have protested because they have not had schemes approved which they regarded as necessary to an expansion of the numbers. When we last debated the matter, the right hon. Gentleman said—as though this were an answer—that 30 or 40 schemes had been approved. There are 140 training colleges. His reply confirmed my complaint. The training colleges are beginning to consider their entry for next year, and again they do not know where they are because the right hon. Gentleman is delaying his approvals.
  If we accept the Prime Minister's advice and put these matters into the context of General Election terminology, I invite the Leader of the House to reply to some questions. We are dealing with the responsibility of his Administration. Why had we this awful waste of opportunity in the 1950's? Why was no action taken then to provide more teachers?
  922
  We have seen the bulge go through the primary schools, approach the secondary schools, go through the secondary schools and approach higher education. Why did the Government persistently regard this as a liability? Why did they not regard it as a great opportunity for a break-through in the supply of teachers? Why, as the years have gone by, have we seen thousands of young people have their applications turned down, not for want of qualification but for want of places at the training colleges?
  What about school building? Ministers of Education have never been able to reply to these questions. Will the Leader of the House try to reply? We had an economic crisis in 1961 and he made a botch of things then. But why should we have a cut in school building this year and next year? Why should the Minister of Education tell us that we shall have an increased school building programme but not until 1965–67? Why cannot we have it now? Plans are ready; plans totalling £188 million were submitted by local authorities. Why cannot we have an expanded school building programme now? We know that when the right hon. Gentleman has his increased school building programme there will be 325,000 more children in the schools than there are now. Why not prepare for this?
  Putting this into the context of a General Election, why are we to complete this year and next year a five-year school-building programme devised in 1958 when the Government did not envisage a second bulge moving into the schools? Why are we now planning to complete that programme £30 million or £40 million short of the original figure? It is nearly a year's work short of the original five-year programme. Surely this does not make an exorbitant demand upon the Government. Why have we a minor works programme which is still running substantially short of that attained by Lord Eccles?
  This is not taking a partisan view of school-building. I hope that the Leader of the House has seen the representations made by the Campaign for Education to the Minister of Education. The Campaign for Education is not a political body. It is not subject to any

  923
  political influences. It is a body representing all the interests and voices of education. It says that the Minister's programme in primary education is ludicrously inadequate. It says that in some cases the provision in the secondary schools is so inadequate that it wonders whether the children would not be better off not going to school at all. The Campaign for Education says that it is a farce for the Minister to talk about the ending of the all-age school in view of the provision in the secondary schools today.
  We now have the Newsom Report, which the Chief Secretary would not have mentioned if he had not been interrupted in his peroration. The Labour Party regards the Newsom Report as just as important as the Robbing Report. The Newsom Report tells us that in the badly housed areas 75 percent, of the schools should be condemned as seriously inadequate. This does not make an exorbitant demand upon our building resources. Over recent years only 3£ per cent, of our total building resources has been devoted to school building. One could understand this, perhaps, if the righthon. Gentleman were planning irresponsibly because he will not have responsibility then. If he is planning two years ahead, why cannot the present programmes be increased?
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition referred to the survey of the National Union of Teachers. This revealed that one in seven of the primary schools is without any water sanitation at all. We have the Newson Report on the secondary schools. We must think of what this means in term; of education. It is encouraging to know that, in spite of the pessimists, literacy has improved over the past few years It is, however, frightening to learn that there is a difference of 17 months in the reading age on leaving secondary schools of children from the good and the worst areas. The difference in the reading age of children from the best and from the worst schools is as mud as five and a quarter years.
  This is a fact which must be faced It will not do to say that we are devoting all the resources we can to school building. We are not. We must do far more, and we must do it now. We must
  924
  not wait until the children are in the schools. We know the numbers. There will be 320,000 more in two years' time. We know the numbers moving in now. We must tackle the problem now, and we must revise our estimates of school-building now. We must give the local authorities, which the right hon. Gentleman stopped building, the go-ahead to tackle this problem.
  I turn from teachers and school buildings to the universities. The Leader of the House again has a personal and outstanding responsibility for what has happened. It was his Government—he had a personal responsibility—who took the unprecedented step of rejecting the recommendations of the University Grants Committee. That unprecedented step was properly described by Hugh Gaitskell as "discreditable, dis honourable and deplorable". Now the right hon. Gentleman has his opportunity. Why were the recommendations of the University Grants Committee rejected by the Government 18 months ago? What effect has this had? How much more difficult has this made the attainment of the Government's present objectives? Has the right hon. Gentleman read what the Association of University Teachers has said, that
  "… the tragedy of Robbins is that it is now too late to do much that could have been done but for the ill-judged Government cuts in university grants, against which we protested so strongly last year."
  Sir William Mansfield Cooper, Vice-Chancellor of Manchester, said:
  "… it is now too late to cope and thousands of young people will be denied university education to which they looked forward and which they have been led to expect would be available."
  However, this is not the major charge against the Government. The major charge is that in all our previous debates on higher education the Home Secretary, the Chief Secretary and the Minister of Education have all said that the highest realistic practicable objective was to endeavour to maintain that the same percentage of the age group had the opportunity of a university education. That was clearly expressed—as one would expect, for he is lucid if nothing else—by the Minister of Education when he said:
  "In my view, this represents the fastest practicable rate of university expansion, and

  925
  no one conversant with our universities has ever suggested that they could be expanded at a faster rate."
  This is what the Home Secretary had to say:
  "No one from the university side has ever suggested that the universities could be expanded significantly faster than this, and that is the answer to those who think that between now and 1967 we ought to be planning to expand these places for what is called the trend as well as the bulge."—[Official Report, 5th April, 1962; Vol. 657, c. 772 and 738.]
  That has been the Government's case. If we speak in terms of electoral terminology, it is interesting to know that it is revealed by Robbins that the percentage attending the universities, even as a percentage of the age group, has fallen since the significant year 1959. The percentage in training colleges, remarkably enough, has also fallen since 1959. Thus the Government have not even attained what they promised in that sense. They have not given the universities the tools with which to do the job.
  Sir Douglas Logan, for example, called attention to the state of London University and spoke of vacant posts still unfilled, maintenance work postponed and newly created buildings often unused because of the lack of staff. Despite all this, these are the minor counts against the Government. The major one against them is that their programme for higher education—and this is the guts of teacher supply—has been absolutely unsatisfactory and completely inadequate. That is the crucial importance of the Robbins Report.
  The Robbins Report condemns the Government out of hand and what that Report says is what the Taylor Working Party had also said. It is what Professor Blackett said in his Guildhall lecture. It is what my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said—that we should seek to double the places of higher education in the next 10 years. The Robbins Report entirely rejects all that the Government have said and represents an utter condemnation of Government policy.
  The fact that Robbins has been accepted by the Government overnight—without second thoughts and without examination—means that the Govern-
  926
  ment have been convicted by Robbins because if they say they can do it now, they could have done it years ago. What the Government have said for years could not be done is now to be done overnight. We have lost the critical years.
  I turn for a moment to the Report which has hardly been mentioned today but which I regard as critical for the future of education in this country, the Crowther Report. This is what the Crowther Committee said:
  "… there is much to be done, and little enough time to do it. If the opportunities of the 1960s are not to be wasted, we would urge that a decision be taken now and that a consistent programme of action in all relevant fields be set on foot and pursued with the vigour necessary to ensure that by the chosen date, the conditions are prepared for the extra year in school to provide its full benefit for all the nation's children".
  Nothing has been done. Now, we have the Report of the Newsom Committee, and we know what its first recommendation was, that "an immediate announcement" should be made—it has not been made: it has hardly been referred to, and would not have been mentioned if the right hon. Gentleman had not been interrupted—
  "that an immediate announcement should be made that the school-leaving age will be raised to 16 for all pupils entering the secondary schools from 1965 onwards".
  What the right hon. Gentleman will face when he has the courage to declare a General Election is the appalling waste during the past few years. Clearly, what Robbins says can and must be done now—the Government accept it—could have been done four years ago. If it had been done four years ago, how many additional teachers might we have had from our universities and training colleges? If one thinks also of the 800,000 and more small children in primary schools now in classes of over 40 and of the conditions in secondary schools revealed by the Newsom Report, one realises the measure of the Government's responsibility.
  Worse than that—and this is the key to the debate we had on higher education in the summer—the Government complacently thought themselves safe because they knew the terms of reference of the Robbins Committee, restricted as they were to the long-term development of higher education. But so desperate

  927
  was the position confronting the Robbins Committee that it burst through its term of reference and recommended, as w had recommended, only to be sneered at by the right hon. Gentleman, a crash programme.
  The House should be reminded of the way in which the Robbins Committee made its recommendation outside tin terms of reference:
  "We are confident that the universities can meet this deficiency if they are given a clear statement of the national need and if the: have adequate resources and adequate assurance that any sacrifices that they haw to make will be of limited duration. The proviso is all-important, for it must be recognised that the universities already have cause for lack of confidence in the Government's intentions. In the last few years the universities have wished to go forward more rapidly than they have been enabled to do. The man; representations made in recent years to ensure that their resources should match the rising demand have met with an inadequate response Neither capital nor recurrent grants have bee: sufficient. In the past, when they have had confidence that resources would be available the universities have given ample demonstration of their willingness to respond to calls upon them."
  That is a clear condemnation of the Government.
  What does the right hon. Gentleman say about the pre-Robbins programme the "fastest practicable rate" that we could have for university expansion' What does the Home Secretary say now about taking into account not only the increase in numbers but the revolution in expectation, the numbers qualifying to merit and deserve a higher education? If we lived in times when there was more rigid accountability, we should have had the resignation of the Home Secretary, the Chief Secretary and tin Minister of Education. They certainly have a particular personal responsibility for the situation which my right hon Friend properly described as ten pas twelve.
  But let us consider the opportunities that we have wasted. As long ago a 1955, between 2,000 and 2,500 qualified young people were unable to gain admission to universities. We have the figure of the A.U.T. for 1961 which show that in that year a quarter of the qualified applicants who sought entrance to the universities failed to get admission. In this way we lost very nearly 9,000 quali-
  928
  tied people who should have had a university education. We know that last year there were 55,000 qualified applicants and only 27,000 places. We know that Sir Eric Ashby has estimated that soon there will be only one place for every two qualified applicants for university education.
  We know the position in the training colleges. We have the clearing house figures for the training colleges and we know that thousands are failing to get into the training colleges although they have much higher entry qualifications than entrants in the past.
  However, the measure of the Government's failure—this is the encouraging side—is the extent of our present opportunity. We know how the Government have failed over the past few years in providing places in higher education, but we must also think of the fact that in 1966 there will be almost 1 million more young people aged between 18 and 21 than there were in 1955. This is the bulge that we shall have to break through and provide in thousands the teachers we need for our schools.
  My one quarrel with the Robbins Committee is that, advised by the Government, it was far too unambitious. We should think not only of providing opportunities for those who qualify but of increasing the numbers of those who qualify. We should think of the pools of untapped ability—the working class, girls, and enlarged families. As Robbins points out, a child in a family of five has only a quarter of the opportunities of a child in a smaller family. We must remember that those whose fathers had a full-time education to 18 have eight times the opportunity of a higher education than those whose fathers left school before 16.
  These are things with which we should be dealing. We should be ensuring that these untapped resources are harnessed so that there is no further neglect not only of those qualified for a higher education but of those who might qualify if we could provide a better secondary education system.
  The other unhappy thing is the really remarkable response that there has been to the approach made to the universities by the U.G.C. The universities and colleges are not responding in terms of

  929
  Robbins. University college after university college is saying that it is prepared to admit in the forthcoming academic year 40 per cent, more than the present numbers. This is the real tragedy, because if the universities and training colleges had had this appeal four years ago we should have had the same response. This is desperately urgent, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that the universities are not disappointed.
  The training colleges have been disappointed, but we cannot fail the universities. They must get the additional staff for which they have asked. They are prepared to do without additional buildings, but they must have the additional staff and be supplied with administrative help so that they can do more tutorial work. We have universities suggesting that they should go on to a two-shift system. We should see that they have the libraries and the librarians which they want and that the facilities are provided. We should see also that backing up this short-term crash programme are the beginnings of a long-term programme. This is what the universities demand and this is what they are entitled to expect.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that it was ten past twelve. We still just have time, if we work very hard, to save the position of higher education. This, however, is an issue of confidence, as I have shown from the Robbins Report. Those in higher education, in the universities and in the training colleges have lost confidence in the Government. What we want is a new Government and a new start. We want a Government that believes in youth, will see that youth gets a chance and will see that we have confidence in the future.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Today has been a mixture of fairly direct party stuff and also of constructive thought. There have been some interesting speeches. I refer particularly to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) and the entertaining speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K.
  930
  Pickthorn). I want particularly, however, to refer to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie). He spoke with humour and common-sense about the need for engineers and the status of engineers. I warmly congratulate him upon his speech, it was very easy to listen to, and I hope that he will speak again many times in the life of this Parliament.
  As this is the final speech of the debate on the Address, I should like to refer to one other speech from the other side of the House, the speech of the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. LI. Williams) defending our police forces, who are so much under attack in more ways than one. I hope that every hon. Member will read the speech which the hon. Member made in defence of our police.
  With regard to today's Amendment, we on this side of the House are only too pleased to debate education and science on the final day of the debate on the Address, because they are both subjects in which the record of the Government is outstanding. Never before has there been such an advance in education in a comparable period, nor, indeed, in any one Parliament. This is proved by the figures, whether expressed in terms of the total amount spent, the amount spent per head or the proportion of the gross national product. The figures completely vindicate the Government record.
  In 1951, the total expenditure amounted to £414 million. Today it is £1,250 million, a rise of over £800 million in twelve years. Per head in 1951, we were spending £8; today, we are spending £24 per head. In 1951 we spent 3.1 per cent, of our gross national product on education, today we are spending almost 5 per cent., and future expenditure on education is planned to increase by 6 per cent, a year in real terms, which means an increasing share of the gross national product. These are not figures for which I apologise. They are figures which we proudly proclaim in every part of the country.
  Nor do we accept that if the Opposition had been in power they would have done as well. When the Opposition left office in 1951, they were in a mood, not of expanding education services, but of

  931
  contracting them, the reason being pressures on the economy.
  In the last Labour Budget, the Exchequer provision made for educational services increased from £243 million to £251 million, an increase of £8 million, and before that Budget the Labour Government actually discussed whether or not to raise the school entry age or reduce the school leaving age. They did not do either of those things. They contented themselves with Id. on school meals and some other small economies which enabled them to hold down the increase to £8 million. This was not the first time. In 1949, again because of pressures on the economy, the Government stated there would have to be a slowing down of educational building, and in September, 1951, they said
  "resources available do not permit any significant increase in expenditure on old schools."
  "Resources available" and "pressures on the economy". The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has just said that I had—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite just will not listen to the other side of the case. It is symptomatic of their attitude, not to listen to opposition of any sort, whether to an individual, a corporation, whatever it may be; they will not let the other side of the case be put if they can possibly help it. If they should ever, alas, become the Government again that will be their attitude. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North said that I had a cardinal and personal responsibility. The suggestion was that I had unnecessarily and wantonly cut education. I, too, had to contend with pressures on the economy and with the problem of resources available; yet in 1961–62 the amount of public money actually spent on all forms of education increased by £141 million, from £943 million to £1,084 million. [Hon. Members: "Got the sack for it."] Whatever may have happened, I am back again now.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in his speech said that of course there was always the problem of limited means to meet unlimited demands; and that, in fact, is the problem of any Chancellor of the Exchequer at any time. It was the problem of the years to which I referred, and a problem
  932
  which any Government will have in future—of limited means to meet unlimited demands. But one of the direct results of our success in education has been that whereas in1955 the annual number of people qualifying at degree level in science and technology was 10,000, by 1964 the number will be approaching 20,000.
  I know that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite only take an interest in reports from international organisations when they are derogatory of Britain's position. Therefore, they will, no doubt, listen in gloomy silence to the fact that the most recent O.E.C.D. report referring to the amount spent on scientific research and technological development shows that the proportion of the gross national product spent in the United Kingdom is nearly as high as in the United States and higher than the proportion spent in other countries for which figures are available, including France, Holland and Japan.
  So far as our record in science is concerned, I repeat without apology the Chief Secretary's figures which have already been given. Between 1955–56 and 1961–62 the amount spent was increased from £300 million to £634 million and the percentage for the defence Departments during that time went down from 59 to 39. The Government have increased tax allowances to encourage research. Expenditure by private industry has increased more than threefold in five years. These increases in expenditure have been accompanied by many outstanding scientific achievements. My right hon. Friend gave some examples today. I will repeat only one of them—the British scientists who won four Nobel Prizes in 1962 and two more announced just recently. When anyone puts forward facts and figures, he is, of course, accused of being complacent. I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon said about the future and its problems. But my general point is that we should take credit for past achievements and developments.
  The Leader of the Opposition seemed to resent the suggestion that he had very recently become interested in science. He was up like a flash to say that he read a paper to the British Association when the Minister of Education was at

  933
  school. What a long time he allowed to elapse before he read his second paper at Scarborough! I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's unwillingness to admit the suddenness of his conversion, this new-found interest of his party in science. I have read carefully the Labour Party manifesto for the 1959 General Election. There is not one word about science or technology in it from beginning to end.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman given equal study to the very lengthy and constructive statement issued by the Labour Party on science in September, 1959?
  Mr. Lloyd:I should have thought that if this subject deserved the attention that has been suggested, it might have merited one word in the Labour Party manifesto. The burning indigation of the Opposition about the Government's neglect of science has been shown by their attendance during this debate.
  The argument put forward today that we should do more than we propose to do for both education and science go ill with the general criticism that we are trying to do too much. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said the other day that promises are flying about like confetti. He described our programme as the biggest spending spree ever by any Government in peace time. For the Opposition to rebuke us for overspending is like Messalina lecturing on morality or Micawber on thrift. This criticism is associated with the allegation that in 1959 the Government did too much to reflate, that we created a boom thereby. This really is cool cheek coming from the Opposition, considering that in 1959 they outbid us in every sphere of Government spending.
  Are they still outbidding us today? Have they changed their tactics? Are they playing the game of condemning us at Westminster for spending so much in total while condemning us in the constituencies for not meeting every individual demand for more spending? The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) talked about attractive and extravagant promises but at the same time complained that next year Fife was to have only one new school. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G.
  934
  Brown) talked about the "electioneering" Queen's Speech but said there was nothing in it for those in receipt of social benefits.
  Mr. George Brown: It is true.
  Mr. Lloyd:The Opposition cannot have it both ways. Do they intend to spend more or less? Where will they cut? Where will they add to their programme and how much will our plans cost? Not only have these questions not been answered but the Opposition could hardly have been less forthcoming about how they are to pay for their own spending spree and for the very large programme they would have to carry through if they were to fulfil their promises.
  Of course, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East had a suggestion to make. After 12 years out of office, after all these opportunities for study and reflection, after all the hard work at Hampstead and Oxford in company with left-wing economists, all he could suggest was that if and where Labour was returned, it would have an inquiry on taxation. How revolutionary!
  Some people, who have not the same opinion of the hon. Gentleman as I have, might make a more sinister interpretation and believe that, behind his bland smile and pleasant exterior, there is some more definite plan in mind for changes in taxation far too unpleasant to disclose before an election campaign. He was really very coy indeed about his wealth tax.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the rate of growth argument. He prophesied that. in six months' time, we should be in trouble and that our progress could not be sustained by the growth likely to take place under our management. That was the serious case put forwrad by several hon. Members opposite. The hon. Gentleman argued his case by quoting, in the first place, from a report of O.E.C.D. providing estimates as to our anticipated increase in productivity during the period 1960–70.
  The rate of increase given in that report was 2.8 per cent, per annum, and in quoting the figure he said that he presumed that it had been provided by the Treasury. Not for the first time, his presumption was ill-founded. The figure was not provided by the Treasury nor

  935
  was it a forecast. It was part of a model constructed by the staff of the O.E.C.D. allocating rates of growth between member countries adequate to achieve the given overall target.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to refer to the 1962 White Paper on Incomes Policy and purported to quote from it, saying that it stated that we were to proceed on the basis that the increase in productivity would be from 2 to 2½ per cent, per annum. He said that this was inconsistent with our present position. But the two relevant sentences in the White Paper were:
  "In recent years national production per head [i.e. productivity] has risen by about 2 to 2½ per cent, a year. We ought to be able to do better than this but on present trends it seems likely to increase at about this rate in 1962."
  In other words, the relevant reference in the White Paper was limited to 1962. The hon. Gentleman ended by asking whether the White Paper was a confidence trick on the trade unions then or on the people now. In fact, it was a confidence trick by him based on the hope that his quotations would not be verified. He was on a completely false point. We have based our views upon figures independently arrived at by N.E.D.C. and I believe that this increase in productivity is within our power.
  Of course, the margin between continual repetitive crises and economic solvency is a narrow one. [Interruption.] The Opposition have started to jeer a little too soon, because that was a quotation from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition at Scarborough on 1st October, the day he discovered science. He also then made the remarkable discovery that no one owed us a living. The right hon. Gentleman is clearly beginning to learn.
  However that may be, the grounds for our confidence are the fact that the upward surge of the economy at present is built on a firm foundation. I quote from another international publication, the latest Economic Bulletin of the Economic Commision for Europe, 22nd October, 1963, which, referring to wages and prices in Western Europe, says:
  "As may be seen from Table 48 industrial earnings are still rising faster than productivity, so that wage costs per unit on output have continued to rise. The United Kingdom is an
  936
  exception in that earnings in industry there are rising pari passu with productivity so that wage costs per unit have remained constant".
  Those are not my views, but the views of impartial observers elsewhere. This position is the result of the policies pursued by the Government. It is a measure of the extent to which our incomes policy has been a success. In this, with some honourable exceptions—the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) is in his place—we have had precious little help from the Opposition in this regard.
  But this is the key to our future progress. There is no doubt in my mind that, providing the costs of production can be reasonably contained, we will attain the increased productivity required to fulfil all of our plans for the social and economic advance of Britain. Subject to that proviso, increased capital investment combined with increased expenditure on civil research by industry and Government, improvement in training for industry, better education, will combine to enable us to go forward with confidence.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had the audacity to refer to our record as being one of 12 wasted years. I take him up on that. Have the years been wasted in which real income per head has risen by 40 per cent, more than in the first 50 years of this century; in which expenditure on the social services has been doubled; in which more than 3 million new school places have been provided; in which one-third of the children now at school occupy those places? I do not think that their parents will regard these as wasted years.
  Have the years been wasted in which nearly three and a half million new houses have been built? Have the years been wasted in which 500,000 families have come from the slums to decent homes? Dealing with secondary education, have the years been wasted when from 1954 to 1961, 1,808 new secondary schools have been built in England and Wales, most of them secondary modern schools? Have the years been wasted in which the number of owner-occupiers in their own homes has increased by 2 million; in which National Insurance pensions have gone up by 125 per cent.? [Interruption.] I know that hon. Members opposite do not like to hear this,

  937
  but they are going to hear a great deal more of it. Have the years been wasted in which industrial earnings have been nearly doubled and the great mass of our people become better off than they have ever been before?
  Mr. G. Brown: Never had it so good.
  Mr. Lloyd:Finally, have the 12 years been wasted in which the confidence of the individual in the future of the country—[Hon. Members: "Luton."]—has been proved beyond contradiction by the fact that personal savings, which were £100 million a year under their rule, have now risen to £1,700 million a year? That is perhaps the most striking figure of all.
  There is a fundamental gap between the two sides of the House. I rejoice in that difference. We on this side
  believe in the concept of development planned by consent, of disciplines willingly accepted, of investment buttressed by savings voluntarily given, of co-operation, of a free country looking confidently into the future, with pride in the past. The Opposition—[Hon. Members: "Ah."] They may well say "Ah." That is exactly the right expression. The Opposition want a society confined within a rigid State plan, enforced by a straitjacket of physical controls and the full rigour of the law.
  Because the British people prefer freedom to direction we shall not only win tonight but in the years ahead.
  Question put, That those words be there added:—
  The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 335.

  Division No. 2.]

  AYES

  [9.58 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Diamond. John

  Hughes, Heotor (Aberdeen, N.)

  Ainsley. William

  Dodds, Norman

  Hunter, A. E.

  Albu. Austen

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Driberg. Tom

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Awbery, Stan (Bristot, Central)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. c.

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Edelman, Maurice

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Baird, John

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Barnett, Guy

  Edwards, Robert (Bliston)

  Jeger, George

  Baxter William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Beaney, Adan

  Evans, Albert

  Johnson, carol (Lewisham, g.)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Fernyhough, E.

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

  Bence, Cyril

  Finch, Harold

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Benn, Anthony Wedgwood

  Fitch, Alan

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, s.)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Jones, J. Idwal. (Wrexham)

  Benson, Sir George

  Foley, Maurice

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Blackburn, F.

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Kelley, Richard

  Blyton, William

  Forman, J. C.

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Boardman, H

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Bottomley. Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  King, Dr. Horace

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

  George,Lady MeganLloyd(Crmrthn)

  Lawson, George

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Ginsburg, David

  Ledger, Ron

  Bowles, Frank

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Boyden, James

  Gourlay, Harry

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Braddock. Mrs. E. M.

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Bradley, Tom

  Grey, Charles

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Brockway. A. Fenner

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D

  Griffiths. W. (Exchange)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Lubbock, Eric

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Gunter, Ray

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  McBride, N.

  Callaghan, James

  Hannan, William

  McCann, John

  Carmichael, Neil

  Harper, Joseph

  MacColl, James

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Hart. Mrs. Judith

  MacDermot, Niall

  Cliffe, Michael

  Hayman, F. H.

  Molnnes, James

  Collick, Percy

  Healey, Denis

  MoKay, John (Wallsend)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

  Maokie, John (Enfield, East)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hewitson. Capt. M

  McLeavey, Frank

  Cronin, John

  Hill, J. (Midlothlan)

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Crosland, Anthony

  Hilton, A. V.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Holt, Arthur

  Mahon, Simon

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Hooson, H. E.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Houghton, Douglas

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

  Darling, George

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Manuel, Archie

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mapp, Charles

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Howie, W. (Luton)

  Marsh, Richard

  Davies. Ifor (Gower)

  Hoy, James H.

  Mason, Roy

  Deer George

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Dempsey, James

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Millan, Bruce

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Milne, Edward

  Reid, William

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Moody, A. S.

  Rhodes, H.

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Morris, John

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Moyle, Arthur

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Mulley, Frederick

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Timmons, John

  Neal, Harold

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras,N.)

  Tomney, Frank

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Wade, Donald

  Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Phitip(Dertby,S.)

  Ross, William

  Waipwright, Edwin

  Oliver, G. H.

  Royte, Charles (Salford, West)

  Warbey, William

  O'Malley, B, K.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Watkins, Tudor

  Oram, A. E.

  Silkin, John

  Weitzman, David

  Oswald, Thomas

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Owen, Will

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Paget, R, T.

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Whitlock, William

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Wigg, George

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Parker, John

  Small, William

  Willey, Frederick

  Parkin, B. T.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Paton, John

  Snow, Julian

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

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

  Peart, Frederick

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Pentland, Norman

  Steele, Thomas

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Stonehouse, John

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon, A.

  Prentice, R. E.

  Stones, William

  Woof, Robert

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Wyaft, Woodrow

  Probert, Arthur

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

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Swain, Thomas

  Zilliacus, K.

  Puxsey, Cmdr. Harry

  Swingler, Stephen

  Randall, Harry

  Symcnds, J. B.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES;

  Rankin, John

  Taverne D.

  Mr. Short and Mr. Redhead.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Foster, John

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Channon, H. P. G.

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

  Allason, James

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Amery, Rt. Hon. JuHan

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Freeth, Denzil

  Arbuthnot, John

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Galbraith. Hon. T. G. D,

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Cole, Norman

  Gammans, Lady

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Cooke, Robert

  Gardner, Edward

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Cooper, A. E.

  George, Sir John (Pollok)

  Balniel, Lord

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J, K.

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Cortle, John

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Barter, John

  Corfield, F. V.

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Batstord, Brian

  Costain, A. P.

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapharn)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Coulson, Michael

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Bell, Ronald

  Courtney, Cdr. Arrthony

  Godber, Rt. Hon. J. B.

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &Fhm )

  Crawley, Aidan

  Goodhew, Victor

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Critohley, Julian

  Gough, Frederick

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Gower, Raymond

  Bidgood, John C.

  Crowder, F. P.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Biffen, John

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Green, Alan

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Curran, Charles

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Bingham, R. M.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Grosvenor, Lord Robert

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gurden, Harold

  Bishop, F. P.

  Dance, James

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Box, Donald

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Doughty, Charles

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Braine, Bernard

  Drayson, G. B.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Brewis, John

  Duncan, Sir James

  Harvle Anderson, Miss

  Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Coi.Sir Walter

  Duthie, Sir William (Banff)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Eden, Sir John

  Hay, John

  Brooman-White, R.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carghaiton)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Ellott.R.W.(Newc'Ke-upon-Tyne.N.)

  Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Emery, Peter

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Bryan, Paul

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Hendry, Forbes

  Buck, Antony

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Buttard, Deny;

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Farey-Jones, f. W.

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Burden, F. A.

  Farr, John

  Hill, J. E. B. (8. Norfolk)

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Fell, Anthony

  Hirst, Geoffrey

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

  Fisher, Nigel

  Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray &Nairm)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Holland, Philip

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Forrest, George

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  940

  941

  Hopkins, Alan

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Sharpies, Richard

  Hornby, H. P.

  Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

  Shaw, M.

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dams P.

  Mawby, Ray

  Shepherd, William

  Howard, Hon. 0. R. (St. Ives)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Sheet, T. H, H.

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

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

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

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Mills, Stratton)

  Smithers, Peter

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Smyth, HI. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

  Spearman, sir Alexander

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Speir, Rupert

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Morgan, William

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Morrison, John

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Jaokson, John

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  James, David

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Stodart, J, A.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwieh)

  Neave, Airey

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Jennings, J. C.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Nicholson, Sir- Godfrey

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

  Talbot, John E.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Tapsell, Peter

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Oakshott, Sir Hendnie

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

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

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Orr-Ewlng, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)

  Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  reeling, Sir William

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Temple, John M.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Kirk, Peter

  Partridge, E.

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Pearson, Frank (Clltheroe)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Percival, Ian

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Lambton, viscount

  Peyton, John

  Tilney, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Langford-Hoit, Sir John

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Leather, Sir Edwin

  Pikington, Sir Richard

  Turner, Colin

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Pitman, Sir James

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Pott, Percivall

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Lilley, F. i. P.

  Pounder, R. J.

  van Straubenzee, W. H.

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J, Enoch

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Str John

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

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

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Vosper, Rt. Hen. Dennis

  Longbottom, Charles

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Walder, David

  Longden, Gilbert

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Walker, Peter

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Pym, Francis

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Lucas, Sir jocelyn

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Wall, Patrick

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James

  Ward, Dame Irene

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Rawlinson, Sir Peter

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  MaoArthur, Ian

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Webster, David

  McLaren, Martin

  Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Rees-Davies, w. R. (Isle of Thanet)

  Whitelaw, William

  Maolay, Rt. Hon. John

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Maclean,SirFitzroy(ButeN-Ayrs)

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Wills, 8r Gerald (Bridgwater)

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

  Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  MacLeod, Sir J. (Ross & Cromarty)

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Wise, A. R.

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Robertson, Sir D.(C't'hn's & S'th'ld)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool.s.)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Maddan, Martin

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Maginnls, John E.

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Malt land, Sir John

  Roots, William

  Woollam, John

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Ropner. Col, Sir Leonard

  Worsley, Marcus

  Marlowe, Anthony

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Russell, Ronald

  Marshall, Sir- Douglas

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Marten, Nail

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Mr, Chichester-Clark and

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Seymour, Leslie

  Mr. Finlay

  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom
  942
  of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, Tomorrow.—[Mr. Redmayne.]
  WAYS AND MEANS
  Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, Tomorrow.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

  SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Noble.]

  COUNTRYSIDE AND TOURIST AMENITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Noble.]

  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  Select Committee appointed to examine the Reports and Accounts of the Nationalised Industries established by Statute whose controlling Boards are appointed by Ministers of the Crown and whose annual receipts are not wholly or mainly derived from moneys provided by Parliament or advanced from the Exchequer:
  Mr. Austen Albu, Sir John Barlow, Mr. William Blyton, Dr. Jeremy Bray, Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Mr. Alan Fitch, Mr. Arthur Holt, Sir Donald Kaberry, Colonel Lancaster, Sir Richard Nugent, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Mr. Thomas Steele, and Dame Irene Ward:
  Power to send for persons, papers and records:
  Power to report from time to time:
  Five to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

  PUBLIC PETITIONS
  Select Committee appointed to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as are deposited in the Private Bill Office, and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the Reports of the Committee do set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets, headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition, or on the back of such sheets provided that on every sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; and that such Committee do have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it:
  Mr. John Barter, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport, Mr. George Deer, Mr. David Griffiths, Mr. Forbes Hendry, Mr. Hector Hughes, Mr. J. C. Jennings, Dr. Horace King, Mr. Godfrey Lagden, Colonel Lancaster, Major Sir Harry Legge-Bourke, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, Mr. John Morrison, Mr. Pargiter, and Mr. Tudor Watkins:
  Power to send for persons, papers and records:
  Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PRESS CUTTINGS SERVICE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]
  10.14 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: I am well aware that the Library of the House comes under your control, Mr. Speaker, assisted by the advisory Library Committee, whereas in an Adjournment debate such as this Government responsibility must be involved. All I am concerned with tonight is the setting up of a Press cuttings service as such, whether or not connected with the existingLibrary—although that would obviously be desirable.
  Far from wishing to be discourteous to Mr. Speaker or appearing to reflect on the Library in any way, I know that it is an excellent Library and that the staff could not be more helpful.
  I do not share the low opinion of Parliament and its working which is very widely held today and expressed on television and elsewhere. Since I came to the House eight years ago my estimation of Parliament has risen, although from time to time I may have been highly critical of the use made by the leadership of the three parties of the opportunities which Parliament presents.
  But there has been a continual evolution of Parliament to meet the demands which have arisen through experience and through new techniques or conditions of life. What I am proposing tonight is a further step in this evolution. It is made at a time when I hope and believe that there is very wide interest in the question of improving the work of Parliament in all parts of the House. My object is to show how a Press cuttings service would work and how it would help Members of Parliament to do their work more efficiently, thoroughly, easily and quickly. I maintain that a Press cuttings service is a necessary tool of our trade which at present we lack.
  Sir Gerald Nabarro: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Allaun:How would it operate? If a Member of Parliament wished to
  946
  prepare a speech or a Question he would visit the cuttings service in an accessible part of the House, preferably near the Library, and ask for the file on that subject. It would not consist of books. The file would contain everything in date order which had appeared on that subject in any national newspaper—the cutting itself and not merely a reference to the cutting; and the cutting would be mounted on quarto paper. The file would be up to date and include even that morning's news. Nor would the file contain mainly leading articles or feature articles. The real substance would be news items, however brief—sometimes only one paragraph. The great virtue would be that the file would be complete. I suggest that such a cuttings service would be based on the model of an ordinary national newspaper file, which is usually divided into three categories—personal, foreign and general.
  In the personal section one file would exist for each well-known individual. The files would be arranged alphabetically and each file would contain all the events in the man's career, his activities, achievements, speeches and eventually his obituary—in fact, all the references ever made to him in the Press. For a very prominent individual an additional file would have to be provided almost yearly, otherwise the file would be too bulky. Similarly the foreign section would be arranged alphabetically under the names of countries. For a small country two or three files might suffice, and for a large country such as India there might be 200 files, sub-divided under, say, industry, steel, five-year plan, religion and so on.
  The general file would be the largest. It would be arranged alphabetically, say from advertising to zoology. Here, too, there would be sub-classifications. For instance, under housing there might be 300 separate folders—for architects' plans, building industry, building controls, building societies (with separate files for the different societies), Bills and Acts, caravan sites, Conservative Party policy, evictions, and so on.
  Members of Parliament would not be permitted to take the cuttings away, because of the possible failure to return them, as happens with books. They

  947
  would study and make the necessary notes on the spot and, if lengthy copies were needed to take away or quote, photostatic copies could be made by members of the staff. The folders would be kept in metal filing cabinets, each with 100 folders, perhaps with 10,000 cuttings in each. In other words, it would be compact and not require much valuable space.
  What would be the advantages? Events are now taking place so fast that no individual can find it easy unaided to keep up with them, even in his own limited sphere of interests. One person cannot read every newspaper every day. It is even less possible to remember or quote all that one wishes. Absence abroad, perhaps on a delegation or on a holiday, may prevent access to English newspapers. Yet ignorance of one fact may make a speech unbalanced or a Question ridiculous. With a Press cuttings service it is possible in a matter of minutes for an M.P. to learn what is said outside the House as well as inside, developments in other countries or in other cities, local government experience, and to obtain the evidence of public opinion polls.
  By a quick look through a file it is possible to discern the whole trend or solution to a problem which otherwise might not be evident. No self-respecting journalist working on a national newspaper would think of tackling a subject without first referring to the file, whether he be a leader writer, sub-editor, reporter or feature writer. This is how so many writers appear to have all the facts at their fingertips. If I may be forgiven for revealing a trade secret, half the work is done for them.
  At present Members of Parliament are not helped in this way. As things are, the dice are heavily loaded in favour of the Ministers of whichever party happens to be in government and against private Members. The executive Government have staffs of expert civil servants to help them, and rightly so. I understand that some form of Press cuttings service is available in most of the twenty-two Government Departments. I am told that the Board of Trade Library alone, which admittedly includes other things besides Press cuttings, costs about £56,000 a year to maintain, or nearly four
  948
  times as much as what I am proposing.
  A Press cuttings service would give the back bencher a chance to meet Ministers on more equal terms. This may be one reason why Governments of any political colour may not look with too friendly an eye on the proposal now being made. I ask the present Government to do the right thing in the interests of a truer democracy.
  What I am saying tonight is intended in no way to cast any reflection on the existing House of Commons Library services. They are invaluable to Members, and some of us who use them a great deal are deeply appreciative of what is being done by the helpful, friendly and efficient staff. What is proposed is a major extension of these services which would better equip Members. Just as today the main Library assistants will in a few minutes trace and produce from Hansard the relevant statements made inside Parliament, so in future they or others could, equally quickly, produce the material provided by the world outside the House. Indeed, this has to a limited extent already started. Both for home and foreign affairs, an embryonic, yet excellent, Press cuttings service has already been established. What I am seeking is a very big extension of this, which certainly could not be done by the existing staff.
  How much would it cost? I am indebted to one member of the Library staff, Mr. Englefield, who has made a careful investigation of Press cuttings libraries in six national newspapers, the B.B.C. and the Institute of International Affairs. The staffs of these organisations involved in this work vary in size from eight to twenty-eight. The Daily Herald employs an average number, fifteen men and women, full-time in its Press cuttings library. Some of them start work early, when the newspaper office opens, and others commence work in the evening and go on until 4 a.m.
  I estimate that about half this number would be required by a Parliamentary cuttings service, since at least this proportion is concerned on the Daily Herald with filing items of sport, entertainment, human interest, sensational crime and also with pictures for the picture library of Press photographs and so on—material which would not be required by hon. Members.

  949
  When exactly a year ago tomorrow I asked the approximate annual cost of running such a service for.hon. Members, employing eight people, I was told by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury that it would be about £6,000. Since then conditions have altered and this sum is probably an under-estimate. Some research has been done by Mr. Englefield, who estimates the cost to be nearer £15,000 a year or, upon reconsideration, rather less.
  This amount of £15,000 compares with a total Government expenditure of nearly £6,000 million a year or precisely one four-hundredth of a farthing in the £ of present Government expenditure.
  In Japan, West Germany and the United States, generous research facilities are provided. The Library of Congress which includes things other than a cuttings service, spent £700,290 in 1962–63 dealing with 100,000 specifically Congressional inquiries. It employs a staff of 215. Of these, thirty-nine are research specialists on a salary scale of more than £4,500 a year each. As a result, the research information facilities available to the legislature are equal to those at the command of the executive Government.
  In this country the Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House has 13,000 box files and its staff cut extracts daily from thirty newspapers. Why cannot British hon. Members enjoy equal opportunities? The spending of £15,000 a year represents only a fleabite in terms of Government expenditure, though it would make a great contribution to the proper working of hon. Members, Parliament and democracy itself.
  It might be argued that it would be unfair to incur this expenditure for a service which might be used by only a minority of hon. Members. The answer is that its helpfulness would soon become so apparent and well known that few hon. Members would consider action by means of speech, Question, Motion, lecture, letter or article without first consulting the cuttings service.
  I do not expect a definite reply tonight. I should merely like an assurance that the matter will be carefully considered and, since an accom-
  950
  modation committee is likely to be set up soon, that its members will also consider this important topic.
  10.29 p.m.
  Sir Gerald Nabarro: I sympathise with one aspect of the speech of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). A Press cuttings service to an hon. Member is an extremely useful ally in the course of his Parliamentary and constituency duties.
  I know of no hon. Member who buys himself a Press cuttings service, except myself. I do it and it costs me £150 a year. I had a long battle with the Treasury in 1955–56 demanding that I be allowed to charge this £150 against my Income Tax on my Parliamentary salary. In very arbitrary fashion they refused to allow me to do so. They produced a document entitled "Income Tax, Expenses, Members of Parliament" issued by Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes, Public Departments, and their decision was based on an arbitrary ruling in that which states that expenses which are not allowable against Income Tax for hon. Members—and it names them all—include periodicals, books, and newspaper cuttings.
  I pointed out to the Treasury, who agreed, that my salary as a Member of Parliament was assessed under Schedule E. I said: "Suppose that I charge my Press cuttings against my income under Schedule D, which, as a self-employed man, being a television performer, broadcaster and journalist, I may do?" I was told that it would be quite in order to move the £150 per annum which I was claiming from Schedule E to Schedule D, and that I could then charge it against Income Tax and Surtax assessment under that Schedule. Not only was I allowed that particular year, but I was allowed the three preceding years as well, and for every succeeding year thereafter I have availed myself for tax purposes of the cost of a personal Press cuttings service for my Parliamentary research and other allied work.
  This is grossly unfair. If a Member of Parliament does not happen to perform on television or radio and is not assessed for any part of his income under Schedule D, he may not avail

  951
  himself of the cost of a Press cuttings service as a charge against his Income Tax or Surtax. If, on the other hand, for some part of his income he is assessed under Schedule D, he may so avail himself.
  This all illustrates the jungle of incongruities and anomalies which exist today in the Income Tax law. While it would be ridiculous to concede what the hon. Member for Salford, East asks—
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Why?
  Sir G. Nabarro:For this simple reason, that there are 630 Members of Parliament, and, if the cost of a Press cuttings service for each of them averaged £150 a year, which is not unreasonable at the present cost of Press cuttings, then the total cost for Members of Parliament alone, not for specialised services or subjects, would be 630 times £150, which is £94,500, not the £15,000 of which the hon. Gentleman spoke.
  Mrs. Eirene White: Absolute nonsense.
  Sir G. Nabarro:The hon. Lady would not even know what a Press cuttings service costs.
  Mrs. White Mrs. White rose—
  Sir G. Nabarro: No, I will not give way.
  Mrs. White: Why not?
  Sir G. Nabarro: Because the hon. Lady is usually so rude as to interrupt but is never one to give way herself. Now I will give way.
  Mrs. White: Very gracious indeed of the hon. Gentleman. It so happens that, having been a professional journalist myself, I have some knowledge of the matter, and, since I was on the Library Committee which looked into the question, I also know something about the cost.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Perhaps the hon. Lady will tell me what is the cost per 100 or per 1,000 of Press cuttings.
  Mrs. White: It is not a matter of per 100 or per 1,000.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Yes, of course, it is.
  Mrs. White: The Press cuttings mentioned by the hon. Gentleman would not be one per Member in the way he suggests. A very large proportion of them, the great majority, would be of common interest.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I cannot argue it in detail, but I can tell the hon. Lady that she is talking nonsense. The whole lot would have to be indexed and would have to be bought.
  Mrs. White: No.
  Sir G. Nabarro:The point I am making to the Financial Secretary is that we do not want a Parliamentary service of this kind, which would be inordinately expensive. What we want is a reform of the Income Tax laws which would allow a Member of Parliament, whether assessed under Schedule D or Schedule E, to charge the cost of such a personal service against his Income Tax assessment.
  10.33 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: To take up the last point made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro), he, of course, always moves on the assumption that Members of Parliament can afford this sort of thing from their salaries. Our point, and the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) makes, is that this is one of the services which ought to be provided. The hon. Gentleman might use it quite a lot. I might use it quite a lot. Others on both sides would not need to use it. But everybody knows that the Government side are fully armed on all these matters. There is never a Minister who goes to the Box to answer at Question Time without having to hand the answer to every possible question.
  The point of principle here is that the Legislature ought to be armed to meet the Executive on something like level terms. I leave the hon. Member with this thought. A General Election is in the offing. By making this application and these representations this evening, we might be doing a world of good for the Opposition that is likely to be in six months' time. Everything for which we ask now we might be asking for hon. Members opposite. They should be grateful and cede the principle while there is yet time.
  10.35 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Green):I have a wide-ranging debate to which to reply and I do not have much time in which to do it. I start by taking up the remarks of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), and I hope that this is some sort of reply to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), whose debate this really is.
  My first concern in this matter is not the General Election or any juxtaposition of the parties in this House that may possibly happen at the General Election. My concern—and, I am sure, the concern of the hon. Member for Salford, East—is with the affairs of this House, on whichever side we sit. That is what I have to consider tonight, and not whether it is of advantage to any individual or party, on whichever side of the House he happens to sit. Therefore, I welcome the hon. Member's defence of his experience of the workings of Parliament and I agree with him. A great deal of nonsense is written about the way in which this place works by those who are not fortunate enough to have direct experience of its workings, as the hon. Member and I have had. I therefore welcome that opening remark of his.
  The hon. Member has been good enough to discuss the subject matter of this debate with me and I realise the reality of his interest. I appreciate the point he made about the difficulties of private Members when confronted with the machine-given answers, if I may put it that way, of the Executive, whichever party the Executive may happen to represent. I must reject the suggestion that the Executive, of whatever party, denies this service to hon. Members in order to give the Executive a particular advantage. I can only hope that the hon. Member will accept this from me. It is a point which he suggested and I must answer it.
  A real difficulty, which, I believe, the hon. Member appreciated while he was speaking, is to estimate with any real precision the size of the demand for this service. Certainly, I cannot myself make that estimate. The estimate of the size of the demand has to be made by the House as a whole.
  Speaking for the Treasury, where I accept the cost is subsequently involved
  954
  —that is a second and separate consideration—I find it difficult to make any kind of estimate of the size and true nature of the demand for this service. The interests and needs of Members of Parliament are as wide as life. This is literally true. I am not inviting pity on this, but it is extraordinarily difficult for a member of the Executive to help the House in estimating what would be the cost of meeting the needs and requirements, not of the hon. Member for Salford, East, who knows what he wants from this service, but not knowing what all other hon. Members would accept or want from this service. It is extremely difficult for me to estimate the size of this service if it was to meet the needs of all hon. Members. That is my difficulty.
  I am forced, therefore, to put this back to the House, I hope in acceptable terms. If the House can make up its mind, if hon. Members can make up their collective mindsby a majority, as they always do, as to whether this service is required, then at that point it will be more easy for me to say what will be the cost of it. At that point Members can again, of course, make up their minds whether, at that particular cost for that particular service, that is indeed what they want. I cannot in advance of knowing what the real needs are, before they are fully expressed, give any estimate of the cost of a service such as this.
  In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro), I do understand the point which he was making. I am extremely glad that we were able to accommodate his particular personal point. I see the force of his argument that this, too, should not be a personal point relating solely to him, but I am none the less glad that his particular personal point was accommodated by this very large and generous Department, and I hope he is not unhappy about that fact himself.
  I do not think I can go further tonight than to say that this is really a matter for the House; it is not, at this moment in time, strictly speaking a matter for me.
  Mr. C. Pannell:The hon. Gentleman does appreciate, does he not, when stressing that he is speaking as a subordinate member of the Executive, that originally we understood that the Leader of the

  955
  House would deal with this on behalf of the House? I understand that the hon. Gentleman is deputising for the Leader of the House, so it seems to me that in his argument that he is speaking for the Treasury he is rather out of touch.
  Mr. Green: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think he has totally misunderstood me. I am sorry he should have done so. I do not think I am in a real sense deputising for the Leader of the House, or would presume to do so. I am in no such position. Nor would I presume it. I am pointing out, as the Leader of the House would also have had to point out, that this is very much a matter on which to take the opinion of the House. The Leader of the House would himself have said that, too. What I am saying is, as a Treasury Minister, that after the opinion of the House has been taken—this seems a thing honest to point out—then, of course, it would fall to me or to my successor to point out what this would cost. I cannot do that till the opinion of the House has been taken. It is not possible to judge the nature or cost of this till that opinion has been taken.
  When that opinion has been taken the House will want to know the cost of this, because the House as a whole is as careful, I trust, in the disposal of public money, even though it may be for the interests of the House and therefore
  956
  the workings of democracy, and as careful about the disposal of relatively small sums of public money, as it is careful about the disposal of relatively large sums of money. It would only be at that point that I would be in any position to offer any kind of advice, which I am not in a position, I regret to say, to offer to the hon. Gentleman now. Nor would the Leader of the House have been in any better position to offer advice other than that I am now offering. Of course we consider these things, but that is very much more a matter for the House to consider than a member of the Executive at this point.
  Mrs. White: What steps were taken to decide whether the House needed a Library of books? What steps were taken to discover what demand there would be, for instance, for the statistical section of the Library?
  Mr. Green: There is the Library Committee. It is very much a matter for Members of the House, and very little a matter, certainly at this stage, for any member of the Executive. 1 repeat, it must be a matter for Members of the House. The point that it is important for Members has been aired fully tonight by the hon. Member for Salford. East, and I would think that the House would be grateful to him for doing so.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Eleven o'clock.

  SCIENCE
    Scientific and Industrial Research (Economist)
    Scientific and Industrial Research (Economist)
    Motor Cars (Passenger Safety Belts)
    Motor Cars (Passenger Safety Belts)
  HOUSING
    Improvement Grant (Liverpool)
    Improvement Grant (Liverpool)
    Houses to Let
    Houses to Let
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT
    Paraffin-Vending Machines
    Paraffin-Vending Machines
    Clearance Area, Cardiff (Mortgage Repayments)
    Clearance Area, Cardiff (Mortgage Repayments)
    Thorney Hall, Lincolnshire
    Thorney Hall, Lincolnshire
    North-Eastern General Review Area
    North-Eastern General Review Area
    Smoke Control
    Smoke Control
  NATIONAL FINANCE
    10s. and 20s. Coins
    10s. and 20s. Coins
    Electronic Computers
    Electronic Computers
    University College, Wales
    University College, Wales
    Iron and Steel Industry (Fuel Oils)
    Iron and Steel Industry (Fuel Oils)
    National Debt
    National Debt
    Building Society Advances (Prescribed Figure Increase)
    Building Society Advances (Prescribed Figure Increase)
    Universities (Robbins Report)
    Universities (Robbins Report)
  NYASALAND
    Police Officers
    Police Officers
    Chiromo (Incidents)
    Chiromo (Incidents)
    Kneile Incident
    Kneile Incident
  KENYA
    Constitution
    Constitution
    Ex-Service Settlers
    Ex-Service Settlers
    Europeans (Compassionate Cases)
    Europeans (Compassionate Cases)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA
    Constitution
    Constitution
    NORTHERN RHODESIA NEW CONSTITUTION
    NORTHERN RHODESIA NEW CONSTITUTION
  BASUTOLAND
    Constitutional Commission (Report)
    Constitutional Commission (Report)
  SARAWAK
    Sir Alexander Waddell (Compensation)
    Sir Alexander Waddell (Compensation)
  TRISTAN DA CUNHA
    Stamps
    Stamps
  MALTA
    Constitution
    Constitution
  SWAZILAND
    Constitution
    Constitution
  PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
    Office Building, Westminster
    Office Building, Westminster
    Banqueting Hall, Whitehall
    Banqueting Hall, Whitehall
    Redundant Churches
    Redundant Churches
    House-building Firms
    House-building Firms
    Kensington Gardens (Shrubbery)
    Kensington Gardens (Shrubbery)
  INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
    North-East
    North-East
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION
  HOME DEPARTMENT
    Easter (Fixed Date)
    Easter (Fixed Date)
    Stolen Mailbags
    Stolen Mailbags
    Mail-van Robbery
    Mail-van Robbery
  SHIPPING
    Marine Reactor Research
    Marine Reactor Research
    Uruguay and Brazil (Representations)
    Uruguay and Brazil (Representations)
  TELEVISING OF PARLIAMENT
  TELEVISING OF PARLIAMENT
  QUESTIONS TO PRIME MINISTER
  QUESTIONS TO PRIME MINISTER
  MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
  MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
  ROYAL NAVY
    Polaris Submarines
    Polaris Submarines
  ROYAL AIR FORCE
    Ex-Sergeant Hughes
    Ex-Sergeant Hughes
  EDUCATION
    Business Studies (Courses)
    Business Studies (Courses)
  HOSPITALS
    New Hospitals
    New Hospitals
  PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
    Married and Single Pension (Value)
    Married and Single Pension (Value)
    Medical Appeal Tribunals
    Medical Appeal Tribunals
  TELEPHONE SERVICE
    Batley and Morley
    Batley and Morley
  POST OFFICE
    Telecommunications (Capital Expenditure)
    Telecommunications (Capital Expenditure)
  EMPLOYMENT
    Gateshead
    Gateshead

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

BARONESS STRANGE OF KNOKIN
2.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that, following an Address from your Lordships' House dated December 17, 1920, His late Majesty King George V was pleased to terminate, by Letters Patent dated February 23, 1921, the abeyance of the Baronies of Strange of Knokin, of Hungerford and of de Moleyns in favour of Elizabeth Frances, the wife of John Wynford Viscount St. Davids. Now, in pursuance of Section 6 of the Peerage Act, 1963, a Writ of Summons has been issued in right of the Barony of Strange of Knokin and the noble Lady attends at the Bar to take her seat.
After which, Baroness Strange of Knokin took the Oath.
Lord Hampton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

JURY SERVICE AND RATING REVALUATION
2.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: 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 the recent rating revaluation has had the effect that very large numbers of householders have now become eligible for Jury Service with the result that heavy clerical work is being thrown on local authorities to no purpose; and whether they are also aware that the attention of the Home Office has
208
several times been drawn to the problem, and what steps are proposed to deal with it.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware that the recent revaluation of property has resulted in additional work in connection with the insertion of new jurors' marks in the electoral register. But, as the law stands at present, this cannot be avoided, and Her Majesty's Government do not contemplate legislation pending the report of the Departmental Committee on Jury Service which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department appointed last May. In the meantime, my right honourable friend has suggested to electoral registration officers ways in which the pressure of the additional work might be eased.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he will ask his right honourable friend to do everything he can to expedite the proceedings of the Committee on Jury Service?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the Committee are still taking evidence. I can give my noble friend no date as to when they may report, but they are getting on with the matter as quickly as they can.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I thank my noble friend.

FISHERY LIMITS
LORD BOOTHBY: 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 have given further consideration to the question of extending the fishery limits around our coast; and whether they have any statement to make on this subject.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, as I told the House on April 29, Her Majesty's Government have taken steps to regain their freedom of action regarding the extent of

209
the United Kingdom's fishery limits, by giving notice to terminate our participation in the North Sea Fisheries Convention of 1882 and also to terminate the Anglo-French Fisheries Regulations of 1843. This notice will take effect in June, 1964. I also said that Her Majesty's Government were inviting the members of the European Free Trade Association and of the European Economic Community, Iceland, the Irish Republic and Spain to a Conference on fishery problems. The extent of fishery limits will be one of the principal subjects under discussion at this Conference, which opens in London on December 3.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his reply, which is extremely encouraging, may I ask him to bear in mind that the decline in the near-water fisheries round our coasts has been continuous since the war, and that, if disaster is to be averted, our inshore fishermen really will require to have the protection that they now urgently need?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am aware of that consideration.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, am I to understand from this that Her Majesty's Government's policy will be to match limitation with limitation? Our fishermen are not allowed in wide areas round the coast of other countries and are subjected to very heavy fines, sometimes very unfairly; and I hope that the noble Earl will keep in mind the need for doing the same.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, my Lords, I will certainly keep that in mind. Our main object at this Conference is to get agreement among the countries who are coming to it.

DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
2.41 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the House.
Moved, That the Lord Crook, the Lord Archibald, the Lord Ailwyn, the Lord Cawley, the Lord Airedale, the
210
Lord Douglas of Barloch, the Lord Amulree and the Lord Strang, be appointed the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Committee for Privileges be appointed, and that the following Lords, together with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

E. Alexander of Hillsborough,

E. Attlee,

E. Dundee,

E. Listowel,

E. Lucan,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Swinton,

V. Blakenham,

L. Amulree,

L. Carrington,

L. Conesford,

L. Hylton,

L. Layton,

L. Rea,

L. Wilmot of Selmeston.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ORDERS COMMITTEE
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider all Special Orders of the present Session; and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

D. Atholl,

M. Willingdon,

E. Munster,

V. Soulbury,

L. Airedale,

L. Blackford,

L. Cawley,

L. Coutanche,

L. Crawshaw,

211

L. Faringdon,

L. Goddard,

L. Hughes,

L. Jessel,

L. MacAndrew,

L. Meston,

L. Morton of Henryton,

L. Shepherd,

L. Stonham,

L. Strang,

L. Taylor,

L. Terrington.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
2.42 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved on Tuesday last by Lord Tweedsmuir—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON rose to move, as an Amendment, to add to the proposed Address "but regrets that Her Majesty's Government, through lack of a sound and consistent defence policy, is failing to make proper provision to enable this country to meet its national and international commitments, now and in the future." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Amendment to the humble Address in the name of my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough.
Before I turn to the more polemical part of my speech, I would say that it is no idle courtesy on my part, or on the part of any member of the Opposition, when we congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who was a most able and competent First Lord of the Admiralty. He was accustomed, when First Lord, to dealing with many subjects—contracts of employment, shops
212
and offices, and so on—and he is obviously well trained for a post which I am sure he will occupy with great distinction. We certainly do not consider (and this is not said offensively of his predecessor) that we have lost by this particular appointment.
I should like also to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. This is a peculiarly appropriate appointment. The noble Earl has certainly acquired the respect of the Opposition. We disagreed with him most forcefully on London Government, but he did not lose our respect by his handling of that Bill: it was only unfortunate that he was associated with such a disgraceful measure. I know that he will bring great energy and intelligence, of both of which he has a great deal, to bear on the problems that now confront him.
None of this can obscure the fact that the two noble Lords who are speaking for the Government in this debate to-day are in some degree responsible for, and, in any case, are in the position of having to defend, a Government whose record in the field of Defence has been one of the most abysmal parts of a not very good overall record. Inevitably in the course of this debate we shall have to discuss again the issue of the independent nuclear deterrent, and although we are well aware that many wider questions—matters philosophic and of international relations—hang on this issue, none the less, this is basically a military weapon, and we would criticise the Government's policy in hanging on desperately to a no longer independent nuclear deterrent, though they wish to call it such, for we are paying a heavy price in the Defence field.
Certainly this issue is a great deal more complicated and less simple than the Prime Minister chooses to think it is. One has only to look at the interesting discussions, particularly in the Sunday newspapers of last week-end and the Economist, to see that in taking it as a simple Election issue, which is clearly what the Prime Minister is intending to make it, he is grossly over-simplifying the problem and in some part destroying the truth, and he is doing no service to this country. Although I shall confine my remarks mainly to the military standpoint, we cannot ignore these fundamental issues, because it is the

213
lack of a really clear correlation between Defence policy and national foreign policy and a proper appreciation of what are our responsibilities to ourselves, our Commonwealth and our Allies, that has led to this constant changing and chopping in Defence policy.
We are aware that the Government have already published, and are shortly going to proceed with, a Bill to reorganise the central organisation of Defence. I do not propose to go into that question now, because we have already debated it at some length. One would hope that this would lead to some improvement, although we have some fairly serious criticisms of the actual proposals.
But nothing can expunge the record of the past or its consequences for the future. I should like to remind your Lordships of some of the changes that have taken place over the last few years. It may be painful, and it may, indeed, be repetitive, to refer to them, but it is well that we should have them in mind, because they are very much the burden of our criticisms. We know that at the time of the Sandys régime as Secretary of State for Defence—the one Secretary of State for Defence who was actually trying to be a Secretary of State for Defence, but unfortunately his trial was rather disastrous—the country then went over almost wholly to a nuclear strategy. There were to be no more bombers. The Royal Navy had no rôle except in a period of so-called broken-backed, post-nuclear exchange warfare. The Army alone had a rôle which was broadly similar to what it has to-day, except that it was never expected, apparently, to be engaged in anything other than the most minor brush fire operations. It is, of course, the Army that has suffered the most. It is the division between these two points of view, of trying to produce effective forces for conventional warfare and our determination to remain, in the words of the Prime Minister, "a first class military Power", that has led to our difficulties.
It was the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, who said in our Defence debate last March [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 247, col. 829]:
214
"But the cost of a British-operated independent nuclear deterrent will be prodigious. We cannot have that, and also large so-called conventional forces, with a commitment of 55,000 soldiers of the Regular Army in Germany. We cannot have both. If … we try to have both, the home front will suffer, which will be disastrous, because we should be trying to do too much."
Unfortunately, when we pressed the noble and gallant Viscount as to which of the two he was prepared to choose he did not tell us; and he did not tell us his solution. But perhaps he will do so later in the debate to-day. It is this which is bedevilling much of our policy, and it is really no good thinking in terms of the sort of mystical national prestige of which the former Foreign Secretary, now the Prime Minister, is so keen to talk about, of being a first-class military Power. Clearly we have got to take the hardest and the coldest look at what is best in our national interest.
I should like to look first of all at this argument in favour of the deterrent from a national standpoint, the argument that it takes us to the conference table with a special privilege. In saying this we have to bear in mind that the whole pattern of strategy has changed to-day. We are no longer in the days of purely massive retaliation. Strategy has become much more sophisticated, and American re-thinking has very largely changed the strategy of the West. The Government made claims, claims which I can only regard as slightly indecent, as to the contribution of this country towards the Test Ban Treaty. I think it was the then Prime Minister who said words to the effect that he was very glad we were able to persuade the Americans to come along too. It is worth noting that the original proposal for a Test Ban Treaty, so far as this country is concerned, came from the Opposition, and this was strongly opposed by the Conservative Government of the time. But we are glad that they saw wisdom on this. The fact that this Test Ban Treaty was signed was simply because Russia and America were prepared to sign it. I think it is difficult to argue—and I say this quite sincerely—that the existence of our own nuclear deterrent added significantly to the signing of that particular Treaty.
It is sometimes argued—and I want to deal with this point because the French argument is used—that the reason why France was not there was

215
that she had not at that moment got a test ban. But in fact France, Czechoslovakia, Canada and Poland were all at the original discussions in Geneva. It was only because these discussions related, in the final stages, to a Test Ban Treaty that it was apparent as far back as 1956 that France would not be there. Guy Mollet's Republican Front Government made clear that they would not be interested in any test ban treaty unless such talks covered the actual reduction of existing stocks.
The French position is a different one from ours. The French have an acute problem of national morale. I personally have the highest regard for the French and French qualities—although these qualities have not led necessarily to effective government, at least until General de Gaulle appeared on the scene—but we have not been confronted with their problems. We have not been confronted with a decline in national morale; we have not been confronted with subversion in our Armed Forces; and whether or not the force de frappe or, as some people in France call it, the force de farce, is a reality, it is an important factor in French national morale. I would repeat, and I am sure all noble Lords would agree, that we do not have the same compelling reasons in terms of national morale. All Parties are agreed on the need for defence. We are all united in the Western Alliance, and all Parties support NATO. We need have no argument on that point.
I do not wish to dwell much longer on the deterrent. We are agreed again that there is not a moral argument in this. It is perfectly true that the Labour Party and the Labour Government started the British independent nuclear deterrent, and that the Conservatives rightly continued it. But the death of Blue Streak virtually meant the end of the truly independent deterrent; and it is no good going on playing with words in the way the Government have done, changing it from "independent" to "independent contribution" and finally back to "independent deterrent". The disappearance of Skybolt has finished this. We now find ourselves, under the Nassau Agreement, as an overnight decision, committed to buying several Polaris submarines which we know will not
216
add significantly to the strength of the Western deterrent, other than in the most marginal way. If in fact we could afford this, and if it were possible to have all the other defence weapons we need, and if we ignore certain compelling international reasons (which I will not go into), then there would be a powerful military argument, although perhaps of a limited kind, for continuing it.
The Government are so obsessed with this that they are in danger of ruining the prospects of one of the best tactical weapons, one that might be an ideal weapon for limited warfare, because they choose to call the TSR 2 a nuclear bomber. I know the noble Lord will say that they have avoided doing this, but time and again we have been told, and it has been used as an argument, that this is the great strength of the TSR 2. I would say straight away that I regard this aircraft as one of the most sophisticated and remarkable weapon systems that any country has been able to find for the conventional rôle. Unfortunately, though for reasons that are obvious, information about this aircraft has not been released in sufficient detail, but if it does fulfil its purpose it would undoubtedly be very useful.
Through the fault of the air marshals, and of the Government, this, too, has become a political issue. It is a prodigiously expensive aircraft—I do not know whether we could be given another figure, a final figure. Is the final cost for, say, 100 aircraft going to be £400 million or £500 million? I am not sure how far the figures for research and development are secret. But even at £5 million an aircraft it is going to be a very expensive weapon for limited operations. Is it the intention of the Government to use it in South-East Asia when it becomes available in the next two, three or four years? Is there any basis for the rumours which are going around—and not only among the Oppositon—that it may well be cancelled? Is there any talk at all of this in Government circles? If the TSR 2 is cancelled, it will leave the R.A.F. without any means of giving real assistance to the military in warfare.
I do not want to dwell too long on the TSR 2, but I must say that I greatly regret that the Minister of Aviation chose to attribute the reasons for the Australian refusal to order the TSR 2 to doubts expressed by the Labour Party in this country.

217
This seems to me to be one of the most shocking pieces of political electioneering I have heard. We know that the Prime Minister advised us at all times to speak and think in terms of the future General Election, but if the Minister of Aviation really believes this, then all I can say is that he must have been misled by some rather tougher negotiators than he was accustomed to dealing with.
The real reason why we did not sell this aircraft to Australia was that the Government failed, as they have failed in other duties, to give the support to our exporters until it was too late. I know something about what went on in these negotiations. They failed to think of the export potential, and the result is that an important source of export has been lost to this country; and it is a loss that is important in terms of Commonwealth understanding and relations. All I will say is that I hope that the TSR 2 will fly. I hope that it will achieve these remarkable qualities that are claimed for it. If it does not, there will be nothing else available to match the modern equipment, the Mig 19's and 21's, which are to be found not only in Russia but in countries—certainly the Mig 19's—like Indonesia. One of our difficulties has been that the Government's Defence Estimates have been so wildly out of proportion to reality. May I ask what was the original estimate for the TSR 2 as compared with the Government's present estimate? We are quite prepared to give the Government a bit of a margin, even on their present estimate, but we hope that it will bear some relation.
What is the consequence of overspending in these directions? The consequence is, as we have seen reported so often by The Times correspondent, by Members of Parliament and by my noble friends who have been particularly to Germany, that the equipment side of the British Army of the Rhine is still inadequate for the rôle that it will be expected to play under the new forward strategy. So that there is no misunderstanding, either in Germany or in this House, let us state quite clearly that we are well aware that the British Army of the Rhine has very high morale and that the troops and officers are first-class. Indeed, I am told that morale is higher than it was. But the fact remains that
218
their medium and field artillery is still of last-war vintage. The Abbott gun is, in theory, coming along but we have not seen it yet. They are still equipped with Corporals and Honest John missiles. Why was Blue Water cancelled? Was it too expensive, or, again, was it a choice between the nuclear deterrent and equipping the Army with the weapons it needed?
It is very difficult to arrive at these total figures. We find massive figures for long-term capital expenditure: £400 million on Polaris submarines; £400 million to £500 million on the TSR 2. We know that something like 10 to 15 per cent. of our annual national budget on Defence is going to sustaining the existing deterrent. What is going to be the total cost? What is going to be the cost of the new units which are coming into the Air Force but which have not yet arrived and, at the moment, look like being delayed for lack of funds? What is going to be the cost of the ASW 681? What is going to be the cost of the Olympus engines? Will the Olympus engines which are to go into the TSR 2 be the same as will go into the Concorde? And if we were to cancel the TSR 2, what would happen to the price of the Concorde? At some time costs must come out right.
There is another item to which I would refer and which I also think is really disgraceful—I refer to the signals position in the British Army. When will it have standard transistorised equipment? We know that taxis have it, and we are hoping that the British Army will have it. I ask when this is coming in because in the last Defence debate I asked this question, though I said that I did not expect that the Foreign Secretary, immersed in foreign affairs, would necessarily be able to answer me. He said that I had no reason to suppose that he did not know the answer, and he then gave this remarkable reply [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 247, col. 924]:
"On the one question that he put to me I can pass the test, because the Army of the Rhine has been re-equipped with a new communications system steadily over the past three or four years, known as the Hobart system, which is being examined to see whether it is the best available system for the future."
What that means I do not know, but it suggests that the Army was being re-equipped with it. We should like to

219
know from a Minister who is more familiar with this subject, what the true position is.
Most of my attack relates to Army equipment. In the White Paper there was again a very remarkable statement which, had we been able to have the debate on the Motion which had stood on the Order Paper for a long time, we could have covered. This statement says:
"Now the new army will be provided with greatly increased striking power."
I like the use of the word "now", which implies that the Army is being equipped now. But how many Saracen regiments are there in the Army? What about the Trojan and the other armoured personnel carriers? What about essential air defence against low-flying aircraft? Is the Lightning intended for this rôle? Has the Army got low-level anti-aircraft missiles?—because the only one I knew about was cancelled. What work is being done at the moment on automatic reconnaissance units (Recce Drone, and so on) all of which are essential for the Army either in Germany or in other parts of the world.
We wonder whether these bits of equipment (because I can think of no other explanation) have been sacrified to the cost of the nuclear deterrent. What the Government face, and can no longer avoid, is the crucial choice between nuclear and conventional forces. If they wish to go on pretending to nuclear independence, the cost will be such that our conventional efficiency will possibly decline further. The Prime Minister, again in the debate last March, mentioned that we spent 7 or 8 per cent. of the gross national product on Defence, and he mentioned that America spent 10 per cent. Are the Government hoping to achieve all the necessary re-equipping without a further great increase in spending? We know that an Election is coming along and that this is the time of year for promises of this sort. But it was Mr. Thorneycroft, when he resigned as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1958, who actually at that time forecast the possibility of our no longer being able to remain an independent nuclear Power.
My Lords, the most pressing need today is that the Army, with its limited
220
manpower, should be made as mobile and transportable as possible. One day we know that it will get the Belfast, undoubtedly the most expensive aircraft in the world. I do not know what the total cost of each Belfast will be; I do not doubt that it will be an effective aircraft when it appears; but I remember that three or four years ago the noble and gallant Field Marshall Lord Harding of Petherton was demanding transport aircraft more urgently than we were getting them. This is the case where the Army is suffering; and even now only ten aircraft are being ordered.
Again, in the recent debate the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, interestingly asked what would be the effect on the Royal Navy and its efficiency of the obligation to man, equip and service the Polaris submarines. This is going to make the most tremendous demands on the Royal Navy, and it seems that it must follow that the ordinary conventional units of the Royal Navy, which have already suffered grievous loss (we know the tragedy of H.M.S. "Blake" and other vessels), will have to be cut back. Or are the Government contemplating a very large expansion in the Royal Navy? I do not doubt that these are going to be splendid technological achievements but are they, in fact, going to be technological white elephants? And shall we, in the end, be able to get the particular Polaris missiles that we want? They have already been changed and there are further rumours that the ones we are now hoping to order will be phased out by the Americans.
One thing that is quite clear is that this particular weapon is not independent. Indeed, we do not know how accurate it is. It is very doubtful whether it is a counter-force weapon. It is certainly a counter-city weapon. Surely the Americans, with their 30,000 megaton-worth of delivery, can deal with this. Or do we not rely on the Americans as Allies? We have had a lot of discussion on this matter and I should like to return to it in my final remarks. I would only say on this particular subject that we are suffering in other forms of equipment. Are the antisubmarine efforts being conducted with the same energy and drive? What about the anti-submarine replacement for the Shackleton, which we have asked about

221
on numerous occasions and which still does not appear to be in sight? Our duty, as reliable Allies, is not merely to take a position at the conference table but to fulfil our responsibilities and obligations in the world. And we alone of the Western nations, apart from the United States, have still got worldwide responsibilities of a kind that we cannot possibly shed.
I turn particularly to the problem of South-East Asia. Here is an area where we are responsible for keeping the peace, and the Americans look to us to maintain security there. It is also an area where the people have a particular bond and a particular affection for this country. There can, I think, be no possibility of our failing them. At the present moment we have a quarter or a half of the British Army's strategic reserve locked up in Borneo, and there it is likely to remain, faced with a possible aggressor with an Army larger than the whole of the British armed forces and equipped certainly with modern fighters. We all hope that Indonesia will see sense and that the threats that have come from there will die away again. But this is a commitment we must fulfil. It is rather curious that last March, when it first arose as a threat, the Government at that time—I believe it was on March 14—announced that they were going to reduce the number of Gurkhas from 13,600 to 10,000, and now we see in the papers that they are about to change their minds again and to recruit back up to 15,000. So far as I know, no official announcement has been made of this. Can we have an announcement? And what is the reason for this sudden change of policy on manpower? Is it because the Government miscalculated the military and strategic situation, or was it, as we suspect, that they were wildly over-optimistic on the recruiting situation?
I would now return to the recruiting position. We know that 1962 was a very good year, and towards the end of it the Government "upped" their target—their targets have always changed according to what they thought they were going to get—to 180,000. We are scheduled to get 180,000 in the Army by March, 1964—I think that is the date. Unfortunately, recent figures show a rather sad decline. I hope that a net improvement is still going on, although we have not got up-
222
to-date figures of wastage, and I believe that in some months there has been a net loss. The distinguished correspondent of The Times said he thought we had 175,000 men. According to such calculations and advice as I have been able to get, I make it around 173,000. I apologise to the Leader of the House for playing what he would undoubtedly call "the numbers game", but this is fundamental to our defence; it is fundamental to the strength not only of our forces in South-East Asia but of the British Army of the Rhine. What were the October recruiting figures? Do the Government anticipate that recruiting will pick up and we shall be able to achieve the target we want? How many troops have we in the British Army of the Rhine? Have we reached the 55,000, or are the Government once again going to have to face the possibility of a reorganisation of the line regiments, about which the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, has been so eloquent in the past in regard to the tribal system?
How are the Government going to get the men if the recruiting figures fail? It is no good suggesting, as has been suggested, that the Opposition are seeking to advocate conscription. It was the Government who abolished conscription, not the Opposition. What has happened to the "Ever-readies"? The Leader of the House was very eloquent on the subject of the "Ever-readies" when the Bill passed through the House. We queried certain of the difficulties, and indeed expressed doubts as to whether it would come off, but we hoped it would. I think we expected to get 15,000 "Ever-readies". How many are there?
South-East Asia and the British Army of the Rhine are not the only areas. We have had to put battalions in the Caribbean and we have one in Swaziland. Everybody seems to have forgotten that only a few months ago we were deeply concerned about an invasion of India. This is where the hard judgment has got to come. If, in fact, we are unable to meet our obligations, because we either cannot afford to hire Gurkhas, or cannot provide the right aircraft and equipment, which is more important in the world to-day: that we should abandon our commitments or fail to meet them by trying to do too much? It is on this long-term costing of defence that the Government are so weak.
There are many other points on equipment that I should have liked to deal with, but I do not think there is any lack of other examples. There is no lack of evidence of the need to improve enormously the mobility of the British Army. There is clearly no lack of need to ensure that the Royal Navy is able to fulfil its traditional rôles, whether it be with a task force of the more sophisticated kind like Commando carriers, whether it be anti-submarine: but whether the Polaris submarine or the diversion of the carrier into the nuclear deterrent rôle is in the national or Western Alliance interest is very doubtful. As the Economist said, like his predecessor the new Prime Minister seems inclined wilfully to blur the difference between Britain's keeping a nuclear equipment as a modest agreed contribution to an interdependent Allied army and pretending that this is equipment that can be an independent deterrent to Russia; if he is arguing that we should get to the peace table to be there as of right because we are a nuclear Power, this is an absurd and dangerous concept and indeed an unpatriotic concept. The Conservative Party expect the electorate to respond to the theme of greatness, and this is doing a grave disservice to this country.
In our last debate on Defence we were criticised by those opposite and by the Prime Minister for being critical of the Government's Defence policy. Indeed, it was said it was not their wish that Party politics should be brought into this. In case any member of the Government should be inclined to attack us on this occasion, I would point out that it was the Prime Minister at the very beginning of this new Session who chose to make Defence a political issue. Apparently he was somewhat disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition had not paid much attention to it in his opening speech on the humble Address, but this did not deter the Prime Minister. In a series of remarks quoted in Hansard of November 12 he made statements of a Party political character that we certainly never heard from the former Prime Minister. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 684 (No. 1), col. 50]:
224
"I intend in due course to put this question of Britain's independent deterrent to the electors."
These, I think, are some of the most lamentable passages I have read from a Prime Minister.
We know that this question of the nuclear deterrent and nuclear weapons and defence is an immensely complicated one. We have repeated time and again that when they came to power the Labour Party would not immediately proceed to scrap the weapons that were there; and it is intolerable to suggest—certainly noble Lords opposite have not suggested this—that we had any intention of doing so. But I do not believe that Kinross has been an ennobling experience, in more ways than one. Foreign policy and Defence, we would hope, even though we may exchange hard words at times, ought to be argued out, on the whole, as much as possible out of the Party political frame; and although some exchange is necessary, on the whole we do not expect, and are not accustomed to, this from Prime Ministers of either Party.
The Prime Minister put an even more astonishing question. He asked whether the Leader of the Opposition would go round questioning the good faith of Britain's greatest Ally. In 1962 the Minister of Defence said that if we did not have the independent deterrent we should be entirely dependent on the Americans in our foreign policy; and it is worth remembering that we may want to make a stand in some part of the world where our Allies would not support us. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself, speaking last March in this House, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 247, col. 932]:
"It is assumed that the United States would always, in all circumstances, cover Great Britain with her strategic deterrent."
He went on to say:
"I profoundly hope that is true. But it is a large assumption, and Governments cannot take risks …".
I think that particular point, perhaps in the excitement of a return to another place, had an unfortunate effect on the Prime Minister.
We are not questioning—I am sure that nobody in the House would wish to question—the reliability of our United States Allies. We have, however, to

225
decide what in fact is our particular duty in the world to-day. If we are to be attacked on this question of the nuclear deterrent, and whether it is in fact possible to administer a nuclear deterrent on the same scale as the Government propose and also to meet our conventional obligations, then I can only say that doubts exist not only in the Opposition but also in the Government Party. I should like to quote from a speech made a few years ago by a most distinguished member of the Government Party. Speaking of the independent nuclear deterrent, he said:
"I do not deride the men, nor do I invite anyone else to deride them, who urged large expenditure in all these fields. It is not a mean thing to wish to be independent in nuclear power of both the East and the West, although it may be that in the West in future no one really will be independent in nuclear power. It is not a mean thing to attempt that, or to attempt to have the great conventional forces to match our world-wide responsibilities. It is not a mean thing to advocate and seek to sustain a Welfare State. … Those are not unworthy aims. But let no politician of any Party be under any illusions as to what all this has meant"—
this was said in 1958—
"It has meant that over twelve years we have slithered from one crisis to another. Sometimes it has been a balance of payments crisis and sometimes it has been an exchange crisis."
This was said by Mr. Thorneycroft in his resignation speech. He is to-day the Minister of Defence. He went on to say:
"That is not a picture of the nation we would wish to see. It is a picture of a nation in full retreat from its responsibilities. That is not a path to greatness; it is the road to ruin."
My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment.
Moved as an Amendment, to add at the end of the proposed Address ("but regret that Her Majesty's Government through lack of a sound and consistent defence policy is failing to make proper provision to enable this country to meet its national and international commitments, now and in the future.")—(Lord Shackleton.)
3.25 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I should like to explain that my absence, in case it should have been noticed, during the first few days of this debate, was due to the fact that I had to attend
226
to some meetings of Western European Union at The Hague. I should like to support the congratulations offered by the previous speaker to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, as the Leader of the House, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. I shall not follow him into the question of the independence of our nuclear deterrent. I feel whenever "independence" is mentioned, whoever uses that word, it must be understood to-day to mean "comparative independence". I should prefer for the moment to leave it at that, for I believe there are developments and changes coming which may put this question in a quite different light. It is some of these matters that I shall try to touch upon in the course of my remarks this afternoon.
I hope I shall be forgiven for mixing some political considerations with the defence problem. I have no intention of becoming involved in the highly technical field of tactics or strategy, or even of weapons. When even the Defence Ministers of France and the Federal Republic of Germany cannot reach agreement upon the comparative merits of two different designs, it is difficult for a layman to express an opinion; but so far as financial and employment considerations impinge upon the construction of weapons I wonder whether, in cases where decisions can be made on the standardisation of any weapon, production could not be arranged more often by agreement under licence so as to ensure a fair distribution of contracts over the countries of the Alliance without prejudicing uniformity of equipment.
It would be quite unrealistic to believe that we can speak of Defence, even of the defence of Europe, solely in terms of the conceptions which existed when the North Atlantic Treaty was signed. We can agree that NATO has filled a gap. For this, the peoples of Western Europe owe a debt of gratitude to the Alliance, and particularly to the United States and Great Britain who, with their deterrents, stood guard when there could be little or no contribution to Defence from continental Europe. But that phase has passed. Not only have the material conditions in Europe changed vastly, but the thinking has changed. This is particularly true of continental Europe. If I may, I will

227
take one sentence from a report on European security which we were discussing last week at The Hague at the meeting to which I have already referred. The sentence is as follows:
"On each side, a single country controls all or almost all the nuclear resources, which places its allies in the difficult situation of protected countries."
I hope I may be forgiven if I appear to generalise too much from this. In any country there are people who think very differently from others. All one can hope to do is to try to understand what those in or directly behind the Government of the day think and mean; to understand those who currently have the power of decision and direct their country's policy.
With this qualification, I think it is not too much to say that in the continental countries of Western Europe there is a widespread feeling that remaining so obviously "protected countries" is not compatible with their independence. Rightly or wrongly, the Governments in those countries are coming more and more to feel themselves in a position which they dislike and resent. This is true, I believe, in all the countries of Western Europe, but, of course, it is true in varying degrees. The French are the most outspoken and many Frenchmen say outright that they consider the continuance of such a position intolerable. The Germans will take any opportunity offered of gaining knowledge and experience which might prove useful, and quietly rely upon their increasing power, both military and economic, to bring as a natural consequence increased inffuence in world affairs, as the Federal German Foreign Minister recently aptly put it.
The smaller continental countries in Western Europe naturally tend to favour a widely based Defence community, feeling that the bigger the Alliance the greater the importance of the small part they can play and the less the likelihood of pressure from any one great neighbour. So in any controversy within the Alliance they hope for a compromise which they have no real chance of influencing. In political terms they favour a federal type of association which gives a small Power the maximum influence upon common decisions. Further, many Frenchmen believe that
228
there are agreements or understandings between the United States and the U.S.S.R. to maintain their near monopoly in the nuclear field. They do not believe that the European area of NATO can be defended without nuclear weapons. European troops can be equipped, at present, with American nuclear weapons only under the strict control of American political authority. They see the signing of the Test Ban Treaty as the latest move in a plan to crystallise the existing status quo.
Thus, so far as the defence of Europe is concerned, we are back where we were when the NATO Treaty was signed—that is to say, reliance on the United States and Great Britain, but with France becoming more and more unco-operative, refusing to accept what they look upon as the hegemony of the United States in peace-time preparedness and pursuing the same policy (or so they maintain) as did the Labour Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, in his Government after the end of the war. At that time we all remember that the United States sought to retain upon American soil the knowledge to which many of different nationalities had contributed and which might have matured in this country had it not been for an accident of geography, as I think the present Prime Minister put it some days ago.
My Lords, I have tried very briefly to present an objective picture of what I find is the general feeling in continental Europe. It is an unhappy picture from the point of view of common defensive planning. Yet there is, I believe, some satisfaction to be derived from the fact that it is because Europe feels more secure that its Governments can take the risk of indulging in philosophical polemics on political evolution. While this lasts, however, I doubt whether in NATO on the military plane much can be done about it except to exercise patience. Of course, I shall listen with great interest to suggestions which, I am sure, will be made this afternoon, but I must say I feel that some of the ingenious suggestions which have been coming across the Atlantic, however well meant, have added to the arguments and disagreements rather than diminished them.
This applies, in my view, to the proposal to create a small multi-national contingent which politically satisfies no

229
one and militarily seems unimportant. That the United States directly sought the support of the Federal Republic of Germany in this matter was, I feel, unfortunate. This may involve the limitations imposed under the Treaty of Brussels—limitations which appear to most of us desirable in the interests of the Federal Republic itself, whose first concern must be the conclusion of a peace treaty resolving the German problem with such safeguards and assurances for the future as may be agreed. We should be careful to avoid any action which could delay or prejudice the completion of such a Treaty.
To return, for a few moments, to what I called philosophical polemics, surely the worst fate which could befall us in Europe (other than annihilation) would be a lapse into intellectual stagnation. The move towards integration in a Defence community (which was the original concept of a mixed-manned force) ten years ago was unfortunately presented. It provoked a revival of nationalism; yet nothing is quite the same as formerly. A French nationalist to-day will react against "integration" but will accept "co-ordination" in the Alliance. Sooner or later, if there is to be a Europe with a personality (this may be a philosophical nicety to a pragmatist, but this is the way Europe is forging its thoughts) Europe will have a European Defence Ministry. If we accept this idea—even if we accept it as an idea-to-be—NATO will inevitably move towards a new concept and direction. I would suggest that it need be no worse for that. It would still be within the concept of partnership, as this word is understood at any rate on this side of the Atlantic.
What has really disturbed the infrastructure, if I may so call it, of the Alliance, is the political eruption which is manifesting itself in Europe. If we can forget our anxieties—and as they are shared by nearly all mankind perhaps we may be forgiven for shedding them, if not forgetting them—to enjoy an interlude, it may not turn out to be an unprofitable exercise. Many in Europe believe that the benefit of abundance is almost inextricably linked with investigation into the perils of nuclear development. There is a feeling that they must be explored together, and
230
while so much is hidden in secrecy, in security secrecy, there will continue to be speculation on this point. The announcement of the publication of a book by Professor Raymond Ayon on Initiation Into Atomic Strategy will, I am sure, open up new, interesting discussions, and may help to clear the minds of people, not only in France but in the United States, on the differences of outlook that are disturbing the minds of people in both countries.
The more complex life becomes, the more complicated human relationships become. It is ideas which change the world and which cause wars if suppressed. We must be prepared to participate in the evolution of ideas in Europe. We made two attempts to move closer together in Europe: the first one based on a European Defence Community; the second based on economic foundations. Both these attempts failed because of failure to reach agreement with the French Government of the day. So I should like to end my remarks with this conclusion: that agreement with France is a first necessity. In fact, no real sense can be made of the defence of continental Europe without the co-operation of France, and any political advance, if we are to exercise influence, is dependent upon agreement between us and the French.
Basically, my Lords, I do not believe that our ideas on what is practicable or desirable are very different from those of the French. An expanded Council of Western European Ministers might well constitute the nucleus of a European Ministry of Defence. But I do not believe Western European Union is a satisfactory European political forum—at any rate, in the long run. Europe as an entity with influence cannot come into being unless European countries are willing to recognise a loyalty to the Europe they wish to build. I would plead that, without formal commitments, without a constitution, without weighted voting, those nations who believe in the necessity for the voice of Europe to be heard should agree to meet together regularly and frequently to discuss all their problems.
The only suitable forum for this, in my view, is the Council of Ministers of the Community, expanded by invitations to Great Britain, Denmark and Norway

231
(the countries who sought full membership of the Community) to send Ministers to join in discussions on all matters that affect Europe—which really means, of course, all their problems—on the simple basis that they will recognise a loyalty to the Europe they would be representing and building. In this forum all these members would be heard. Unanimous agreement might not always be possible, but gradually we should build up confidence, treating each other with complete frankness. We should begin to realise that we were there to help each other. My Lords, such a spirit is necessary to make sense of the defence of Europe, and of our common responsibilities to the rest of the world. More formal agreements could come later when this experiment in co-operation had been tried and proved.
The story of the conferences held during the war is attracting a good deal of attention in France to-day, notably because of a book by Arthur Conte called Yalta, or Europe Sold. At Yalta, if the record is correct, the writer says that Churchill alone fought—and he fought "like a tiger"—to preserve the rights and influence of France in postwar Europe. The book records his statements that we had no intention of agreeing to restrict French influence, as both Stalin and Roosevelt thought proper. French co-operation, he maintained, was essential to Europe. I suggest that in a new approach to France, Her Majesty's Government start there. I feel sure, from my own contacts, that if Her Majesty's Government made a new approach in this spirit, it could open up an era of co-operation in Europe. The problems with which we have to deal are immensely difficult, and it is a sine qua non that we should deal with them in agreement with France, if we are to hope for success in Europe.
I hope the Opposition will not divide the House on this Motion, and I believe in saying this that I am supporting the spirit of what my noble friend, Lord Ogmore, said last Thursday.
3.48 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the two speeches which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. The
232
noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, moved the Amendment, as usual, with great vigour and great clarity. I think your Lordships will agree with me that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has made a most thoughtful speech and no doubt it will repay reading to-morrow. But I hope that he will not consider me discourteous if I do not follow him down the paths that he has gone. I felt that perhaps the most welcome part of his speech was his assurance that the Liberal Party will not go into the Lobby with the Labour Party later on this evening. But, my Lords, I will try to follow some of the matters that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has spoken about.
The Amendment suggests that Her Majesty's Government,
"through lack of a sound and consistent defence policy is failing to make proper provision to enable this country to meet its national and international commitments."
My Lords, I reject this absolutely, and I do not believe that a sound case for it has been made out by the noble Lord opposite. I think that the first thing we should ask ourselves when discussing the question of defence is: what is the criterion of success of any defence policy? It is obvious that defence is an instrument of foreign policy. I think it is also obvious that there can be no effective foreign policy except one which is based on a sound national economy. Your Lordships will remember the emphasis placed upon this point by the Prime Minister when he used to sit on these Benches. Any British Government, therefore, is faced with a series of interlocking decisions in formulating its defence policy.
The first is to determine what are the vital interests that must be defended. The second is to determine what proportion of the gross national product can be allocated to defence. There can, and should, of course, be some flexibility in the precise figure in a country possessing the population and industrial strength of ours. But I am sure the whole House will agree that any defence policy which placed excessive strains on the national economy would be self-defeating. The third is to determine how the resources available should best be applied to secure the required objectives; and in all this we naturally have to bear in mind what our friends and Allies are doing.

233
My Lords, what are the purposes of the Government's foreign policy in so far as it affects defence? The first, of course—and it is paramount—is to prevent war. The second—and hereafter I name them in no particular order of priority—is to protect British interests. The third is to assist our friends and Allies in the Commonwealth and outside should trouble arise. The fourth is to play our part in the containment of Communism all over the world. These are sizeable aims and they entail heavy commitments for us. There are some, I know, who feel that the transformation of Empire into Commonwealth has meant a large decline in our obligations. It is true that in some fields and areas we have been relieved of our defence burdens, but this is by no means true in all cases—and in some cases, indeed, they have increased, or may do so.
One has only to look round the world to realise the extent of our responsibilities. There are the area of the Persian Gulf, and the base at Aden on which its defence depends; our obligations to Malaysia, which were discussed at great length earlier in the debate on the Address; the threatening policy of the Indonesian Government and the military problem that it has posed us; and our interests in the Caribbean and the protection of British territory there, about which a Question was asked by my noble friend Lord Colyton last week. These are but a few examples. Our interests range far and wide all over the world and it would be impossible for anyone to say with any certainty just where or how the next emergency might arise. Nor must we forget our commitments in Europe, the security of which is vital to our national survival.
My Lords, the full list is a formidable one, and it would be impossible for us, single-handed, to achieve all the aims and honour all the commitments that I have set out. In point of fact, we have seldom been able to "go it alone" as a country. Apart from a comparatively short period of history, the age of Pax Britannica, when the Royal Navy ensured the peace of the world, we have always protected our interests by a series of alliances with those whose interests coincided with ours. And your Lordships will recollect that this is exactly the policy which both Conservative and Labour Governments have
234
followed since the war. There have been NATO, SEATO, CENTO, and so on. Even so, in making our proper contribution to these alliances, and in maintaining our readiness to protect our interests in those fields in which our responsibilities are primarily national, we are still undertaking heavy burdens. As your Lordships know, we devote between 7 and 8 per cent. of our gross national product to defence—a figure which compares very favourably with the figures of other friendly countries. I do not think that there are many in this country who would say that we could afford to use a very much higher proportion of our gross national product on defence.
So I think that the real questions which should be answered to-day in this debate are these. First, are there any commitments which we are at present undertaking which could be scrapped? Second, are we spending the money in our Defence budget wisely, and getting value for money? With regard to the first question, I do not believe there are any commitments which we can abandon. Both the Far East and Middle East are areas of potential trouble. There are others as well, and we have our NATO obligations in Europe. It is perfectly true that the emphasis is likely to shift from time to time from one part of the world to another, though not, I suggest, unless and until circumstances alter radically to the extent of releasing us completely from any of our existing commitments. It is to take care of these often unforeseeable shifts of emphasis that our strategic reserve exists.
In these circumstances, I feel that noble Lords opposite should address themselves first to this question: What commitments or objectives would they wish to see cut? I remember that in the debates on Defence at the beginning of this year in another place both Mr. Brown and Mr. Paget suggested that it was possible—and, indeed, desirable—to reduce our forces East of Suez. Mr. Paget, in fact, in a speech of which I have the reference, if noble Lords are interested, poured scorn on the suggestion that a base in Singapore was practicable. My Lords, I wonder whether those two speakers have had second thoughts in the six months which have elapsed since they made those speeches.

235
Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, if he ever held those views—which I very much doubt—expressed exactly the contrary opinion this afternoon.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we had this argument last year. I wonder whether the noble Lord would now quote that which he failed to quote on that occasion—namely, what Mr. Brown said and when he said it.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am not, of course, allowed to do that; but if the noble Lord will look at Mr. Paget's speech, in column 1586—
LORD SHACKLETON: No; Mr. Brown.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am just coming to Mr. Brown. The noble Lord must not be quite so impatient. Perhaps he will look at Mr. Paget's speech during the debate in another place on Thursday, March 14, in column 1586, and also at the debate in another place on Tuesday, March 5, in column 325, I think. When he reads those, he will see that I have not misinterpreted what either Mr. Brown or Mr. Paget said.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords—
LORD CARRINGTON: May I just finish? The last thing I want to do is to misinterpret them. Why should I want to misinterpret them? I think it is very important that we should get straight what the policy of the Opposition is. If I have it wrong, then, of course, I am prepared to withdraw and apologise. I have no wish whatever to misinterpret Opposition speakers; but perhaps noble Lords will look at these references and see whether I have, in fact, misinterpreted them.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I gather that the noble Lord the Leader of the House does not propose to quote what Mr. Brown said because that would not be in order; but as this was a speech in another place during the last Session of Parliament, he is perfectly entitled to quote it.
LORD CARRINGTON: Am I?
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Yes; and for the satisfaction of my noble friend Lord Shackleton I think it would be helpful.
LORD CARRINGTON: I did not realise that I was entitled to quote it. I must accept that, and I will, with great pleasure, quote it. Mr. Brown said this: [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 673, col. 324–5]:
"I do not believe that to be the right definition of our defence requirements at all. I think it wrong because the national defence of these islands seems not to be an issue capable of being divorced from our association and commitments to NATO. It is within NATO that we provide for the national defence of these islands. If we try to provide that national defence first, and carry out our commitments to NATO with what is left, we shall not be fulfilling the first task. The third matter, the wider world rôle, is rapidly diminishing."
LORD SHEPHERD: Well?
LORD CARRINGTON: If that does not mean the interpretation I have put upon it, I will happily withdraw.
LORD SHEPHERD: Then withdraw.
LORD CARRINGTON: What does it mean, my Lords, if it does not mean that? The second quotation I should like to give, from Mr. Paget, is this (col. 1586 of the same volume):
"Turning to Singapore, I do not know the point of maintaining a base in which we depend upon an organised communist labour force in the docks. Possibly there is a case for maintaining sonic troops in Australia, but, as in Hong Kong, I believe that we shall come to realise that this is a part of the world in which, if we cannot maintain our position by diplomatic means, it is not worth trying to maintain it by force."
Now, my Lords, if I may go on from that—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I say one thing on this aspect? I do not agree, nor do my noble friends, with Mr. Paget—I make that perfectly clear. But I do not think the noble Lord is entitled to put the interpretation that he did on what Mr. Brown said. There was no suggestion of falling down on our commitments. He merely hazarded a hope that our responsibilities might diminish—but clearly they will not do so under this Government.
LORD CARRINGTON: With respect, my Lords, he did not say that: he said that our responsibilities were diminished. This is where I part company with Mr. Brown. I do not think that we ought to spend more time on this. I do not in any way wish to misinterpret what has been said. But I think that noble Lords

237
should answer these questions that I have been addressing them. I do not imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, believes this; but then, as so often in defence matters, there seems to be a difference of opinion in the Labour Party. Do not both Mr. Paget and Mr. Brown and the noble Lords opposite feel that a military presence in South-East Asia and the Middle East acts as a deterrent and is itself a contribution to world peace? I shall be interested to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, says when he comes to wind up.
There is one thing that noble Lords opposite would say when I ask them what commitments they would cut; they would say they would abandon, after the V-bombers run out, the nuclear deterrent. My Lords, earlier in the debate on the Address I referred briefly to the question of the deterrent. I should like to examine it in more detail now. It would be tempting to devote this part of my speech to asking noble Lords opposite to clarify and reconcile what different Labour Party spokesmen have said at different times, and sometimes simultaneously. But the analysts of Labour Party pronouncements have had a field day lately and I think it would be more profitable if I were to speak about the basic issues involved and the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
Britain possesses a nuclear deterrent today, following on the Anglo-American creation of the atom bomb in the last world war. Until recent times it was common ground between the Conservative and the Labour Parties that this deterrent should be maintained in being. We have the warheads, the delivery systems, and a great complex of industrial and scientific capital, communications and personnel. As the Soviet Union has developed its own nuclear power, what has come to be required, above all, is a second strike nuclear capability which could penetrate increasingly sophisticated defences. This is a vastly more complicated and expensive effort, as your Lordships know, and the day will come when the V-bomber force, even with stand-off bombs, will no longer be an effective means of delivery. As military technology develops it would be very hard for us to keep up with making all the latest requirements ourselves—and I have already referred to the vital importance of a sound economy at home.
238
It seems to me that Her Majesty's Government have to choose between three courses. We could scrap the deterrent; or allow the capability we now have to become obsolete, and when that happened we should cease to all intents and purposes to be a nuclear Power. Or we could do in the nuclear field what many countries, including our own, do on the conventional side; that is to say, we could buy some of the newest things from somewhere else. But if we were to take the third course we should preserve and augment the industrial capital, communications and personnel; we should make the aircraft and submarines and, of course, we should go on producing the essential component of all nuclear weapons systems—namely, our own warheads.
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have decided against allowing the British nuclear capability to lapse and in favour of keeping it in being, buying some of the delivery systems as necessary. I should say, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, did, that there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the United States Government will not fulfil their undertaking to supply these; and I do not believe that any noble Lord will make such a suggestion. The Polaris missile, though it is being improved all the time, is a tried and proven weapons system. Once we get it we shall have full control over it in the only circumstances in which it is ever likely to be used: that is, when supreme national interests are at stake. Let me say here that the point of a deterrent is not that it should be used but that it should not be used. It is intended to prevent circumstances arising in which it might be used.
When we explain this aspect of our policy, the decision to retain our nuclear power, we are accused—sometimes, not to-day—of using arguments which non-nuclear Powers could use to justify acquiring a nuclear capability. But surely, my Lords, this is rather a muddled accusation. The reasons why you do not give up a thing you have are not necessarily the reasons for acquiring it if you have not got it; nor does it follow that if you give it up others will necessarily follow suit. The point at issue is whether, having acquired a nuclear capability in the past,

239
we could expect to have the same influence as we have at present if we got rid of it unilaterally or allowed it to lapse. Should we, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has put it, have the same place at the peace table? I do not think there can be any doubt about that answer.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Leader of the House kindly answer this question? I understand that the Government themselves are very much against any policy which increases the danger of a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that France, on the other hand, are just the other way about. Bearing in mind the very reduced facilities that the Government have with regard to their being a nuclear Power, why do they pursue this policy in the light of their general idea that one should try to prevent proliferation?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, because the British have had the nuclear deterrent for a great number of years. I do not believe that our abandonment of a nuclear deterrent will make one whit of difference to those who intend to have it. There are other reasons why Her Majesty's Government intend to maintain the deterrent in being. Here I come to the question of what part our nuclear capability should play in the defence of the Free World.
There seems to be a great deal of confusion in some minds about the definition of "an independent deterrent". I think the basic position is quite simple. Our nuclear deterrent is independent in the sense that it cannot be used without the consent of Her Majesty's Government and would come into operation on a decision of Her Majesty's Government. If noble Lords opposite do not like to describe this as independent then they should think of a different definition. But this does not mean that we contemplate using it independently of the Western Alliance in hostilities in which the Alliance is engaged. The British deterrent is dovetailed with Western deterrent power as a whole. We believe most firmly that the only valid guarantee for the security of the West is nuclear interdependence on an Atlantic-wide basis. It is for this reason that we have assigned the British V-
240
bomber force to NATO and have undertaken to do the same with the Polaris submarines when we have them.
It is because the nuclear defence of the West is interdependent and indivisible that we think it is vital that there should be power, on this side of the Atlantic as well as the other, to respond to aggression with nuclear weapons if necessary. For the whole purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter; and if all nuclear power were in American hands alone, then it is not inconceivable that the Soviet Union—perhaps in some situation of crisis which we cannot predict—might see advantage in a limited aggression in Europe and be tempted to believe that the United States would not risk incurring devastation in their cities in defence of a peripheral interest. I am sure they would be wrong. But by their miscalculation they would have launched the world upon nuclear catastrophe and the deterrent would have failed to deter.
We are therefore continuing to work for a deterrent responsive to the needs of the Alliance as a whole, which a potential enemy could never be certain would not be called into operation by any aggression against any part of NATO territory. There are other circumstances in which the existence of our deterrent could be useful—and when I say this I do not mean that it should be used. As I have said, the point of a deterrent is that it should not be used. Let me explain why. We are the only Power in the world with obligations to the three main defensive groups, NATO, CENTO and SEATO. We also have the other overseas defence obligations which I outlined earlier. And we provide protection for territories which depend on us in various parts of the world and help underpin the defences of those Commonwealth countries who wish us to do so.
We certainly do not contemplate using nuclear weapons as a modern version of the 19th century gunboat. But we are determined never to be in a position where we can be threatened by nuclear blackmail into failing to live up to these obligations. It is our vital interest that any nuclear Power which might contemplate threatening us with nuclear weapons in order to make us betray these obligations should know that we possess indestructible power capable of

241
hitting back and wreaking unacceptable damage. This we most certainly have the power to do. This, then is the Government's policy.
What is the policy of noble Lords opposite? As I understand it, they intend to retain the V-bombers during the rest of their useful life and have not yet made up their minds about Polaris. Why keep the V-bombers, if their cost is not worth while? Why not save the money straight away? Why retain them in order to have a bargaining counter, if you apparently do not believe that they are worth having? And have not the electorate the right to know now what the Labour Party would do about the Polaris submarines?
It is clear from what I have said earlier that the purpose of evolving a NATO deterrent responsive to the needs of the Alliance as a whole is a major interest which we share with our fellow members. I think that this point is in some danger of being forgotten in the arguments about the multi-national force. Her Majesty's Government are fully aware, of course, of the technical arguments which have been levelled against this force as a contribution to the defensive strength of the West. And we know that it could be very costly. These are some of the difficulties in the ideas which have so far been discussed. But the proposal exists. It would be unrealistic to pretend that it did not. It has its roots in the vital relationships within the Alliance and our Allies, too, are well aware of the difficulties. Nevertheless, they have decided to study the idea more closely. So we have agreed, without any commitment about subsequent decisions, to take part with our Allies in an objective examination of the project in all its aspects and possible variations.
Earlier on, I suggested that there were two main questions which we should ask ourselves. The first was whether we could cut any commitments, and the second, whether we are getting value for money. Unavoidably, 58 per cent. of the total defence budget is spent on pay and such items as works and buildings, fuel and food, and so on. The remainder is available for maintaining weapons in service and re-equipping the Forces with the most modern and up-to-date weapons, including both research and
242
production of them. Another problem which has greatly increased since the war is that the cost of equipment has risen very steeply indeed. As weapons become ever more sophisticated, ever more complicated, their cost has tended to soar. Everybody can think of examples of this. For example, before the war, a submarine cost £350,000. To-day a conventional submarine costs about £3 million and a nuclear submarine nearly £20 million. During the war a Crusader tank cost about £9,000; a Chieftain tank will cost about £90,000. And there are many other examples. The Halifax bomber cost £38,000; the Vulcan costs about £1 million. Even allowing for a factor of three in the change in the value of money, these increases are of a very high order indeed. The result has been—and this applies to other major Powers as well as to ourselves—a tendency to concentrate on the production of fewer units of equipment of greater effectiveness.
We must be certain that the weapons we have are the best that can be devised, since we can have relatively few of them. I am not going into all the equipment of the three Services. My noble friend the First Lord will be winding up and will answer some of the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, put to me, but I feel that I ought to say something at this stage about the TSR 2, about which there has been a great deal of argument. I was very glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, had to say about the TSR 2, and I only wish that he could convince some of his friends in his Party that they would be better not to go around running down the TSR 2 all the time and to take a rather more objective view of it.
As I understand them, the criticisms made about the TSR 2—not by the noble Lord—are as follows. It is too sophisticated; it will cost £20 million an aircraft to produce; we should have waited for an American aircraft; the Australians have not bought it, so it must be no good; the Conservatives will cancel it; it could not be used in the Far East; and we have added to its cost by building in an unneeded nuclear capacity.
My Lords, if there is real substance to these arguments, the sooner the TSR 2 is cancelled the better. But there is not.

243
Of course it is sophisticated. It needs to be. Otherwise we should go on making Canberras. Sophistication is necessary if we are to have the capability to penetrate the air defence and radar environments of our potential enemies. There is need for deep penetration for strike or reconnaissance; a capacity to fly low at high speed over long distances. And all this necessarily leads to an aircraft of great complexity. Certainly any aircraft of this performance costs a great deal of money. But the cost will certainly not be £1,000 million or £20 million an aircraft. As for buying the American TFX, the fact is that the United States started work on it only two years after we had begun work on the TSR 2.
I do not intend to enter into the controversy as to why the Australians did or did not buy this aircraft. This seems to me to be their business, and certainly we wish them well with the aircraft of their choice.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that it is our business? We had great hopes that we should be able to supply this aircraft to the Australian Government. Can the Minister say what were the terms we offered?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I cannot say that. But what I can say is that of course we are disappointed that we did not sell the aircraft to the Australians. We were very keen to do so, and it would have been a very good thing from the point of view of the manufacturers. But it seems to me that the decision on what aircraft should be bought is entirely a matter for the Australian Government and not one for Her Majesty's Government at all.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, does that mean that the Government gave no assistance at all to the people who were working on the intended production of this aircraft? The noble Lord says that it is not the Government's business.
LORD CARRINGTON: With respect, my Lords, I did not say that. What I said was that the decision finally reached by the Australian Government was their business and not ours. Of course, we would rather they had chosen our aircraft, and of course we did what we
244
could both to help the manufacturer and to persuade the Australian Government to buy it. But they are a sovereign Government and it seems to me that they can take what decision they please.
As to cancellation, the Government have no intention whatever of doing so. That sort of accusation, the purpose of which is quite unclear to me, is likely to damage the reputation of the aircraft and make it less likely to attract sales abroad. As to the Far East, about which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked me, the TSR 2 was designed for operation in that area and will have the long range which would be required in that theatre. Finally, no additional capability has been built into the aircraft for the purpose of carrying nuclear weapons. It so happens that this is a versatile aircraft which will be capable of being used in both conventional and nuclear rôles. Nobody can pretend that these are not difficult issues. But I do not see the purpose of the Opposition—nor, indeed, I think does the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton—seeking to destroy the reputation of this aircraft before it has flown. I know that the R.A.F. are confident that the TSR 2 is a weapons system which will be of great value for many years to come.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord has answered a great many points that have not been made in this House. I wonder whether he could give a reply to some of the points that have been made. I thank him for his statement about the Far East rôle. But what we really want to know something about is the cost of the TSR 2.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, it is not customary to give the cost of research developments—I have checked this—but I would draw the attention of the noble Lord to the statement made by the Minister of Defence in Dundee yesterday, when he said that Mr. Healey's suggestion that it would cost £20 million, was exaggerating by about ten.
Another aircraft which has been in the news is the Hawker P 1154 Vertical Take-off supersonic strike fighter. As your Lordships will know, we had hoped that it would be possible to produce a combined replacement for the Hawker Hunter of the Royal Air Force and for the Sea Vixen of the Royal Navy. Such

245
a solution would offer useful economies, both in production and in operation. This project has run into difficulties because of the different operational requirements of the two Services. I should like to emphasise that these difficulties are technical. They do not derive from any rivalries between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force as some people would have it. We are still examining this project, and in view of the complexity of the subject the examination may take some time to complete. There is thus inevitably some uncertainty about the future of the project, but I should like to make it clear that no decision has been taken, notwithstanding suggestions which have appeared to the contrary. I am afaid that I have taken rather a long time, and, if I may, I will leave the question of manpower to my noble friend the First Lord, who will deal with this in some detail when he winds up the debate.
My Lords, the Opposition have put down this Motion of Censure on the Government's Defence policy. We on this side of the House are, I think, entitled to ask them what their policy would be. What exactly is their policy about the deterrent? Will they continue with Polaris? What commitments do they intend to cut? Is it the official policy of the Labour Party gradually to down-grade our obligations in the Far East and the Middle East? They talk of increases in conventional forces. How would they finance this?—since even if they abandoned our deterrent the amount of money made available is only one-tenth of the total Defence budget. And when they talk of large increases in conventional forces, how would they recruit more men when they themselves are attacking us for shortfalls in the present size of the Army? Would not an increase in the total numbers of the Forces inevitably mean the reintroduction of conscription? All these are questions to which we on this side are entitled to an answer.
I started off my speech by asking how one judged whether a defence policy was effective. I suggest that the answer is that it can be judged by its success or failure. Have we honoured our obligations and commitments? Have we kept the peace? Have we stood by our friends and Allies? In the twelve years
246
of successive Conservative Governments we have succeeded in every one of these objectives, and I do not doubt that when the people of this country are called upon to choose between our policy and the policy of the Opposition, so far as they know it, they will resoundingly declare their confidence in the policy of the Government.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he tell us whether he is satisfied that we have honoured our obligation to NATO and our promise to maintain 55,000 troops in Germany?
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes, I am.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I was expecting an answer from the Leader of the House to the questions put so carefully by my noble friend about recruiting, the size of the Forces in B.A.O.R. and the like.
LORD CARRINGTON: I think perhaps the noble Earl did not hear what I said. I wish no discourtesy to the House, but I did speak for rather a long time, and as there are two Government speakers, and one is my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, we divided the subjects up between us, and I thought it would be convenient if he discussed the matter of manpower.
4.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House has dealt so effectively with the attack made upon the Government that it is really unnecessary for me to intervene at any great length, but I wish to speak, if only to show that my noble friend has the whole of his followers with him. Frankly, I am surprised that the Opposition have selected the Government's Defence policy as the subject of a vote of censure, such as this Amendment is. I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who always speaks so ably and agreeably, could find a more fertile field for his imaginative invective. Having read the speech of Mr. Brown in another place, and having heard last Thursday the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I am the more surprised, because nothing could be more noticeable in those two speeches than the

247
discrepancy between them. I will return to that in a moment.
I should have thought that the Government's Defence policy was sound. I believe it to be sound in the machinery of Defence; that is, in the new comprehensive Ministry which we shall be debating when we get the Bill. I believe it to be sound in its concept and application of policy, both to meet our needs and duties towards our Allies and also to meet emergencies and responsibilities where we have to rely most upon ourselves, in the Middle East and the Far East. For all these needs and responsibilities it seems to me that efficiency and readiness are more important than numbers. This, I think, is true of all the Services: that personnel should be well-equipped, highly-trained and practised to work together. That certainly is true of Europe, where, I am glad to say, the danger seems less than it was. It is equally true of the Middle East and the Far East, where trouble is much more likely. The policy of having combined Forces on the ground in the area, and in these commando brigades (as I think they are called) on aircraft carriers, with the ability to reinforce rapidly by air, which is the policy and practice being carried out by the Government, seems to me not only to be right in theory, but to have been proved in practice to be thoroughly sound policy.
I may add that I think the Government showed foresight—they are accused of never having had foresight—in providing staging posts for reinforcement by air on islands which are under our control. They also showed wisdom in retaining the Gurkhas—and I am glad that the number is not going to be reduced. I am saying nothing new in this, because I advocated it in the Defence debate. I do not think I had to convince the Government, but I am glad to see that they take the same sensible view that I took. The Gurkhas have proved to be admirable in Malaysia.
On the equipment of the Forces, I should like to add a word or two about the two aircraft to which my noble friend the Leader of the House referred. I should like to criticise some of the things Lord Shackleton said; but I would welcome, as an old associate in connection with the air, the generous
248
but very true things which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said about the TSR 2. I only know what I have been able to read about it, but I believe it to be an admirable example of the right kind of equipment for combined operations. Apart altogether from its individual value to the Air Force for what I may call pure air operations—and I believe its range, capacity and versatility to be considerable—I think it has tremendous value for combined operations. Indeed, it would appear to me to fill the essential dual rôle in combined operations and meeting the Army's needs.
The Army has always looked to the R.A.F. to do two things: first of all, reconnaissance, and reconnaissance often a very long way behind the enemy lines; and, secondly, to bomb enemy targets, again often very far beyond the enemy lines and far inside enemy territory. Both those rôles were indispensable in the desert and in Europe. Nobody realises that better than the noble and gallant Field Marshal. May I say to him, as an old Air Minister from the days when co-operation was not as good in combined operations as it is to-day, that no one ever used an Air Force better than he did in the admirable partnership he had with his Air Commander-in-Chief? It was something to delight the heart of a man who many years ago had a rather uphill battle in fighting the cause of co-operation against self-sufficiency. Those rôles were vitally necessary in the last war, and, whatever else may become obsolete and out of date, so long as there are conventional forces at all, so long will those dual rôles be required. It seems to me that the TSR 2 is admirably suited for both.
I agree that there has been a great deal of unfortunate criticism of this aircraft because of the Australian episode. So far as I know, there has been no criticism in Australia of the technical or operational efficiency of the aircraft, and the Leader of the House is probably in a position to confirm that. As I understand it, the only reason why the Australian Government bought this American aircraft, which is not yet proved, was that they had an extraordinarily favourable financial offer. The terms have been published by the Australian Government, and they are what one might almost call fantastically—I was going to say "generous" but it is not necessarily because of

249
generosity; because on cost of production the extent to which you can write off your development and experimental costs depends entirely on the number of aircraft you sell. The Americans, having an enormous home market for this aircraft, were able to offer—I dare say there were other reasons actuating them as well—aircraft to the Australians at an extraordinarily low price. That, I believe, is the only reason why it was bought. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned here, and that is an extension of co-operation between the British aircraft industry and aircraft manufacturers in Europe to get a larger production on lines which are already being developed in at least one instance.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not think the noble Earl has given all the facts. First of all, the American aircraft, which I agree is unproved, had certain operational features, including variable geometry which we should have liked. I understand there was not all that difference between the offers. In both cases, the R. and D. costs were written off, as they usaully are. I do not want to get into an argument as to how far the Government are to blame. I personally think they could have done more, but the trouble was that we did not get our bargaining right, and our final offer was too late. There were certain other technical arguments, but it is all complicated. I think it is a good idea that the noble Earl has pressed it, and although we should not expect the Government to answer it to-day, I think there is an object lesson in this.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, of course the noble Lord may be better informed about the internal workings of the Government than I am, or perhaps we are both equally uninformed. At any rate, I have put what I believe to be the position. I do not know whether the Government could have done more, but certainly it was an extraordinarily liberal offer which was made by the Americans, and it is for the Government to say whether they did not do all that they could. At any rate, I am extremely relieved to have confirmed again to-day what the Minister of Aviation has already said: that there is no question of cancelling the TSR 2. I dare say the First Lord of the Admiralty will be able to give us,
250
so far as he can with propriety, any further progress report upon this subject.
Just one word about the vertical take off aircraft, P 1154. We do not quite know what is happening with regard to that. Like the TSR 2, it appears exactly to meet the needs of the R.A.F. and the Army. It has one enormous advantage: it needs no runways and if it is used on board ship it needs no arrester gear. The fact that it can operate from the smallest strip in a jungle seems to me to make it a most admirable weapon for the Far East and the Middle East. We have been great pioneers in the aircraft industry in vertical take off. I believe that if this aircraft is proceeded with, as I hope it will be, it will be likely to have a very good export market. To cancel it would certainly be a serious blow to British aviation and British aviation development and reputation, and, I think, also a considerable loss to our export trade.
A good deal of play has been made about recruiting. I do not know what the exact figures are, but it may be that in recent months the target has not been reached. When you get a very prosperous country, and employment in most areas very good indeed, recruiting is almost bound to go down. In one sense that is the penalty of the success of the Government's economic policy. Suggestions have been thrown out—I am not quite sure where the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, stood upon this matter in his tentative observations—that we might return to conscription. Certainly we should need to if we were to go for the great increase in conventional forces which the Socialist Opposition was advocating in the last Session of Parliament, supported, I think, by the Liberals—supported by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, who appears to take his views entirely from General de Gaulle, but whether he speaks for the Liberal Party I am not quite sure. Certainly, so far as I could follow it, the essay which Lord Grantchester read to us to-day might have been written in the Quai D'Orsay. For all I know perhaps it was; but I must not penetrate into the arcana of the Liberal Party. But I believe that it would be very wrong; and it would be quite unnecessary to introduce conscription. With the complex weapons and the combined training of

251
to-day, one of the few things we all agree upon is that what we need is a long-service Army with a minimum of six or seven years, in the first instance, with the Colours. It would be quite hopeless to go back to a form of conscription which had a maximum of two years. If we were to have conscription, it would be necessary, to make any use of the men we had called up and trained, to keep them with the Colours for three years or considerably longer.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Earl permit me to interrupt? Without wishing to appear to be advocating conscription, I would ask him if he does not agree that we are, I believe, the only country in Europe that does not depend on national service? The United States has limited national service, and they can produce the men to deal with all these difficult forms of equipment.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I have no doubt that we are the only nation without national service. But again I think that one of the things we ought to know, as this discussion develops, is: is the noble Lord advocating going back to conscription? I am perfectly clear: I am against going back to conscription whatever other countries may do. I do not believe it is possible to train people—certainly not in combined operations—as quickly as all that, and I believe that we must keep the men much longer with the Colours if we are to get the efficiency and the sort of Army that we want for our purposes, with the mobile reserves which can be sent all over the world in any kind of operation. At any rate, that would be my view. In addition to that we should be putting into training units trained men who are greatly needed in their operational units. I believe that the best thing is to have good conditions in the Services (which I believe we have to-day) and to give a very good training for after-Service life.
The most important and the most controversial issue over defence, is, of course, the deterrent; the importance of the deterrent and our having our own deterrent. The fact that we are contributing it to the NATO Alliance while at the same time retaining the decision how and when to use it independently and the right to use it in a grave national
252
emergency, seems to me to make perfectly plain what an independent deterrent is. I am wholeheartedly with the Government in their decision. I am only surprised that the Labour Party have changed their attitude on this. As I see it, all the arguments which led the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and Mr. Bevin, when they were responsible, to decide to make our own atom bomb apply just as much and with equal force to-day. Noble Lords will observe that when they took that decision it was at a time when the Americans had the bomb and the Russians had not, and yet at that time they took, and rightly took, and we supported them, the decision to make it. It is quite impossible, as the Leader of the House said, to divorce the military and the political aspects. The Labour Prime Minister and his Foreign Secretary took their decisions on combined grounds.
On the political side, let me make it perfectly clear that it is not a question of prestige as has been said, it is a question of the power to influence foreign policy. That has been said before but it is just as well to go on saying it because this will be an issue and must be an issue on which we, at any rate, are perfectly clear in what we mean and what we say. Without our own deterrent we should certainly not have a right to intervene in some of the most important issues. If we had not had our own deterrent we should have had no right to be at Moscow. Indeed, why would we have been there? It was only because we were a nuclear Power that we were there; and if we had not been at Moscow I do not know whether we should have ever had the Treaty which has brought such new hope to the world. My Lords, I am also sure that most of our NATO Allies in Europe want us to have this deterrent both for its military value, which is considerable, and for the influence it gives us in foreign affairs, where they look to us and trust us. Do not let us denigrate our own country. Great Britain is still great; great in strength and certainly great in experience, in wisdom and in leadership.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I hope it has not been suggested by such an old friend in joint defence of this country that the Labour Party is to be sort of brought

253
on charge as denigrating their own country. I protest at all this kind of thing which is being raised from time to time by other people, although I am not charging the noble Earl with it. But those of us who were chosen to lead in important posts in a great war not led into by Labour but led into by Conservative Governments and improperly prepared, and who, in the great stress of economic pressure upon us between 1945 and 1951, handed over to the Tories a really powerful defence organisation protest against this constant repetition of denigrating our own country. I will not have it.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I do not know whether the noble Earl will have it or not. We certainly have a great deal of rodomontade from the noble Earl and he really must contain himself and listen when other people on another side of the House speak. I am not in the habit of saying what I am not prepared to justify; and I am coming to what was said by the gentleman who speaks for his Party for defence about our incapacity to do this nuclear business. That is what I call denigrating the country. It is all right if the noble Earl likes to call it something else. The noble Earl is so content because he was First Lord of the Admiralty in the War, and I am very glad he was. But, after all, he did not win the war all by himself. We all took our parts in a modest way in both Wars.
I should like now to develop this just a little bit. At any rate, we are told to abandon the deterrent. I will not bother about heckling the noble Earl as to whether he is going to get rid of the weapons at once or whether he is going to wait. Incidently, if he does not believe in having the deterrent what is the good of keeping the weapons? I should have thought that if he was out on the economy stunt, he must get rid of weapons and make a clean sweep of the whole thing. But does anybody really believe that it is in our interests or in the interests of Europe that France should be the only nuclear Power in Western Europe? Does anybody suppose that if we were to drop this deterrent General de Gaulle and Mao Tse-tung would immediately follow suit? I notice that Mr. Brown has told us that he has addressed General de Gaulle on this sub
254
ject—I do not know whether directly or secondhand—and, like George Robey, the old comedian, has told him to desist. I do not know that that had any very great effect upon General de Gaulle. I have not seen any yet. If noble Lords believe that by our dropping the deterrent the French and the Chinese (who are trying to develop it and will in the long run develop something) will drop it, they will believe anything.
Now let me come in conclusion to the discrepancies between Mr. Brown, the speaker on Defence, I understand, for the Socialist Party, and our old friend Lord Henderson. Mr. Brown said (I summarise) that it is futile for any European country to try to be a nuclear Power; they have not got the money; they have not got the resources; they have not got the scientists. Incidentally, our scientists, at any rate, are second to none in the world. But he said it is futile; they cannot do it; we cannot do it, and the French will find they cannot do it; and no country without the resources of either Russia or the United States can do it. That is one point of view. I do not agree with it. But just contrast that with what Lord Henderson said to us here only last Thursday. One of his arguments in favour of our scrapping the nuclear bomb was to prevent every other country in the world from proliferating and producing it. He said that if we do not scrap it all those countries, or a large number of countries, will start making their own bombs. Both those cannot be right; you cannot ride both those horses in the same race, and the Labour Party had better make up their mind which horse they are going to ride.
This question of the nuclear deterrent has been argued almost entirely on Europe. It is not confined to Europe. Indeed, I am happy to think that the danger in Europe is much less than, or certainly less than, it was. But if the danger in Europe has lessened, the danger in the Far East has increased. If Russia has abandoned the use of force as an essential element in the Communist campaign, China certainly has not abandoned it. Indeed, it is this difference—the Chinese insisting on maintaining that force is an essential element in the Communist armoury in the cold war as well as the hot—that has led to the split between China and Russia.

255
China believes in the use of force and China is doing its best to develop an atomic weapon, and sooner or later it will get one. I do not know whether it will be a very good one, but, at any rate, in the country of the blind the one-eyed man is king. If nobody had an atomic weapon or nuclear weapon against whatever the Chinese have, then the Chinese would be supreme.
We have this weapon as a deterrent. Does anybody suppose that the Chinese are developing, or trying to develop, an atomic bomb simply as a deterrent? It is entirely inconsistent with Chinese theory and indeed with Chinese practice. Malaysia, with which the Labour Party, I am glad to say, support our alliance, Australia, all the independent countries of Eastern Europe, are increasingly under the Chinese menace, and Indonesia, with a vast population, appears to be becoming a Chinese satellite, and a pretty aggressive satellite at that. How can we hope to discharge our duty and our obligation to defend Malaysia and Australia and to play our part in the defence of the other free countries of the Far East if we, in that most vulnerable area, were to deprive ourselves of this most important weapon?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Earl is pursuing his argument very far. Is he really suggesting that Polaris submarines—he will have heard of Polaris submarines, which are the latest version of the Government deterrent—are going to be a factor in dealing with the situation in South East Asia?
THE EARL OF SWINTON: No, I do not. The noble Lord is fond of interrupting. But it seems to me that the TSR 2 might be an extraordinarily effective vehicle to have as a deterrent in South East Asia. It is not quite as easy as all that. The noble Lord will not get away with that kind of cross examination. The youngest tyro at the Bar would do better than that. What I suggest to him, if I may respectfully make a suggestion, is that the Labour Party—it will not be the first time they have thought again; it will not be the first time they have eaten their words in matters of Defence, not at all an unwholesome diet, as Sir Winston Churchill once said—would be very well
256
advised to think again; and meanwhile, while they are thinking again, or even if they do not think again, those who believe in and cling to peace based upon security will support the Defence policy of Her Majesty's Government.
4.57 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, in the gracious Speech of Her Majesty mention was made of the proposed central organisation for Defence. I am certainly one of those who support this proposal in the hope that this integration at the top will have the effect of reducing expenditure in administration, and I hope it will make cheaper the supply of weapons. I would suggest that integration of weapons is likely to be a much more difficult problem. We are already aware of the difficulties over the vertical take-off fighters for the R.A.F. and the Royal Navy. Also we have the example of the new TSR 2 and the Buccaneer of the Navy, both of which are designed, I would say, to carry out somewhat similar functions. The letters TSR 2 mean a tactical strike aircraft. Its strategical performance is something rather new to us.
The cost of the Buccaneer is, I believe, one-tenth of the cost of the TSR 2, but the Air Force maintain that the TSR 2 is the only possible design for them. I fully appreciate the statement already made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about this aircraft, but I hope Her Majesty's Government will be able to enlarge on this matter a little later to-day. The amount of money involved in producing the TSR 2 is very laree indeed. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has mentioned its power of penetration into Russia, but I think it is true to say that it is very limited at subsonic speed at low level, and that is a point we have to remember. I think there is great danger if attempts are made to design what might be called an integrated weapon for the two Services, and perhaps even the three Services. We may get a weapon which is not really suitable for either; that might well happen.
I want to turn to something rather different. A few weeks ago I was able to visit a good deal of the front line of NATO, both in Scandinavia and elsewhere, as a Parliamentary delegate to

257
NATO. I found the front line with Russia in the far North in Norway particularly interesting but none the less, I would say, very disquieting. I do not believe aggression will ever start in Central Europe, but I think it may well start one day in the northern Scandinavian area. At the present time it would be quite possible for the Russians to infiltrate into those many northern fiords with little initial resistance and establish their much needed submarine bases free of ice. It is true that the new mobile air lift force which is now being established by NATO will go a long way to provide supporting strength quickly, but the danger is that aggression in this area could become a fait accompli in a short time, and it would take a major war to turn them out. I suggest that in this area there is one important matter which requires early attention—namely, the stockpiling of heavy equipment, otherwise supporting forces will be of little avail. I understand the reason for this deficiency in stockpiling is not lack of organisation but lack of money, and I hope that Her Majesty's representative on the Council of NATO will look into this matter as soon as possible. The strength of a chain is its weakest link, and the present link in the north of Scandinavia is very weak indeed.
The Minister of Defence not long ago said that the transfer of the nuclear deterrent from the Royal Air Force to the Royal Navy in Polaris would not jeopardise the Navy's chances of getting conventional weapons. This point has been touched on slightly by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, this evening. I must say that I still feel rather sceptical about this, more especially as the TSR 2 will no doubt continue to carry the deterrent when it comes into service, at great additional cost. I should like further assurance on this point, especially as to whether the aircraft carrier programme will be continued. The Party opposite have more or less said that the independent British nuclear deterrent is no more than a visible symbol—that it was neither British nor independent. I entirely disagree with this reasoning. We must, and shall have to, keep control of Polaris and TSR 2 in a great national emergency. To scrap the deterrent would, I am sure, greatly impair the independence of this country in foreign policy; and I entirely support Her
258
Majesty's Government in their determination to keep the deterrent and also subscribe it to our Allies in a NATO nuclear force.
I am not at all clear even now about the policy of the Party opposite. Is their policy to remove nuclear weapons from the front line troops in Germany and perhaps cancel the Polaris agreement? Also, would they tie our existing nuclear forces to NATO without the right to withdraw under any circumstances? I understood from what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was saying, that their policy is really one of wait and see. I may have got that wrong, but that is what I understood. We have heard a great deal about the proposed multilateral fleet of ships. I cannot help feeling that they would be a great waste of money and of little military value. In addition to the initial cost of the ships themselves, they would have to be fully protected at sea by air and submarine cover which would greatly increase the expense involved. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will firmly resist any pressure that may be put upon them to enter the multilateral club.
On the other hand, I am in complete agreement with noble Lords opposite that we should endeavour to develop within NATO a unified strategic planning system. Some of your Lordships may be aware that steps have already been taken in this direction by the establishment of a multilateral committee at the American Strategic Air Force base at Omaha in Nebraska. The Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, maintains that Her Majesty's Government have not made proper provision to meet our national commitments. I entirely disagree with that, especially as regards the Navy, as he and I know. Surely the noble Earl will agree that during the tenure of office of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, vast developments have occurred to bring the Navy up to date as a strong and fine fighting force. This is not a debate on the Navy and I do not propose to enter into detail. I would just mention that we have the new type Commando vessel, the new assault craft, the guided missile destroyers, the nuclear-powered attack submarine and, last but not least, the nuclear-powered Polaris submarine which is now in production. I consider that this Amendment is almost

259
an affront to the Royal Navy, which is now a small but modern, up-to-date fighting force, and well capable of carrying out its commitments, although perhaps stretched to its limits. I shall have no hesitation in voting against this Amendment.
5.5 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we have had a stimulating and certainly entertaining debate. I am glad that this is so, because I believe that Parliament is the place in which we should discuss defence matters, and not on the election platform of either Party. It is quite obvious to anyone who has seen the Services, and has gone to Paris, that when making decisions one has to take into account matters of great security. I will refer later on to the position in South-East Asia. It would be utterly wrong of me to-day to speak in any detail of the deployment of our forces, the number of troops that are available and their equipment. But if we are to discuss defence and the independent nuclear deterrent, we have to look at the whole broad field of defence.
First of all, I wish to ask the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, whether he can give us some further information about a speech which was made at Callander, in Perthshire, by the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister. He said on October 29:
"I think we will be able quite shortly to begin with the physical process of reduction of armaments and use the expenditure for other more peaceful purposes."
In the context of defence as we know it to-day, and in view of the speeches that have been made, in particular, by Mr. Thorneycroft, it is quite obvious that if this country is to maintain its independent nuclear deterrent and provide an adequate conventional force to meet its overseas commitments, there can be no question of reduction in costs. But here is a statement made by the Prime Minister, when fighting an election in Kinross, and I should like the noble Earl to say now whether the Government foresee an early stage when there can be a reduction in arms expenditure. I would remind the noble Earl that in 1956, I think, Mr. Macmillan promised a reduction of £700 million in defence expenditure. That
260
was never possible. Year by year we have seen a continual rise in expenditure, and I believe that Mr. Thorneycroft, who should know, has stated that shortly we should be reaching the £2,000 million a year cost for defence. So I would hope that the noble Earl will give us a reply as to whether this was an election gimmick or whether it is policy. The Prime Minister has said that the country is entitled to know Government policy. He is the spokesman of the Government, and therefore I think we are entitled to an explanation of this particular offer.
Noble Lords opposite have spoken at considerable length about the independent deterrent. This is to become the issue at the next General Election. Every noble Lord opposite, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, made repeated reference to the word "keeping"—"keeping" the deterrent. They said in terms that an independent deterrent weapon, whether it be a warhead or a delivery system, remains modern and credible as the years progress. We ourselves have seen weapons coming in and weapons going out because of the advance of the enemy in finding a counter-measure. We have seen weapons undertaken by Her Majesty's Government—Blue Streak, for example—which were never brought into service because during the time of production and development they became obsolete and ceased to be credible for the defence of this country.
We on this side of the House take great pride in the history and the record of our Government after the war. We certainly decided to go ahead with the atomic bomb, and we were right to do it. But I would remind the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, that we went ahead with the atomic weapon before NATO was created. We went ahead with it before any regional or world-wide defence organisation was set up, and before the United States had clearly committed herself to the defence of Europe. We went ahead with it because we recognised that the atomic weapon would give us greater security for our forces. I would also remind the Government, and noble Lords opposite—and the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, in particular—that when we went ahead and produced the atomic weapon we were providing very much

261
superior conventional forces, Army, Navy and Air Force, than we have today in relation to the dangers that presented themselves to this country.
But times change; weapons change. We are no longer standing in isolation. We are members of a defence organisation in Europe, in the Middle East and in the Far East. The dangers are different; the weapons and the forces that oppose us are different. It is true that in Europe we have been able to preserve peace because of the deterrent power of the West. It is recognised that the deterrent power of the United States is sufficient to destroy Russia two or three times over. Our particular contribution is perhaps some 2 to 3 per cent.—formidable in destructive power, but only a very small percentage in comparison with the overall might of the Western deterrent forces. If the Government say that we need to keep an independent deterrent to protect us in case the United States withdraws from Europe, my answer is that I wonder whether the Government can say whether the force we now have, in which second-strike retaliation would be needed, would be strong enough to provide a nuclear deterrent umbrella for Europe. I do not believe there is any military specialist who could say that that particular deterrent would be credible, in view of the geographical position of this country and the particular weight of the equipment of the Soviet Union.
The Government's main case in recent weeks has been that we need to retain the independent deterrent because it gives us a right to a place at the peace table. They cite the case of the nuclear Test Ban Treaty which was signed in Moscow. There is no evidence to show that we should not have been at that table even if we had given up the nuclear weapon. I believe that the case being made by the Prime Minister is a most dangerous philosophy. If it is said that we need to have the nuclear weapon in order to be at the peace table, surely this is a direct incitement to every country in Europe in some way or other to obtain nuclear weapons. It may well divert countries which should be producing more conventional weapons and providing troops in Europe to put their effort into producing nuclear weapons.
262
I should have thought that it was the policy of noble Lords opposite, as well as of those who sit on this side of the House, to endeavour to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, not only in Europe but in the rest of the world. But the philosophy now being expressed by the Prime Minister, and by noble Lords opposite, seems to be a direct incitement that unless one has nuclear weapons one has no right to be at the peace table when the conference is held.
I would remind the House of the words of the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Butler, who talked in most disparaging terms of our Allies and our friends in the Commonwealth. He posed the question that either one had to possess nuclear weapons or one became a camp follower in world affairs. I would remind your Lordships that a camp follower in olden days was somebody of dubious honour. I do no suggest that that is what Mr. Butler meant, but certainly he meant to imply that any nation which did not have nuclear weapons was a second-class Power. And if we follow that with what the Prime Minister has said, it indicates that because they are second-class they therefore have no right at the peace table.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, with his knowledge, will agree that if we are to look for nuclear disarmament we shall have to take into account conventional disarmament: one cannot disarm nuclear-wise without bringing about a reduction in conventional forces. Therefore it is obvious that Germany, which already has the biggest conventional force in Western Europe, would have to have a seat at the table. This is a dangerous philosophy, and I hope that if the Government are going to make a case for an independent deterrent they will base it on military grounds, and not on what we call the status symbol.
We take the view that, with the change in times and with the change in weapons, we should take another look at our defence. We take the view (and I think the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, also takes this view) that we cannot have adequate conventional forces at the same time as an independent deterrent. I should like to make it clear that it is not enough to rely on the weapons

263
one now possesses if one is going to claim to be an independent deterrent Power; it is necessary to go on and on producing new weapons or purchasing such weapons from overseas. The cost is formidable, and I agree 100 per cent. with the noble and gallant Viscount that, with costs at the level they are to-day, it is not possible to pursue indefinitely the independent deterrent and at the same time have adequate conventional forces.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked us to make quite clear where the Labour Party stand on this question of defence. First of all, we reject the status symbol. We intend to retain the control—and I deliberately use the word "control"—of the V-bombers and the new equipment, Blue Steel, assigned to NATO for targeting and operations. This means that we still retain the control over the use of those aircraft in other areas of the world. In regard to TSR 2 and Polaris, these two pieces of equipment—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will agree—are in an identical position to the P 1154. Both of them are instruments, vehicles, which are being produced and developed. In the case of TSR 2, it is not yet flying. I believe that if all goes well it may be a remarkable aircraft, a tremendous tribute to the aircraft industry, but this aircraft is still in its very early stages. In the case of the Polaris (the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will correct me if I am wrong), we originally set out to buy the A3 Polaris missile. I understand that this particular missile has not the range that we require, and that we are buying another mark.
LORD CARRINGTON: No: we set out to buy A3 and we are buying it. It is being developed and has not yet come into service with the United States Navy; but they are going ahead with it.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am glad to have that correction, because it has been reported in the Press that the A3 failed in its distance and that we were to have A4. But this is still a development weapon.
LORD CARRINGTON: With great respect, although it is perfectly legitimate to argue that the TSR 2 is still under development I do not think it is possible to argue that in the case of
264
Polaris. Although there is development of the missile, the Polaris submarine with its weapons has been in service for a number of years. It is a well-tried and proven weapon system.
LORD SHEPHERD: But this particular Polaris is of longer range, and is, I understand, a considerable departure from the original missiles, which I agree are in service. But both these weapons are still under-developed. The attitude of my Party is this. We reserve the identical rights that Her Majesty's Government now have to review those pieces of equipment when we take office; to decide whether they should be brought into service. I think I can make it quite clear—and I speak with no more authority than any other of my colleagues on this Bench—that if these weapons meet up to the requirements of the Services at that time, if they meet up to what they have been designed to perform, there is no question that we shall not bring these pieces of equipment into service.
LORD CARRINGTON: But the noble Lord said that we could not afford it.
LORD SHEPHERD: I did not say that we could not afford it. I was asked specifically what we should do with these two pieces of equipment. This is what I have said. In regard to cost, it is true that it is a formidable problem. We take the view that while these equipments are in fact being produced, and are in a very advanced state—I suppose the greater amount of the money for development has already been spent—we are not committing ourselves to that further. But what we say is that we cannot see our way, within the budget that will be available for defence, to continuing into the missile field any independent nuclear deterrent.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will agree that we have moved away from land aircraft; we have moved away from missiles on the ground, such as Thor and Blue Streak. We have now reached the stage when missiles have either to be under the ground—which we cannot undertake in this country—or under the sea, which we have now accepted. But it is true, is it not, that the Soviet and the United States are working on the placing of nuclear weapons in outer space?
LORD CARRINGTON: If I understood the noble Lord correctly, I thought he said, in the opening passages of his speech, that he agreed with the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, that we could not afford to have both the nuclear deterrent and conventional forces. If I understand him at all, what he is saying now is that if the Polaris submarine and the TSR 2 work, the Labour Party will continue with them. I do not quite understand how these two arguments add up.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord is not so naïve as not to understand. We have already spent considerable sums of money both on the TSR 2 and on the development of the Polaris submarine. It would be absolute madness, surely, having spent this money, to reject these particular weapons out of hand if they meet up with the requirements.
LORD CARRINGTON: We have not started to build the Polaris submarine. They have only just started.
LORD SHEPHERD: We already have the design work in being, and I understand that the keel of one of the submarines has been laid. No doubt by the time there is a change of Government, there will be a good deal more development in regard to the Polaris submarine. However, I have tried to make our position clear in regard to TSR 2 and Polaris. But we take the view that in the future we cannot maintain the conventional forces which we so urgently require and, at the same time, proceed in the missile race.
My Lords, I should like to say one thing in regard to the Far East; and I think one has to be very careful how figures are deployed. We are facing in the Far East—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has recently been out there—a very serious position. I cannot but feel, after having talked to some of our Service officers, that they are perhaps rather underestimating the power of the Indonesians. It is all very nice to be able to write them off, but they have considerable modern equipment and they would be operating in a terrain which would be more conducive to them than to ourselves. The front in Borneo is about 1,000 miles. I should have thought that the troops we have
266
out there—who I believe represent about half of our strategic reserve—might be quite adequate in the present conditions, but there is considerable talk in the Far East that Sukarno intends to put on the pressure next year. I hope that the Government can indicate their ability to provide further troops for this area, because I believe—and here we talk of the deterrent—that what really counts is what we have out there and not what can be put into the pipeline.
I am sure that if we could present a firm front, with adequate forces to meet any challenge, this would be likely to deter Dr. Sukarno from any particular operation. But it seems to me, when one looks at that very long line of communication, that we come back to the old story in regard to Transport Command, which we have heard many times from all quarters of this House. Our Fleet is very inadequate. It is true that we expect the VC 10 in about a year's time. We look forward to the Belfast. But, my Lords, I wonder whether the Government can give us any indication of how they are likely to be able to sustain a build-up in the Far East, with their Transport Command availability.
Recently I was in Germany, and I saw our forces there. To me the biggest indictment of the Government must lie in B.A.O.R. I certainly agree with my noble friend Lord Shackleton about the tremendous morale of the British officers and soldiers in Germany, who are serving in very difficult circumstances. We are committed to 55,000 men. I believe Mr. Thorneycroft has said that we have in the region of 51,000. My Lords, if we say that what counts is what is in the field at any one time, it is obvious that the strength of the British Army is nowhere near 51,000. It must surely be in the region of 47,000 or 48,000, when you take into account leave and the many courses which our soldiers undertake.
I wonder how many battalions in B.A.O.R. to-day—and perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, could tell us this—consist of two companies. I wonder whether the noble Earl can tell us the state of readiness of our armoured regiments. One particular regiment I visited had 20 per cent. of its armoured vehicles off the road because there were insufficient trained soldiers to man them.

267
The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, was himself recently in Germany seeing his regiment, and I have no doubt he will be able to say what was the position in his own regiment. If it was like any of the other infantry battalions, it was desperately short of men. That is all due to the fact that we have had this considerable run-down in the Army because of the abolition of National Service. I think there is an undoubted case that a Regular Army is efficient, but I believe that the Government were utterly wrong to abolish National Service when they did, because there was no political pressure on them to do so and they abolished National Service before getting anywhere within their mark of a Regular Army sufficient in numbers to meet the conventional requirements.
My Lords, we should like to hear from the noble Earl on the subject of recruitment. The figures for September of this year are quite disastrous. Can the noble Earl say whether this is of a temporary nature, whether it is a result of the rather bad Press which the Army has received during 1963, or whether there is some other basic reason for it? Because—and this is my last point in criticising Her Majesty's Government—what must concern us is not only the recruitment, but how we are going to retain in our Forces those men who have signed on for six years. These men, particularly those in Germany, or most of them, a very large percentage of whom are married, are serving in very difficult circumstances. Certainly the married accommodation for those who are fortunate enough to have it is absolutely first-class, but it is a fact that 5,600 families of B.A.O.R. are without family accommodation. I saw some of the accommodation in which these soldiers were living. It was really appalling. What worries me is that, if the feeling that I found among those soldiers and families in that position—a thoroughly dispirited feeling—were to go through the whole of the Army, we should be in a very grave position in five or six years' time regarding the maintenance of our strength.
We could say a great deal about equipment, but perhaps we can come to that when my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough replies. I
268
would say that to-day B.A.O.R. has no basic shortages—they existed two years ago—but still a great deal of their equipment is obsolete. My noble friend Lord Shackleton spoke about radio. This is a very difficult position for battalions in the field. The tanks are getting old. They are looking forward to receiving the Chieftain. Can the noble Earl say when the Chieftain will become available? As I see it, if we are to meet our commitments, our acknowledged commitments, to NATO, which we have solemly undertaken to do, we need to make a greater conscious effort to provide not only the men and the services for them but the weapons with which they might have to fight.
5.35 p.m.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, on rising to address your Lordships for the first time, I hope I need make no apology for having taken nine years so to do, for I am convinced that time spent in quietly listening to your Lordships' debates is most certainly not wasted. I, too, can claim the distinction, together with the Prime Minister and Mr. Harold Wilson, of being "the fourteenth," but I must confess to a slight embarrassment when I discovered that the last member of my family to address your Lordships' House was my great-great-grandfather—and this was over sixty years ago.
I have always been impressed by the courtesy, tolerance and friendliness that exudes from all corners of your Lordships' House. It is something that is probably unique in the world, and it leaves a lasting impression on all newcomers. Being very conscious this afternoon of my lack of experience in partaking in your Lordships' debates, I take comfort in the knowledge that I shall be received with understanding. My Lords, if I tend to confine my remarks to a level much lower than that of grand strategy and with more emphasis on the Army than on the other two Services, this is because it is here that my personal knowledge is greatest. I will endeavour, as befits one making a maiden speech, to be both brief and non-controversial.
I believe that we are to-day faced with two fundamental problems: one is a shortage of manpower, and the other is delays in the delivery of weapons and

269
equipment. Most of our difficulties stem from these two root causes—and I would suggest that they are not something for which the blame can, or should, be laid at the feet of Her Majesty's Government: they are something that would have happened whatever Government were in power. I wish to concentrate, if I may, on these two points alone.
Now why are we not getting sufficient men? First, I believe that the whole country—and this includes all levels of society—are at the moment out of sympathy with the Services. I have the impression that schoolmasters throughout Britain do very little to encourage their pupils to enter the Armed Forces of the Crown. I was talking the other day to the headmaster of a well-known State school, and I asked him how many of his boys had entered one the Services during the past twelve months. His reply was immediate: "Not one, for science, industry and commerce have so much more to offer them."
Secondly, if one believes the statisticians, we are, as a nation, maturing younger than we used to. We are tending to marry younger than before, and this, in itself, adds to the appalling problem of housing. I know of young men in the North of England and in Scotland who, because they have had their names down on their council's housing list for a year or may be two years, prefer to "stay put" during conditions of considerable unemployment rather than join up and thus lose their place on the housing list. The answer, of course, is more married quarters, and fast. I know this is easy to say and not so easily done, but it brings me to one point on building which I would ask Her Majesty's Government to consider carefully. I myself abhor the present policy of always accepting the lowest tender submitted by contractors. I am convinced that this is a policy which is both short-sighted and uneconomical. It leads to endless delays, frustrations and even thoroughly bad workmanship. Next, I feel strongly, also, that something must be done to improve what I believe is called hostel accommodation, some of which is truly indescribable and in which wives and children of servicemen who are suddenly posted to the
270
ends of the earth frequently find themselves.
My Lords, next I come to the question of pay. While there have been considerable improvements over the past twelve years I still believe that scales are lagging behind. I spoke to the commanding officer of an infantry battalion the night before last. He is a married man with children. He lives in officers' married quarters and is responsible for about 500 men and an enormous amount of highly valuable equipment. He is expected to entertain officially and yet his net annual salary—and I emphasise "net"—is under £2,000 a year—and all this after twenty years' service in his profession. At the other end of the ladder, the pay of the private soldier does not, in my view, compare favourably with that of, say, a postman. I would like to stress that the average man is not impressed by the argument that he is able to obtain a lot of extra benefits in other ways; he is interested in only what he receives over the pay table.
I should like all allowances again to be tax free as they used to be. All ranks receive, I think I am right in saying, three free railway warrants a year for leave. Why, in this day and age, should they not also be allowed an air warrant if they wish it? This would particularly help men who come from homes at the opposite end of the country from where they are stationed. I believe that if something really positive were done now to tackle these problems to win the support of schools, to produce still more homes and improve still further the rates of pay and conditions, then we should begin to see a much more contented and satisfied outlook, particularly from within the Army. Nothing succeeds like success; and men would begin to encourage their friends to come and join them, rather than the reverse which is what is happening at the moment.
I should like for a moment to switch to weapons and equipment. Reference was made in The Times recently to a young infantry officer in Germany who had said that the newest piece of equipment in his unit was the fruit machine in the sergeants' mess. This, of course, should not be taken too literally; but it does, as The Times correspondent said, reflect a basic truth. To say that modern weapons and equipment are on the way is simply

271
not enough. When equipment is not forthcoming, then to be told "Sorry, old boy. Production difficulties," is intolerable. I know there are enormous difficulties. Let us take, for instance, the NATO organisation. Here we have a whole history of failure to subordinate the national interest to the security of the Alliance. The word "interdependence" is, I fear, a myth, for every attempt to achieve joint production of weapons and equipment has come unstuck on the grounds of national economic policies. I believe, for instance, that there are still fourteen different types of small arms ammunition used in the Alliance to-day. This is not the Government's fault; but it illustrates all too clearly the enormous difficulties in getting a truly co-ordinated defence policy.
In conclusion, my Lords, may I return for a moment to the question of manpower? I would, with respect, remind noble Lords opposite that the Government stated clearly six years ago that:
"If voluntary recruiting fails to produce the numbers required the country will have to face the need for some limited form of compulsory service."
I understand—and hope I am correct—that this is still the Government's policy, and it would be interesting to hear how the Opposition would tackle the shortage of manpower problem. As I must be non-controversial, I will resist the temptation of becoming embroiled with noble Lords opposite on the question of the independent nuclear deterrent. If we can succeed in showing the country that a career in the Services is both attractive and really worth while we shall have gone a long way to solve the problem of recruiting. There is much to be done, but I cannot accept that Her Majesty's Government have failed to make provision for this country to meet her commitments.
5.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: My Lords, I would congratulate the noble Lord who has just made his first speech in this House. It is always interesting to me—and I hope to all noble Lords—to hear a soldier speak. When that soldier is a Scot from the tribal areas, then I hope we may hear him again.
I would say that the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition fills me
272
with amazement. He accuses Her Majesty's Government of
"failing to make proper provision to enable this country to meet its national and international commitments, now and in the future."
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, described what he called the abysmal record of the Government on defence. I would suggest that this is an unfair attack. It is necessary to put the record straight; and that I propose to do. I would ask the noble Earl in whose name this Amendment stands to go back in his mind to what happened in 1948 when he was the Minister of Defence and I, as Chief of the Imperial General Staff, was a member of the Chiefs of Staff Committee. On July 29 of that year the Chiefs of Staff sent a minute to the Prime Minister through the then Minister of Defence, and they stated
"that the state of the defence services of Britain to-day gives cause for grave concern."
That is what they said. The minute—and this was rather unusual—was unanimous; it was signed by all three members of the Chiefs of Staff Committee. And, curiously enough, all those three members were in your Lordships' House this afternoon at certain moments.
When that minute reached the Ministry of Defence there was, of course, quite a row. Knowing what the repercussions were likely to be, I then prepared a paper on the general world situation and I circulated that paper in Whitehall. Copies were sent to the Prime Minister, to the Foreign Secretary, and to the Minister of Defence. The only person who acknowledged it was Sir Stafford Cripps. In that paper I proved that our defence services had been allowed to get into a parlous state. That was in July. Nothing was done during August, except to argue the toss in Whitehall. In September, as nothing had been done, I again advanced to the attack. This time the other two Chiefs of Staff, not wanting to be left out of the hunt, chipped in; and we submitted a paper dated September 21, proving that the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force were utterly unfit to carry out the tasks which would be imposed on them in war.
We pointed out that there were certain adverse factors common to all the Services: lack of regular recruits particularly in the Army and Air Force; the adverse effect of the short length of

273
National Service through the National Service Act, 1947; the pay and conditions of servicemen did not provide enough to meet the cost of living at the time and that reacted adversely on morale; and a complete lack of balance and little or no reserves of fighting equipment. In that paper we ended up by saying in no uncertain voice that the state of the Forces gave the "gravest cause for alarm". That is what we say. Twice within a period of two months the Labour Government were informed by the Chiefs of Staff that the state of the Armed Forces, first, "gives cause for grave concern"—that was in July—and, secondly, "gives the gravest cause for alarm"—that was in September. I do not think that anything like that has ever happened to a Conservative Government—not to my knowledge. How, then, can the noble Earl, who was Minister of Defence at the time and therefore directly responsible, attack the defence record of the Government and move this Censure Motion?
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I have done so, and I do not break the rule laid down for the Cabinet by which we were not allowed to bring away Papers. I have not a copy of one of these Papers about which the noble and gallant Field Marshal is talking, not a single one. I am amazed at the noble and gallant Viscount doing that this afternoon, but I am not altogether surprised, because he has done it in his book. As a matter of fact, a force running into hundreds of thousands was built as a reserve force under the Act of 1947. We had all the equipment that the Labour Government could then afford, and the noble and gallant Viscount had huge reserves of all supplies from which to draw.
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: My Lords, I have nothing to add to what I have just said. It is true, as the noble Earl said, that it is published in the book. Nothing that I have said is not contained in that book—a very good book: I wrote it myself. I merely ask: How can the noble Earl move this Amendment against the background of that record? It absolutely beats the band.
Let us pass on to other matters of very great concern to-day—first of all, to NATO defence policy. Your Lordships
274
will understand that not only are discussions which take place in NATO interesting, they are important. I would suggest that the defence planners must look not only at forces, but also at the intention of a potential enemy. It does not require a brilliant strategist to recognise that the threat to-day is not concentrated within the European peninsula. Very few people to-day imagine that the Russians will make an all-out assault on Europe. There are many reasons for this. Not least among them would be the existence of the Western deterrent.
But when we look farther afield, the situation looks more threatening. If any one of us was in the Ministry of Defence to-day, he would do well to be more concerned with the development of operations East of Suez than with a statistical exercise about whether we should maintain 55,000 men on the plains of Northern Germany. In other words, we should be concentrating on those areas of responsibility which lie between South-East Asia and the Persian Gulf. Curiously enough, this appears to be the very area to which the Labour Party pay least attention. I say this because of a speech by Mr. George Brown, whose name has been quoted quite a lot to-day. It is reported in Hansard on March 5. The Labour Party theme has been that we should strengthen our defence forces in Europe at all costs. To do this, they would drain our resources away from the Far East and sacrifice the deterrent. I must say that such a policy makes no military sense whatever, whatever may be its political attractions; and on these I do not presume to judge.
I suggest that the Labour Party have a duty to expose clearly their policy on defence and the reasons which underlie it. And the public have a duty to study and judge that policy, because upon it our future may depend. At the moment—and I deliberately say, "at the moment"—it appears as though the Labour Party intend to withdraw forces and resources from the areas of danger in order to put them in the areas least threatened. I do know something about battles. These are the ways to lose battles, not to win them. Continuing on this theme, I would offer certain conclusions to your Lordships.
The first is that the centre of turbulence in the cold war has shifted to East of Suez: Germany is no longer the

275
danger spot. The second is that to-day we are over-insured in the one area where there is least danger, because of the nuclear strength of the West, which is so deployed that it cannot be knocked out by a surprise attack. We can afford to reduce our Army strength in Germany. We clearly need to deploy more men East of Suez. My third point is this: in so far as Britain is concerned, we cannot keep 55,000 soldiers in Germany, at a cost of £80 million a year, upsetting our balance of payments, and also deploy sufficient strength East of Suez to meet the growing commitments in the East—we cannot do both—without some form of National Service. If we insist on doing both, then some form of National Service will be necessary. Therefore (my fourth point) the Government must either accept a reduction in the British Army of the Rhine or—this is very important—or admit that the concept of an all-regular Army is not appropriate to the needs of the day, because such an Army is not big enough, nor can it be built up sufficiently quickly to the strength required.
My Lords, I said, "some form of National Service". What form of National Service, or whether we have it at all, is entirely a matter for the Government of the day. It used to be said quite frequently that National Service men upset the Regulars in a unit, always saying, "Roll on my get-out day." That is utterly untrue. The two mixed very well indeed, and I believe it would be a great mistake if we denigrated the National Service men. They were absolutely first-class. They provided nearly all the specialists in a unit; they provided practically all the n.c.os., up to corporal, and they provided first-class junior officers. And look how well they fought in Malaya, in Korea and against the Mau Mau! We could not have done without them. The decision as to whether we have National Service in future is a matter for the Government. But in closing I should like to say one thing: that if it is decided to have National Service, it may even result in the Beatles having to get their hair cut.
6.0 p.m.
LORD SUFFIELD: My Lords, I trust that I shall be forgiven if I leave the
276
wider aspects of defence to those better qualified than myself and if I confine my remarks to certain matters concerning the Army. I hope to suggest where some money could be saved and put to more proper use. The system of financial control within the Army is the cause of some dissatisfaction. As your Lordships are aware, money is allotted on an annual basis, whereas if it were allotted on a two or three-yearly basis it could achieve better results. This applies particularly to repairing an old, worn-out building. At present, such a building is the subject of extensive repairs over many years, which ultimately proves more expensive than if sufficient funds had been available in the first place to rebuild it. Furthermore, the balance of unspent money in one year cannot be carried forward and added to the next year's allotment. This, in turn, encourages a rather wasteful approach by commands and districts. Towards the end of the financial year there is a mad rush to spend any balance of funds for fear of having the next year's allotment reduced. I submit that this is defeating the exercise of sound financial control.
In addition, the method by which control is exercised by the Command Secretary's Branch within the Army is somewhat inflexible and tends to stifle the initiative of commanding officers wishing to improve the efficiency or living conditions of their units. A commanding officer is considered responsible enough to control the lives of 700 men, but where public money is involved he appears to be considered rather irresponsible. I will not weary your Lordships with details of the paper work, returns, authorities, and applications through the normal channels which can at times be anything but normal, except to say that they impose a heavy administrative burden on commanding officers and, which is more, require staff to deal with them. I believe that certain progressive civilian firms have discovered that to employ a large staff for the sole purpose of checking up on other employees is both unproductive and uneconomic; and I feel that a smaller Army, designed to be mobile and highly trained, could benefit from the same treatment.

277
I come now to the subject of equipment, and I would mention first transport, in which there has been a tremendous improvement in recent years and a move towards simplicity and ruggedness, with fewer manufacturers involved. This is what the Army wants. It is also less expensive. One classic example of over-design in the past was the Champ, which is now being replaced by the Land Rover. In this vehicle they tried to put everything, including a snorkel tube to allow it to drive under water; I think the driver was intended to hold his breath. The Americans have succeeded in keeping basically the same design of transport as used in the last war; and the Russians, I believe, endeavour to design military vehicles with a civilian counterpart. I do not know how closely we consult civilian manufacturers with this aim in view. The Land Rover, of course, is already in this category. This would seem to have the advantages of a saving in cost and time of production, and also provides a civilian second-hand market for ex-Army vehicles.
In the design and production of new vehicles and equipment there is a stage known as "user trials", when the equipment is sent to various parts of the world to be tried out by units. This is, of course, necessary, but it is also a lengthy and costly process. Some faults become immediately apparent when the equipment is placed in the hands of unskilled users. Would it not be possible to short-circuit some part of these trials by allowing soldiers to test them in England at the research stations as a preliminary stage.
My Lords, I have suggested some means of saving. May I now be permitted to say where more expenditure is urgently needed? There is a need to provide more ammunition for training soldiers in the more specialised weapons, because without it those weapons lose their value. I will mention only two unsophisticated infan try anti-tank weapons which have been in existence for over eight years. One is the Energa grenade, which is fired from a rifle, and the other is the 3·5 rocket launcher. Both of these are platoon weapons. Everyone in the platoon should be able to fire these weapons with reasonable accuracy in case those chosen to do so become casualties. But, in fact, there is insuffi
278
cient training ammunition to allow this to happen, and some men have never fired the rocket launcher. There is also a great shortage of blank ammunition for automatic weapons, and other forms known as pyrotechnics—illuminated flares, et cetera. These are essential to provide realism on training exercises. Without realism in training we shall lose interest, and without interest we shall lose soldiers; and that is something we can never afford.
6.9 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, I should like to start by offering my sincere compliments to the noble Lord, Lord Suffield, who has just made such an excellent maiden speech. As I listened to him, I felt that in many ways it was a model of what a maiden speech should be: for it was brief, clear, and very much to the point, perhaps reflecting those qualities of discipline and efficiency we associate with the fine Regiment of Guards to which he has belonged. I hope that we shall have the privilege of hearing him often again.
I should like to add to that a thought that will have been in the minds of many of your Lordships, which is that it is good in our debates to hear the words of wisdom which come from men who have occupied, are occupying, or hope to occupy, great positions of authority in the country, controlling the policy of the country on defence. It is excellent to hear the words of experience from great commanders who have led our troops in battle, and perhaps there is even some use in hearing the views of somewhat lesser lights in the military hierarchy. But the texture of our debate will be incomplete if we do not have also the views of young men who have been recently in contact with the thing on the ground, with the units and with the men; and our debate, I am sure, on this occasion is much the richer for the two maiden speeches that we have heard.
I am going to speak on only two points. The first is to pick up and heartily and warmly support something that was said by the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Montgomery of Alamein—I am not referring to the first part of his speech, but to words which came nearer the end, when he spoke about National Service. I have always held that the discontinuance of National

279
Service was a mistake, if not the greatest mistake that we have made in defence matters since the war. In that connection I was interested, and a little surprised, by a remark made this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. Of course, as one gets older one's memory plays one tricks, but it was my impression that at the time when the Conservative Party did away with National Service the Opposition were showing every sign that they would have been prepared to do the same thing if they had been in power. But I may be wrong about that. Anyway, I believe that it was a mistake, and an unnecessary mistake, to end National Service.
It was done for two reasons, to the best of my belief. The first was that it was held to be unpopular and politically untenable. During the years when I was, for example, going round talking to British railwaymen I was constantly impressed by the way in which one of the first things they wanted to talk to me about was the time they had spent in the Forces. I am not referring only to men who had served in the wars, but also to men who had done their National Service. No doubt when they were serving they joined the ranks of those who shouted "Roll on demob!", or whatever is was, and did their bit of moaning. But the fact is that when it was finished, those who had served in good units—which was the majority—knew that they had enjoyed it and that they were the better for it. They are proud and glad to talk about it to-day. I do not believe that National Service was anything like so unpopular as it was held to be, or anything like so hot a potato as it was feared to be.
I also think that there is little doubt that it is extremely good for the youth of the nation. Many of us are concerned about the youth of the nation. I see quite a bit of it in the boys' clubs, and as a matter of fact I do not find much wrong with it. But there is certainly truth in what was said by his Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh last week to the London Federation of Boys' Clubs: that there is a great danger of boredom among the young. National Service offers to the young man a challenge, a chance of a change and adventure which is excellent for him and which I believe he welcomes. I am I hope
280
sensible enough to know that there is no chance at all that either political Party will propose the readoption of National Service at this juncture. My saying that to-day it is not such a "hot potato" is not going to encourage them to burn their mouths with it. But maybe it is a good thing to say it; and, perhaps, when the dust of the hustings has settled, your Lordships and others in Government will think back on the wise words spoken on this subject this afternoon by the noble and gallant Field Marshal, words which I very warmly support.
The only other thing I wish to say is something which I fear may not make me any more popular than I am with either Party; but I feel constrained to say it. We have been told by the members of the Conservative Party that it is intended to make the independent deterrent an issue at the General Election; and we have been told by spokesmen for the Labour Party that they welcome that this should be an issue at the General Election. I am going, with deference, to plead that these decisions, if that is what they are, should be reconsidered or, shall I say, toned down. I urge that this is not a suitable issue to put to the people, for the reason that it is a very complicated issue. All kinds of factors come into it: highly scientific and technical factors, questions of military strategy, political factors, financial factors, and many others. If it is put to the electorate, what are they going to make of it? It will certainly be put to them, as it must be, in greatly over-simplified form.
I do not mind confessing that I myself, who am not entirely ignorant of these matters, and have indeed studied them carefully and thought about it a lot, do not really know my own mind about it. I am not ashamed of that, because part of the information which I should need in order to reach a wise decision is not available to me; it is secret and confidential information. I do not know what the electorate will make of this question if it is put to them. Would it not be better that whatever Government are in power after the Election is over should decide this matter—it is part of their responsibility to do so—carrying the Opposition along with them, if possible? For, my Lords, I feel that it is a question which is not suitable, if I may put it rather

281
bluntly, as a political football. I hope that my remarks have not caused too much offence. After all, I suppose that Cross-Benchers serve the House if occasionally, with all deference, they put their points of view, even if those views are not acceptable to either side.
6.18 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I listened with great sympathy and interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, has just said. I think that we on this side of the House would probably agree in the hope that the Government will not insist on making the issue of the independent deterrent too much of an Election football. If they do, of course we shall do our best to kick it back. But the danger in such a situation is that either Party may be forced, in the heat of the battle, to take up positions which are binding upon it, and which will later turn out not to have been in the interests of the country as a whole. I listened with less sympathy to the noble Lord's remarks about conscription. There are arguments for and against, but I do not think that the boredom of young people is a valid argument for conscription. We should not increase the size of the Army, and we should not incur very large bills for the taxpayer, simply to keep young men amused. It is more serious than that.
I should like to take up one further point raised in debate by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, about the Chinese programme for their independent nuclear weapons. He said that the Chinese are an extremely fierce, blood-thirsty people who want war, unlike the Russians, and that they are not developing their atom bomb as a deterrent but as a weapon of aggression for use in South-East Asia. I think that the noble Earl, and I fear that many other Members of your Lordships' House, may have been misled by Russian propaganda. The Chinese are pouring out copious statements at the moment directly challenging the Russians and saying, "We are no more in favour of war than you are. We are just as much against it". In point of fact, if you read Mao Tse-tung's statements carefully you will see that he is most insistent on the right of Communist Powers to conduct wars of colonial
282
liberation, as they call them, but he nowhere insists on the merits of a direct military confrontation between Communism and the heartland of capitalism, by which I mean Western Europe and the United States.
Will the Chinese A-bomb be a deterrent? Well, the American fleet has been steaming up and down the Straits of Formosa for twelve years now with nuclear weapons. American artillery capable of firing nuclear shells has been for seven or eight years on the islands of Quemoy and Matsu, two miles from China. If a country in that position seeks to get its own nuclear weapons, is this deterrence or is it aggression? I think the question is a simple one.
I should like to turn to general questions of Alliance policy in NATO because, as has often been remarked in this debate, defence and foreign policy are now the same thing and are interconnected, so I make no further excuse for speaking as much about foreign affairs as about defence. The past year in NATO has been a year of the utmost confusion, and I think that any rational discussion of defence policies, even at Election time, will do well to concentrate a little more on the record of the Government in handling NATO affairs over the past year.
Let us look at what one might call some milestones of chaos during the last year. It started with the meeting between Mr. Macmillan and General de Gaulle at Rambouillet. So far as we have been able to find out, and so far as the public knows, they discussed what was to be done about their independent national nuclear programmes. Should they both go ahead? Should they join their programmes together? Was some sort of NATO force possible? An impression has arisen in Europe that General de Gaulle thought that Mr. Macmillan had told him what he would do, and that this would be to enter into some form of co-operation on the nuclear weapons programmes of the two countries. The second milestone: the Nassau meeting. And the former Prime Minister goes and talks alone to the President of the United States without taking de Gaulle with him, and agrees, as we all remember, on the Nassau Statement with its various elements. No concrete plans came out of that meeting for a NATO

283
force, for co-ordination of the production of nuclear weapons among the NATO nations. Nothing was arranged to make room for France, to take care of the French effort in a NATO framework. All that appears to have happened is one more episode in this insensate forging ahead of a national "this" and a national "that".
Mr. Macmillan came out of it clutching high his bought rocket which was to continue the British national independent deterrent, with the immediate result, within a few weeks, of the third milestone of disarray where General de Gaulle brutally, and apparently without cause, excludes Britain from the Common Market. Or was it really without cause? I think by now that the economic situation has clarified and the political situation has had time to be talked about since that Press conference of General de Gaulle of January 29. It is clear that what went wrong was something in the defence field; and that something was the discrepancy betwen what the British Government appeared to have agreed at Rambouillet and what it manifestly did agree and arrange at Nassau a few weeks later. On these points one can only await a Government statement, but the record looks bad.
What sort of co-ordination and coherence is there really in NATO in the fields where the British Government could do something? Let us take, for instance, the question of the procurement of weapons. We have two glaring examples in the past year. First of all, three nations, including this, built a tank which was to be the NATO tank. Total chaos ensued. It appears that there is going to be no NATO tank; if there is, it is certainly not going to be ours. Why was this? Was it because the British tank was less good than the French or German? Probably not. It was probably because the crass error was made of permitting three separate nations to build national tanks. Of course, once you have production tooled up enough even to build a prototype, and you have national prestige engaged, everybody is going to stick to his own. What ought to have been done was to have an international competition for the design of the tank; the winning design should have been chosen on paper, and the tanks should then have been produced in all
284
three countries, or more, one part in each country, and it could have been screwed together in the centre.
Take the history of the TSR 2, which has so often been mentioned in debate this afternoon. The Australians did not buy it, and did buy the corresponding American plane the TFX, very regrettably. Was it because the TFX was better? Probably not. It may have been because they obtained better credit, as has been mentioned. But the crass error in this case was to permit the competitive development of two similar planes in the United States and in this country. Why was it done? Why cannot this Government take the lead with the relevant other Governments in simply not permitting this; in simply insisting on the competition being at the paper stage, and on no competitive production being entered into at all? What sort of an Alliance have we if such a simple question as that—because it is simple in terms of economics and industry—cannot be arranged between the member Governments? There is any amount of concrete political and military danger arising now because of balance-of-payments difficulties within NATO. Is it really necessary for the level of American troops in Europe and for the locality of American supply lines leading into Germany to be dependent on whose currency happens to be strongest here and whose happens to be weak? Can we judge Governments competent, which includes our own, who are incapable of the economic foresight required to make military and political decisions on military and political grounds without becoming the slaves of the movements of different currencies against each other? The techniques exist to control currencies.
How much consultation is there within NATO on disarmament and arms control policy? Did the British Government, the Government of the only West European country in the Moscow Test Ban talks—a position of which the Government is intensely proud, however we got there—take the initiative in informing our West European Allies of what was going on? How is it that one hears complaints in Germany at the moment levelled specifically against Britain for not having told them what the negotiations were doing; for not warning them what the content of the Treaty would

285
be; and for giving rise to an unpleasant little diplomatic and political flurry after the signature, when it appeared for a moment that West Germany might even refuse to sign? Could that not have been avoided by ordinary political foresight and competence on the part of the British Government?
What lead, for instance, is the British Government taking as a European nuclear Power in helping to work out a common NATO doctrine for the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons on the Continent of Europe? We read in the Press of many nations about the recent exercises of the French army in the Jura, where they were using hypothetical tactical nuclear weapons of the type they are going to develop, a national French tactical nuclear weapon. The military experts and correspondents of the world were horrified at the lavish use made of these; they were thrown around as though they were twopenny squibs. More experienced nations (which includes ours) know better. But what is the doctrine about the use of tactical nuclear weapons by the French Army in Germany, where they already have them'? They are American-controlled, but they possess small nuclear weapons in Germany now.
Is there a NATO doctrine? If we are right in thinking they are not using them sensibly, have we helped to try to get the French to use these things sensibly? One would very much doubt it; otherwise, they would not have carried out that exercise at home as they did. The Government are planning, they say, to fight the Election, so far as the defence field is concerned, on the question of British national control of the strategic nuclear weapon. But their record in looking after the Alliance—on which our safety depends, not only in times of supreme national crisis, which seldom arise, but every day—their record in the day-to-day business of the Alliance, seems to me deplorable over the last year, if not longer back.
I want to turn for a moment to something that is not a Party matter. I am tempted to say that this is something that happened so recently that the Government have not yet had time to react wrongly. Let us hope that everybody reacts rightly throughout
286
Europe. I refer to Mr. McNamara's speech to the Economic Club of New York yesterday. This speech changes the nature of the world as we understand it. It is a great landmark in the development of political and strategic affairs in this decade. Mr. McNamara said that the Soviet conventional superiority on the ground in Europe no longer exists. He said that NATO is superior in conventional forces on the ground in Europe. He said that NATO is stronger on the central front, compared with the forces directly facing it there, and that NATO is stronger in Germany compared with the Eastern forces facing it in East Germany. He said that NATO had a superior capacity in tactical air strike. In other words, he ran through all the possible fields in which we had thought we were inferior. He said that we were wrong and that we were superior.
My Lords, that is the third gap to disappear. Originally there was supposed to be a bomber gap. The Americans thought the Russians were building a large number of strategic bombers, and so they raced to outbuild them and ended up with a superiority. Then there was the missile gap, where the very same thing happened: again the Americans ended up with great superiority. Ever since 1945 we have been living with the conventional gap, but at some time in recent years or months—we do not yet know when and perhaps we never shall; and it does not matter—the conventional gap, too, has gone by the board. All the gaps are now the other way round, in favour of the West. We are stronger in the nuclear field and in the conventional field. We are, therefore, stronger than them.
Ever since the war the voices of tradition and caution in the West have been saying that we must negotiate from strength. They have said that the cold war is a temporary inconvenience; that we must get ahead of the Russians, and that when we have done that we can negotiate the end of it. Now we have done so, and the existence of the present degree of political détente, coupled with the new discovery or the new fact that we are stronger than them all across the board in military terms, gives perhaps a greater hope than ever before of a meaningful settlement of the two great

287
questions of Berlin and Germany and disarmament.
Particularly it changes the situation with regard to disarmament, since the Soviet disarmament plans have always said, "Let us first get rid of the nuclear weapons either entirely or very nearly all," and the West has always said, "We cannot do that, and the fact that you propose it shows you are insincere because you are conventionally superior to us. You have the soldiers on the ground who would be able to over-run us if we creamed the nuclear weapon off the top". That is no longer the case. If nuclear weapons were to be abolished first we should be superior without them, just as we are now with them. A very great obstacle to a disarmament settlement has now been removed, and I hope that even the present Government, in the few months of life which probably remain to them, will seize the new situation with both hands and will drive forward, together with the Americans and those of Continental Europe who know less about such things than we do, and try to get a real settlement at last.
6.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I must first apologise to the House that I may not be able to remain until the end of the debate; but I am due to meet a foreign delegation. I also regret that at a time when major defence issues are being discussed my speech should deal with relatively small administrative matters. Before coming to these, however, I should like to make one point on the issue of the new aircraft for the Navy. If the situation is as reported in one of our daily newspapers, I am sure that there are very cogent reasons why none of the British planes meet the Navy's requirements. However, I believe that the problem must be approached from a rather different angle. No country can ever afford to spend all the money that its armed forces would like in order to achieve the highest degree of efficiency. I suggest that the Navy should reexamine its tactical doctrines and see how British planes could be used and what degree of lessened efficiency would result. Could the answer possibly be that aircraft carriers are now so vulnerable that at the very best they are only just a viable weapon?
288
Turning to administrative matters, I recently visited the Far East forces, on the invitation of the Air Force. What struck me most on the administrative side was the danger of increasing staff commitments, both in implementing the Unified Staff policy and in the amalgamation of the Army, Navy and Air Force works services under the control of the Ministry of Works. I entirely agree with the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, that a Unified Command and Joint Headquarters are, or should be, inevitable; but this must be done with common sense. Taking the opposite extremes, we can, on the one hand, set up a headquarters with the three Services fully represented at every level. Unless such a headquarters can take over many of the day-to-day functions of the present Service headquarters, there will be a gross waste of manpower and decision-making will be slowed down. At the opposite extreme is a Headquarters in which staff officers are supposed to have an equal knowledge of the problems and characteristics of all three Services. This is manifestly impossible, at any rate at the lower levels. The correct solution, I am sure, lies somewhere between the two extremes; and we must find it by experiment.
If there is to be a joint enterprise, people must get to know each other personally and to understand each other's problems. All staff officers of the Joint Headquarters should therefore share the same messes, and the married quarters should be in the same area. I do not suggest that this principle should apply universally, but it ought to be extended to all cases where officers of any two of the Services are engaged on similar work. I understand—it may be wrongly—that when the new Joint Headquarters was set un in Germany, at Munchen Gladbach, in 1954, the idea of joint messes and interchangeable married quarters was firmly turned down by one of the Service chiefs because he wished to preserve the traditions of his own Service. If there are such traditions in the Services, they and the officers who support them ought to be changed.
There is a further problem which must be faced; and it is not peculiar to the Services, or even to Ministries, but is

289
endemic in all large organisations. We must find a way of preventing unnecessary increase in the size of staffs. I am particularly concerned with what will happen now that the Army, Navy and the Air Force Works Services are under the Ministry of Works. In theory, the grouping together of a number of units under a centralised control ought to produce economies and improved efficiency if they can share some administrative functions. This does not happen because the superior Headquarters nearly always expands and duplicates the functions of the Headquarters under its command.
In the case of the Works Services, I believe that the Ministry of Works should only co-ordinate the activities of the three Services' works organisations and that the size of the Headquarters should be no more than is absolutely necessary to do this. Unless active measures are taken now to prevent this happening, I am quite certain that this type of Headquarters will go on increasing and will follow Dr. Parkinson's Law in a big way. Nothing remains static, and there are bound to be encroachments on the policy I have advocated, even if it is agreed.
I should like to consider this problem in its broadest aspect. It applies to headquarters, be they Ministry, Service or those of any other non-profit-making undertaking. In the past there have been two methods of approach. First there may be an attempt to preserve the status quo by making it difficult to increase the establishment without an adequate justification. This method works to some degree, but many increases can be justified when they are considered in isolation, and no headquarters ever has all the staff it could use if perfection and not cost were to be the criterion. Secondly, a team may be sent to visit the headquarters and to make recommendations for reducing its size. This is, of coarse, an attempt to shut the stable door after the horse has escaped. It produces marginal savings, but never gets to the root of the problem because of the high-level vested interests which are always there.
My Lords, I believe that we should try to develop an entirely new technique for tackling this problem. First, the essen
290
tial functions of the Headquarters ought to be defined; then its needs of staff could be determined quite independently of the actual organisation to be used. This would, in effect, be a scientific assessment and could be based on data which could be accumulated from a large number of different types of organisation. For example, I believe that the Navy is to-day far more economical in staff than the Army. This is possibly explained because career prospects in the Navy do not depend on staff appointments. From a purely scientific point of view it might also be possible to make a first analysis on an even more theoretical basis, by considering the Headquarters as a logic unit with scientific inputs and outputs and a memory function, each requiring a certain number of staff of varying grades in order to fulfil the function. Once the size and gradings, or possibly the total cost of the staff required, had been fixed by such methods, considerable latitude could be allowed in deciding on the actual organisation and structure of the Headquarters: in other words, it could be fitted to whatever service was concerned or to the needs of the particular Ministry. Any failure to operate with an agreed minimum of staff would automatically provide an investigating committee with the authority necessary to carry out its task.
I think it is quite clear that overlarge staffs are caused not because the staffs are not fully employed but because much of the work they are doing is unnecessary in terms of the proper functions of a Headquarters. In this context, I think we should also consider whether the present degree of financial control on minor matters in the Services is justified. The control to-day is far greater than in most of the Ministry establishments and has led to quite large increases in the number of Service personnel required at the various administrative levels. The necessity to answer a large number of small queries produced by the financiers has led, in fact, to a large increase in the staffs. I understand that whenever the size of the financial staffs is questioned, figures of the savings they have produced are used in justification. Such calculations are unrealistic and do not take into account the debit side of the balance sheet. Never, for example, are

291
included the instances where procrastination and petty economies have led to paying a far greater price for the finished result than would otherwise have been necessary. This is a far more common thing than we are often prepared to admit.
6.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, as one who has been concerned for so many years with Army debates in this House, may I add my most hearty congratulations to the two noble friends of mine who have made their maiden speeches but are no longer in the Chamber? As we are talking about spokesmen for the Army, I do not think I can go on without saying how sad we are on these Benches, like noble Lords opposite, that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, is no longer among us.
This debate to-day has really set out to serve two purposes. The first purpose has been the general discussion on defence affairs which always forms part of the debate on the Address. The second has been a discussion on the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, censuring the Government for their alleged shortcomings. At this time of night I am not going to say much about the first part of the debate. The contribution from the Liberal Benches fell into that category, and so did the contribution by my two noble friends who made their maiden speeches and my noble friend Lord Hanworth who has just sat down. The only point I think I should like to stress is one which was made by two or three of them—namely, the outmoded control of expenditure by the Treasury in regard to the Forces. Soon we shall be debating the Bill for establishing the Secretary of State for Defence. This has already been introduced in another place, and I for one certainly greatly hope that that new set-up will herald the dawn of a new and more sensible day in the financial control of Service affairs. Let me leave it at that, and let me come now to the Amendment.
I think I shall be right in saying that the arguments put forward by noble Lords opposite centred on two things: the state of the Rhine Army and its manpower and equipment, and those prob
292
lems connected with what has been called the independent nuclear deterrent. If I could take the Rhine Army problem first, I fancy that a good many of the Opposition criticisms of shortage of equipment, and so forth, are in practice cancelled out by their demand that expenditure should be kept within bounds. Of course, the problem of keeping equipment up to date, whether nuclear or otherwise, is a continuing one. At no time can one afford not to make one's annual contribution to design, research and production. At any time there is always something on the drawing-board, something undergoing experiment, which the troops, the sailors or the airmen are anxious to have. We talk about those things and tend not to talk about so much of what they have already got—if only for the reason that once a piece of equipment is in use and in production it has already become obsolescent. So that I do not feel very much convinced by that set of arguments.
I should like to say a word about National Service, which is a point that has been raised by several noble Lords. Here I find myself in a difficulty because two noble Lords whose opinions I much respect have spoken one way, and one noble friend, whose opinions I equally respect, has spoken the other. I must range myself in support of the views of my noble and gallant friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein, and my noble friend Lord Robertson of Oakridae. I think that the position in which the Government find themselves has not altered since the statement made by them in the 1957 White Paper. My noble friend Lord Napier and Ettrick mentioned it just now, and reminded us that the Government were committed to facing the need for some limited form of compulsory service to bridge the gap if recruiting fell down. So while I do not think that at this moment we have come to the end of our tether over voluntary service, and while I do not think it would be very much good going back to the reasons why compulsory service was discarded (I could do it at some length, but I am watching the clock), none the less I believe that it is right to remind noble Lords that that sentence in the 1957 White Paper still stands, and that no one in or out of Parliament must flinch from making those words good if it becomes really necessary. That is all I have to say at present about National Service.

293
I now come to this tangled problem of the independent nuclear deterrent. I only wish that I could agree with the noble Lord, Lord Roberston of Oak-ridge, that we could avoid discussing this at Election time; I wish I could think that it was possible. But I do not think we can avoid it because at the moment, as I see it, for better or worse, the question of an independent nuclear deterrent is one of the major differences in policy between the two Parties—or, if it is not, it is being made to appear so. Therefore, it would be unrealistic not to discuss it at Election time, even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, said, anybody who discusses these problems on the hustings has one hand tied behind his back because of the demands of security, which everybody irrespective of Party ought to be bound to respect.
I have been listening very carefully not so much to what has been said about the shortcomings of the Government, but to what has been said about the alternative proposals which noble Lords opposite would have us believe they would have adopted had they had the responsibility and the task of being in the Government's shoes at that time. I myself believe (apart from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, which I shall come to in a moment) that we are led into the greatest confusion—I know other people do not always agree with me on this—by carrying on in this day and age drawing a distinction between nuclear and conventional forces. Every year the application of nuclear power becomes more flexible, and, whereas in the early days nuclear power could be employed on only what one might call strategic means, it is now getting more and more mixed up with the ordinary operations on the battlefield, with the Army battle, the corps battle, and various things of that sort. Therefore, any attempt to draw an imaginary line between nuclear and conventional warfare and therefore between nuclear and conventional equipment, is leading those who take that view up the garden path.
In fact, as I see it, so long as we attempt to be a Power unlike Iceland and possess armed forces which we wish to play their part in any contingency which may await us, we have to go on constantly experimenting, designing and
294
producing in order to keep our Armed Forces properly equipped and in the front line. We should do that as a continuing thing, quite irrespective of whether at certain moments we borrow or buy a piece of equipment from the Americans or anybody else, in order to make it possible for us to fulfil our national and NATO commitments in whatever may be the best way.
The two things seem to me to be completely different, and the fact that it is wiser on certain occasions to buy equipment from the Americans—and I have not heard that contested from the opposite side—is no argument whatever in regard to whether or not we should keep our nuclear production and nuclear experiments going quite irrespective of what the French or anybody else do. If the argument the other way was taken literally, then does any noble Lord think we should be ready to close down our experimental work and sack all our scientists, bearing in mind that every experiment in a war material sooner or later produces its boons and benefits for the civil world? So if anybody wants to take that view—and there have been expressions of view fairly near it on the other side—then I will not agree with them.
I should now like to come to the very interesting speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. Even if he is not here, perhaps I could say one word about it. It struck me that he felt very much that affairs in NATO might have gone very much better, and there I would not disagree with him. But I would disagree with him if he thinks that because in NATO things have not always gone right, therefore it was always the British Government's fault; that, whether it was the British Government's fault or not, we should therefore apparently abandon any advantage in weapons of war which we may have at this or that particular time; and that because there were reasons, of which we were not in control, why General de Gaulle and the French should not become a nuclear Power, we should cease to become a nuclear power at that point. Would that really have made any contribution to the problem of nuclear disarmament, comparable to the contribution made by the part which the former Prime Minister played in the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty?
My Lords, one could go on for a long

295
time, but the hour is late and other noble Lords have to speak. I have attempted for a few minutes to try to see exactly what alternative course will be proposed by noble Lords opposite if they dislike the Government's performance, which they are perfectly entitled to do. But as I have not been successful, I shall have to join noble friends in front of me in voting against the Amendment.
7.1 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we have had a considerable debate this afternoon. I should like to open by supporting the welcome my side has already given to the appearance of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in his new position, placed in charge of the reply to this censure Motion on the state of the Armed Forces. I well remember his very notable father giving me a welcome in a naval dining club in 1929, and the things he then said to me which had to be done. I note with extraordinary interest what a tremendous change has taken place in the strategic situation in the world at large since then, and, wherever he is tonight, looking down upon his son, I wonder what he is hoping his son will say, because there is a very different situation.
Then I should like to thank very much the noble Viscount who has just sat down and who always speaks so quietly and with such good sense, even when we do not agree with him, for the great tribute he paid to our late colleague on this side, Lord Nathan. We do not usually join in special tributes of this kind until we come to the local subject matter in which the noble Lords were most interested. But I should like to support the noble Viscount, and to say how gravely we miss Lord Nathan to-day in all the matters, especially those appertaining to the Army and the Territorial Army, with which he was so deeply concerned.
My Lords, we have had an extraordinarily interesting presentation of our case in support of this Motion by my noble friend Lord Shackleton. I have not yet heard from any quarter any adequate answer to the speech he made with such good sense, with reasonably good humour, and with a logic which has apparently failed to impress the Conservative minds opposite up to the present time. Certainly, the questions with which
296
he dealt are matters which will brook no abstention, in view of the Prime Minister's announcement that he intends to make Defence, and especially the independent nuclear weapon, a matter of politics for the Election. I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, make a general appeal—which I take it he intended to apply to both sides of the House—that if at all possible we should not engage in political and electoral discussions of the kind that come up at Election times on a matter such as this. But, of course, we have not been the initiators of this intention at the next Election—the initiator is the Prime Minister—any more than we have been the initiators of any attempt to deal in the Election with the question of the reintroduction of conscription. Both of those suggestions have come from the Conservative side of the political forces in the country, who are now asked by the Prime Minister to put the Election first and foremost in everything they think about or do to-day. We have to face the matter, therefore, in that sense.
However, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that he made a reasonable speech this afternoon. We did not expect anything else from him. But so far we have had no real answers to half the matters which were put to the House by my noble friend who introduced this Motion to-day. I am eagerly looking forward to hearing from the noble Earl who is to reply the answers to the questions that were put. So I shall not go all over those matters again, especially the questions which were put about equipment, about the strength of the Regular forces, about what chance there is of being able to maintain the strength of the present voluntary Regular forces, and about the actual average strength that we can rely upon in the various theatres in which we have to keep troops at the present time.
I note with interest the apparently overwhelming support that the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, gives to the ideas which have been raised again by General Eisenhower in the last day or two, about whether or not it is necessary at the present time to keep occupational forces in West Germany. Apparently the people in the Allied countries who are in charge of foreign affairs—those who

297
have official knowledge of the present situation—and who are bound together in the NATO agreement, have brought forward no such suggestion themselves. We have also had the recent warnings from the Prime Minister himself as to what dangers are still to be expected so long as the Communist Powers maintain the element of force in support of their particular political doctrine. I must say that I am astonished at the advice of the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, that the whole of B.A.O.R. should be taken out of Germany. I seem to have a recollection that he has actually mentioned that before, but that does not make his reiteration of it to-day any more acceptable to us at the present time.
As to what the situation will be in the very strange strategic circumstances of to-day, which are not yet fully worked out, I am not sure. But looking back over the last twelve years of the Conservative Government's reign, and seeing all the changes that they have made—all the items that they have been interested in, with inquiry, research and production, and which they have finally given up after having spent an enormous sum out of the general funds in almost each case—it does not seem to be quite reasonable to turn to us and say, "Will you say now what you will do in these particular circumstances, if you are returned after the Election?" To start with, we have not all the facts which the Government have. In addition, it is not yet possible to weigh up exactly what would be the consequences if the Government in due course sought to carry out their intentions which were set out in the White Paper after the Bahamas Conference. There they strongly put their point of view with regard to the independent nuclear weapon. They say that they will put their force into the NATO Alliance at any time that it is wanted, and will share it with them unless the Government consider that there is a supreme situation arising which makes them feel they have to use this independent weapon.
I must say that, if that is the sort of future we have to look to in respect of the maintenance of an independent weapon, I am really shocked at the idea that the country should be asked to approve it by a deliberate submission
298
to them as an electorate, when it probably means that if any Conservative Government were so foolish as to use this weapon as the first strike, the first intervener, in any theatre which they occupied at the time, the homes of our beloved country here would be smashed almost at once by a Communist answer. Is that not so? Why, then, did you have to put this into the Bahamas Agreement—this sudden, hurriedly-obtained Bahamas Agreement—at the last moment, after you had lost, in the discussions with America, any possibility of gaining the stand-off weapon, Sky-bolt? Why did you put it in? It was simply because you wanted to keep this name of an independent nuclear weapon. I hope that the noble Earl will obtain a copy of the Bahamas Agreement and will be able to sustain his Party's view if he reads out to the House in his reply paragraph 9 of the White Paper; and we shall see whether I am misrepresenting the case to the House to-night. Because to my mind it is really unanswerable that this was a wrong agreement to make.
When you come to think of the ideas that have been expressed by the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, on what should be the position regarding the use of our troops, I am again astounded. Having listened to him as what I might call the roving, unofficial statesman, with his visits to Moscow, his interviews with leading Communists, his visits to China, his visit to Cuba, his visit to South Africa, where he apparently—
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: Cuba?
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Cuba, I said.
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: I have never been there in my life.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Well, you have written articles about it. At any rate, looking back on some of the articles I have seen in the noble Viscount's publications after his visits there, his praise of Mao Tse-tung, his praise of Moscow and the references he has made to Cuba, I must say that he must be very near to qualifying for entry into any fellow travellers' club. So, having listened to him to-night

299
talking about these very grave and important questions, I must say that I belittle his judgment as a statesman, or adviser of statesmen, compared with what we do know for certain—and that is that, in the field, he was a most gallant and successful leader. I would not pay much attention to him on these matters, after what he has essayed to publish.
Now I want to say that I am concerned about the distinction that has been drawn between members of my own Party and those of other Parties, especially when we hear this denigration of our own country. I did not have time enough in that short interruption, perhaps, to make my position quite clear. During the whole of my lifetime I know of no single conflict in which a capitalist Government have been engaged when they have been ready with the force required to implement the foreign policy they were pursuing—never! And I challenge anybody to deny it. I watched it in the South African War; I watched it in the late 'nineties with regard to what had to be mopped up after nearly twenty years in the Sudan; I watched it in the First Great War. There was only one part of the British Forces which was really ready, and that was the Navy, with the speed-up on the McKenna Plan brought about by Winston Churchill. The Navy was pretty well ready; but the Army, in relation to the great tasks that were set before it on the Kaiser attack, was wholly unready. If it had not been for the Liberal introduction of the Territorial Plan of Lord Haldane, I do not know how we could have held on for the first twelve months at all.
Then, if we come on to the last war, the war of 1939–45, what a disaster that was! And who led us into disaster? It is no use pointing back towards a few Members of the Opposition in 1939, and saying, "You would not do this and you would not do that". You had a majority of nearly 200 in support of the Conservative Government, and it could not face up to the situation. We were led into war: and I shall not forget having had to say, during the Munich debate of 1938 in the House of Commons, that the road that had been set before us during the two-day debate was to lead straight into war—and unprepared; and that we had forgotten that
300
we had never won a major war on a world basis with the British Forces, except with Allies, and powerful Allies at that. That is what I told the House of Commons. It is all in print. And I said, "When you have done that, you will in all probability find yourselves alone". That happened, too.
To look at the present situation, we have had the charge made by the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, that in 1947–48 we had not got Forces in a proper condition. That is the charge made. In fact, there has never been a time immediately after a great war when the Forces have been so well managed. To start with, we had a completely orderly plan of demobilisation. It had never worked so before. It was not the product of a Tory mind; it was the product of Ernest Bevin's mind when he was Minister of Labour in Mr. Churchill's Cabinet, and was heartily welcomed by Mr. Churchill. What is more, the whole basis of the management of the Forces then had to be related to the general economic situation, in which we were struggling to get away from post-war bankruptcy. The noble and gallant Viscount forgot that to-night when he was thinking of the situation then.
Yet we came to a decision which had never before been taken in peace time, and which has never before been so attacked as to-night, by the noble and gallant Viscount. Let me say to him that when we made our decision in 1947 in favour of National Service for the situation as it was then, it was Mr. Churchill who said to me behind the Speaker's Chair, "I have got to congratulate you on your courage. In our Party position we could not have done it." To-day everybody knows that, holding the position down then, in 1947–48, when Europe had nothing in the Free World outside what we had retained, and when the United States of America was demobilising hand over fist, if we had not adopted National Service at that time then Russia's influence could have marched through the whole of Europe without their being required to fire a shot. They would have been able to win by pure political blackmail.
That was the situation. That was the view that Mr. Bevin reported to the Cabinet and to our Prime Minister. That

301
was what led us to take the unprecedented step of seeking to have the basis here for organising a defensive effort in NATO. We signed the Treaty of Dunkirk in February, 1947, without which you would never have had NATO established. And it was partly under the administration of the noble and gallant Viscount that I was able after that, after the Treaty of Dunkirk, to collect the voices in Europe to get a stocktaking of all the military equipment and men available; and the story was a shocking one. What was left? The only body with anything real at all was this country; and so we spread the net and got military representatives from Washington and one from Ottawa to come and consider the stocktaking with us. And the result was NATO.
Let us face the facts. How dare the Opposition talk to my Party as if we were the ones who were denigrating our country! You are living to-day upon the peace established through the world organisation—or for this part of the world, at any rate—of NATO. It was not your idea; it was a Labour idea, carried to America and to Ottawa and getting their support; and thank God for their support! You have a condition of affairs to-day that cannot match with the efforts the Labour Party made to put things on a sound footing. That is the fact. How dare you talk to us like that! I say to noble Lords opposite, as Sir Winston Churchill used to say of the Germans: "Who do they think we are?" We love our country—and we love the people of our country. We want to see them kept safe; and when it is necessary to defend freedom and liberty we want to encourage them to do it.
But the Government are not going to do it on the basis of what has apparently been the first shots in an electoral campaign by our old friend Sir Alec—I had better say the former Lord Home, to get me out of my pronunciation difficulties. You are not going to do it that way. You must come to a different situation altogether. If you want to keep unity; if you want to be able gradually to put in the sort of controls you repudiated in 1950 and 1951—call them an incomes policy, call them this, call them that—you must treat the working class differently from the way in which you are treating them now,
302
and not begin to make an attack on their leaders as if they were denigrators of their country, for it is a falsehood and completely untrue. We have randered our service to this nation as we best think. Everybody is entitled to his own political opinion and I am not disputing that; but at least we can carry our political differences on a decent ground and at a decent level, and without publishing secret documents like those which the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, satisfied himself with appraising tonight, having already published them in a book. Let us keep to the rules and fight a straight fight. I believe then we might get down to a better consideration of defence.
My Lords, I believe that we are entitled as a Labour Party, if we come into office, to have made no pledge to Sir Alec in answer to the question he puts before us. We have not the information he has. This Government has taken no other step at all but to review its policy whenever it liked according to facts which have never been revealed to us. So they spend the money and have no answers to give to the public as to what this money represents. I know this: at the present moment you have not more than 173,000 men in the Regular Army and the prospects are decreasing. And I know that in an emergency you have not 173,000 men to put into operation, by the time you have taken away the recruits who are under training and the men training them, and also the men who are enjoying their usual leave—a maximum of six weeks a year. You are not going to have 173,000 trained men available on that basis. Yet you have given the promise in the White Paper of 1957. And if you are not able to get the forces required to cover your commitments you will not hesitate to bring in such measures of compulsion as you require. Why did not the Prime Minister tell the public that that was his position? Why did he not? Why did he not get views upon it beforehand from the country? Why turn to us to get him out of his difficulties? We are not the Party that abolished conscription. There is the Party that abolished conscription.
So my Lords I find nothing in the answers so far that have been given to

303
set my mind at rest about the present situation and conditions of the Forces, and I am sure that this applies also to my colleagues. I think we have been absolutely entitled to put down this Amendment to the Loyal Address in reply to the Queen's Speech and to indicate our horror at the extent to which this country has been committed to £1,838 million, which we would not begrudge for adequate forces properly trained and without the waste that has gone on, down the sink, in trying to do something else since 1957. It has been a complete waste of enormous sums of money. This is going to be in addition to the social plan involving great capital expenditure for the Government in the next four or five years; and the Minister of Defence says he fully expects that the figure may have to go up to £2,000 million next year. How do you expect the country to look at that unless you can show far greater justification for it than you have yet done? Bring us evidence of real keenness for the security, the freedom and the liberty of your people by such adequate defence as is required. On the same basis we pleaded again and again in 1937, 1938 and 1939, that we would vote then—not knowing exactly what the state was—any money you required, provided you moved on a basis of collective security.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh, oh!
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That is so. I defy any contradiction that can come. Laughing does not help a bit. That is an actual fact.
I can find little evidence in what the Government have said on their behalf to-night, I can find no evidence in any publication they have made, that they are ready to stand up to the kind of dangers that they talk about in the plans they have made for the Forces. We have little faith in what they have done; and they have to make grave alterations before they can bring anything like satisfaction to the electorate.
7.29 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I am grateful for the kind words which the noble Earl the Leader of
304
the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, have said about me personally, and more especially when I remember the deep and continued devotion of the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition to the Service which I now have the honour to serve. I suppose it was inevitable, this being an Election year, for the Opposition to seek to make this occasion one of censure on the Government. That being so, I grant that the speakers for the Opposition have gone through the motions with a good grace. Despite this unnecessary Amendment, I feel that we have had a useful and reasonably objective debate. It is true that the debate has been the vehicle for an Amendment which amounts to a Vote of Censure—and let us have no doubt about that—but it has also been a vehicle for two maiden speeches by my noble friends. And if I have to choose between the two vehicles I would, if I may say so, without being impolite to the Opposition, choose the very roadworthy vehicle of my two noble friends. I hope that their speeches—and I am sure that in saying this I echo the feelings of everybody in the House—will be the prelude to many more.
We have also had, as was to be expected, thoughtful and constructive speeches from the Benches behind me, including a scintillating performance from the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and a typically debonair one from the noble and gallant Field Marshal who, I am glad to see, successfully notched his three score and sixteen years the other day. By and large, it is also fair to say that we have had characteristically thoughtful speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton, Lord Shepherd and Lord Kennet. Though there was a great deal of meat in what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, had to say, if I do not bite on it, it is merely because I think that I shall be chewing far too long for your Lordships' benefit this evening. Given that they were speaking to an Amendment of censure, I thought that noble Lords opposite were, for the most part, very moderate indeed.
Since the noble Earl opposite referred to my father, I wonder whether I could reminisce for a few seconds. Some days ago, I found myself taking the

305
parade at Dartmouth. It was a beautiful morning and the cadets and the sub-lieutenants marched past very well indeed. I could not help reflecting, as I looked over the waters of the Dart, that in 1872—some 91 years ago—a young midshipman called John Rushworth Jellicoe was doing his training on that river in the old H.M.S. "Britannia". The thought was in my mind because, before going on parade, the Captain of Dartmouth had shown me the entries opposite Midshipman J. R. Jellicoe in the 1872 Punishment Book. I was surprised by how long the list was: gross disobedience to orders; for entering and staying in a farmhouse for twenty minutes; bringing sweets on board; four days No. 4 punishment for skylarking in his hammock. I do not think that I can accuse noble Lords of skylarking in their Parliamentary hammocks all this afternoon, though from time to time I think they have done so. Of course, I am in no position to consign them to four days No. 4—whatever that may be—but I hope that if they persist in their intention of dividing the House this evening—and I trust they will not—your Lordships will deal out "six of the best" to them in the Lobbies.
In winding up this debate on the Government's behalf, I am faced with two difficulties. In the first place, it has ranged very wide indeed, and if I were to follow all the avenues which your Lordships explored I should be intolerably long. For once I will resist that temptation. But, of course, I shall not be able to cover, except in the most cursory way, many of the interesting and detailed administrative points put forward this evening by my noble friends, Lord Napier and Ettrick and Lord Suffield, in the wide-ranging speech of my noble friend Lord Hanworth and by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, in that part of his carefully considered remarks which touched on the administration of the Armed Forces.
My second difficulty is greater. It is in following my noble Leader, Lord Carrington. He is a difficult man to follow, as I am finding to my cost in my new job. My noble friend is held in very great respect and affection by the Royal Navy. But he is also difficult to follow in this debate, since he has already answered, far more ably than I can, the
306
case, even before they deployed it, which some noble Lords have attempted to deploy against the Government. I should like to confine my remarks, therefore, so far as possible, to three main topics: to manpower, which has exercised your Lordships at least to some extent this evening; to questions of materiel, which we have also explored at some length, and also, in conclusion, to the question of the deterrent, on which, I should like to say a few words of my own.
A number of noble Lords have asked me fairly searching questions on manpower, and they were right to do so, because this is to a large extent the heart of the matter. In addition to the noble Jeremiahs and Cassandras on the Benches opposite, we have had the benefit of interesting speeches from the noble and gallant Field Marshal and from the noble and gallant General on the Cross Benches, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, who has told me that he has had to leave your Lordships' House as he had another engagement.
Let me say this by way of preface. More than six years have now passed since it was decided that we should end conscription, and the last group of National Servicemen ended their full-time service early this year. I would grant, without hesitation, that in the immediate post-war years we could not possibly have done without these National Servicemen; and far be it from me to denigrate their efforts. I agree with all that my noble and gallant friend had to say on that score. But I also agree with my noble friend Lord Swinton—and most of those who have served in the Armed Forces will agree—that all-Regular, professional, highly trained forces in peace time have many advantages. I will not go over the reasons for that: they were given fully by my noble friend Lord Swinton. But there is also the fact of morale. Let us remember that to-day the men and women in our Armed Forces are there as a result of deliberate and voluntary decision, and I think that this is a very important gain.
For the reasons given by my noble friend, I believe that we were right to end conscription. For the same reasons, I believe that we should be wrong to reintroduce it. But both these beliefs,

307
of course, are subject to the essential proviso that we can attract to the Armed Forces officers and men in the right numbers and of the right quality. Some of the Government's critics have questioned our ability to do so. Are they justified in this? I would claim that they are not, and I should like, briefly, since it is late, to review the position Service by Service.
First, the R.A.F. Some 30 months ago, when I spoke on the Air Estimates, the R.A.F. was worried about pilot shortage. Now the recruiting targets for air-crew officers are being achieved and the wastage in flying training has been greatly reduced. Again, the R.A.F. is getting all the recruits it needs for ground trades. Although your Lordships may have noticed that R.A.F. intakes this year have been below those for 1962, this is solely because of lower requirements, arising out of the disbandment of the Thor squadrons and the more efficient use of manpower. Finally, although there are still some shortages in certain branches—for example, in the medical branch—the recruitment of officers to the ground branches has been going reasonably well. Thus, there is no serious overall problem with the R.A.F.
The same, broadly, applies to the Royal Navy. Officer recruitment is rising quite sharply—in fact, surprisingly sharply—and we are now getting most of the officers we want, although there are some shortages in certain categories, such as pilots, both fixed-wing and helicopter. In the last financial year we obtained more rating recruits than we had expected, and this year we expect to reach our target of 7,000. Let me enter here two caveats. For the first time since the war, the strength of the Navy is rising rather than falling. This is a very distinct change. But we cannot therefore rest on our laurels—or our oars. We shall need larger entries in future and more highly trained specialists to man the increasingly sophisticated ships of to-morrow. Already the Navy has some shortages in some technical and specialised categories. We are devoting a great deal of attention to means of overcoming these shortages, in particular, to keeping re-engagement at a high level.
308
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred in a slightly different context to the importance of re-engagement. I could not agree more with what he said on this question. For the first half of 1963, 56 per cent. of men completing a twelve-year engagement re-engaged. This is a reasonably good figure. But it is important that we should try to improve upon it, because the experienced ratings of long service are quite indispensable in the Navy, as in other Services.
Here, I should like to dwell for a moment on the improvement of married quarters. I feel that this, the home for the Service family, and re-engagement are intimately linked in all the Services. My noble friend Lord Napier and Ettrick, in his maiden speech, referred to this matter and to the quality of housing, which again is important. A number of noble Lords have referred to the shortage of housing for the Army in Germany. The position is as follows. A large programme of married quarters, as your Lordships know, is in hand. More than 3,000 married quarters have recently been built; we plan to provide another 4,500 next year and to complete the programme by 1966. Meanwhile, there is a plan, of which doubtless the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, knows, for providing mobile houses. This situation is being gripped.
Finally, if I may go on to Army recruiting, I have quite deliberately left my old Service to the last, since it is the one whose recruiting problems are much the most serious. The Army needs 20,000 officers and 160,000 other ranks. At the present time, it is close to its target for officers, but still needs about 8,000 other ranks. As with the other Services, there are shortages of officers in certain specialised arms, like the R.A.M.C., the R.A.D.C. and the Royal Army Education Corps, although measures taken to make a career in these Corps more attractive are bearing fruit and the deficiencies should be overcome by 1965. The position with regard to other ranks is, frankly, far less satisfactory; but the September figures, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred with such despair, have shown an improvement, albeit a modest one, and the October figures are continuing this improved trend.
LORD SHEPHERD: The October figures show a definite improvement on the September figures?
EARL JELLICOE: The September figures were an improvement on the August figures. The percentage by which the September figures fell below September, 1962, was much less than that by which the August figures fell below August, 1962. The trend is improving, and that improvement has continued in the October figures, the full details of which we have not yet got. Although we still have to reach our target, the fact remains that the Army strength is now 95 per cent. of its full establishment of 180,000. That establishment, in its turn, is some 15,000 higher than the figure provisionally adopted when the end of conscription was planned in 1957.
That is the broad manpower position in the forces, as I see it, and I have tried to state it as objectively as I can. On the whole, we are doing, with exceptions, reasonably well, and far better, I think, than the great majority of people—certainly the great majority of our critics—would have thought possible five or six years ago. Compared with the distance which we have come, the distance that we still have to travel to hit our targets is very small indeed. I am sure that on any objective assessment our volunteer recruitment policy can now he seen to be a success, although we must never forget that to enjoy the luxury of being without conscription demands constant effort from everybody concerned with recruitment. I can assure your Lordships that those efforts will be maintained and if necessary intensified, and we will certainly look carefully at the number of imaginative suggestions which have been made in your Lordships' House to-day. Of course, there are difficulties. I hope that I have not attempted to hide them or gloss over them. With the R.A.F. and the Navy these difficulties are limited and localised.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Earl on the question of the Army. He has given us a good deal of information, but I asked certain specific questions. I do not know whether he is going to
310
answer them. Perhaps I may repeat them. As I understand it, having done a quick calculation on the figures, we have now attained a figure of around 171,000 or slightly more—and I had guessed 172,000. This does not bring us even half way from the 165,000 to the 180,000. I wanted to ask whether the March, 1964, target of 180,000 is now too much to hope for. The noble Earl was good enough to give the October figures—or rather, he said that the trend continued. The September figures gave us a net increase. Could the noble Earl also tell us what is the strength of the Army in Germany, and particularly the position of "Ever-readies"? And why is there a change of policy with regard to the Gurkhas?
EARL JELLICOE: I was coming to the last two of the questions the noble Lord has asked. So far as the present figures are concerned, I think they are nearer 172,000 than 171,000. Last month there was a net increase in the Army figure of 800, which is quite significant. But whether or not we shall attain the figures of a particular target by a particular time, I think I should be foolish to try to prophesy.
As I said, I have not attempted to gloss over the difficulties; but, so far as the Navy and the R.A.F. are concerned, I think they are limited and localised. Even with the Army, where the shoe undoubtedly pinches most, the shortfall is only 5 per cent. Faced with that shortfall (the seriousness of which I do not wish to underestimate, because Ave know what it means in particular units in particular places), certain noble and gallant Lords have advocated a return to conscription, or some form of conscription, as a possibility. They are entitled to their view, and, as they speak with great experience, we should not lightly dismiss their advice. But, my Lords, I suggest that at this stage the noble and gallant Lords are really advocating a hammer with which to crack a nut. Faced, as we are, with this marginal shortfall, serious though it is, would it be sensible to abandon the ideal of all-Regular, all-professional, Armed Forces and revert, against all our peace-time traditions, to conscription in one form or another? On this issue—greatly daring, since I have stood in my day in statu pupillari

311
to both noble and gallant Lords—I must differ from their advice, however honestly given.
But, my Lords, what is the honest advice of the Opposition? We have heard their complaints on this. But what is their solution? We have still to learn what that solution is. As for the specific questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I forget his precise question about the Gurkhas, and if I do not answer it fully I hope he will interrupt me again. Your Lordships will recall that it was announced last March that we were to reduce the number of Gurkhas in the British Army from just under 15,000 to 10,000. This reduction was to be spaced over a number of years; it was intended that the run-down should begin in 1964. I can confirm what my noble friend Lord Swinton has mentioned—namely, that we have decided to postpone this rundown. My noble friend welcomed this announcement, but I thought that it received no more than a grudging welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton.
As for the British Army on the Rhine, we have undertaken to bring the strength of B.A.O.R. up to its peace-time establishment of 55,000 men as soon as possible, and we are making steady progress towards that target. The date by which we can make up this deficiency, which is now fairly small (it is about 3,000; the strength is one side or other of 52,000) must depend both on recruitment and on our defence requirements in other parts of the world. Here I must express my complete agreement with what was said by the noble and gallant Field Marshal. It would be very foolish of us to denude a theatre where the need is at present most stringent—the whole theatre East of Suez—in order to reinforce a theatre, Europe, where the need is admittedly great, but not nearly so great.
Having said that, however, I should like to make two qualifications. The first is that it is our intention to remedy this shortfall—we admit that it is a serious shortfall, although it is quite small in number—as soon as possible. The second is that we have, of course, made provision to more than double the peacetime strength of B.A.O.R. within a few days in an emergency which calls for mobilisation.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, will the noble Earl permit me to interject that, if this is so, would it not be possible to change the W.E.U. target, which we are falling short of, because if we break our obligations under the W.E.U. Treaties as we are doing by not having 55,000 men in Germany, and if the French do, as they are doing by not declaring the level of their nuclear stocks, then it is an invitation to West Germany to break those treaties, too, and to seek national control of nuclear weapons which is forbidden?
EARL JELLICOE: I do not think I follow the full logic of the noble Lord's argument, because what I was saying is that we have every intention of getting up to this target.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I say that that is a completely opposite view to the view expressed by the noble and gallant Field Marshal? He wanted to move towards extracting people from B.A.O.R., and not leaving them there.
EARL JELLICOE: I was not aware that the noble and gallant Field Marshal was speaking for the Government. I am in that position. What I was agreeing with was that the priority at this moment is the area East of Suez.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: In that case, surely my noble friend who has just put his question is entitled to ask whether taking men out of B.A.O.R. for the other theatre is breaking a contract in a most important defensive agreement for a very wide area in which we are all involved. If you break your contract, you are likely to lead to the breaking of the contract as a whole.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not want to chop logic with the noble Earl over this, but we are not taking people out of the European theatre. In fact, we are building it up, and it is our intention to build it up to the full 55,000.
Noble Lords also focused a good deal of attention—and I was not surprised to hear attention focused in that way—on the equipment of the British Army of the Rhine. I should like to say this by way of preface. I think the Army has,

313
to a considerable extent, unlike the other two Services, two separate equipment problems. First, it has to meet its commitments as part of the NATO Force in Europe, where the threat is posed by a potential enemy with a very sophisticated weapons system. Secondly, it has to be equally prepared for and able to take part in a limited war—a bush war or brush war, I never know which it is—in other parts of the globe.
The problem of equipment in B.A.O.R. is certainly that which poses the most serious burden on our Army resources. I do not deny that for one second. There has been a great deal of criticism at various times of B.A.O.R.'s equipment. I remember it very well when I was speaking on the Army Estimates almost three years ago. I think that here a vital consideration must always be in the forefront of our minds if we are trying to look at this objectively. The consideration is this. Nowadays it takes anything from six to ten years to bring complicated equipment into service. This means that by the time it is issued to the Army its replacement is already under active consideration for development. That is said by way of preface.
What is the equipment position?— I do not guarantee to cover all the items about which I was asked. Broadly speaking, it is this. But first let me remind your Lordships of one thing. I remember three years ago, in speaking to this very point, the equipments which attracted most criticism—and I think quite justifiably—were the vehicles of the British Army of the Rhine. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, knows, B.A.O.R. has now received a complete refit of vehicles and, as a result, we have heard no more about that particular deficiency. Again, the W.T. position in B.A.O.R. was severely criticised. It has been criticised again by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, this evening. A very full range of new wireless equipment is at present being brought into B.A.O.R. In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, it is quite true that the only item of that equipment which is fully transistorised is the infantryman pack, and that will be with B.A.O.R. by the end of 1964.
314
Now, tanks, another point about which I was asked. At the moment B.A.O.R. is equipped with the Centurion tank, a very fine tank, but getting a little long in the track. It has been modernised lately and eight out of ten B.A.O.R. regiments are equipped with the re-armoured and up-gunned version of the Centurion tank. The Chieftain, about which I was asked, will be starting to come in in two years' time. With regard to the Abbott, the new infantry 105 millimetre gun which is to replace the old 25-pounder, familiar to many of us, all the artillery regiments of B.A.O.R. are to be re-equipped by 1966, starting of course much earlier. Then there is the Saracen, the two-wheeled armoured personnel carrier about which I was asked. A number of battalions are equipped with that, but it is a wheeled vehicle. It is to be replaced by a much more mobile tracked personnel carrier, the first battalion to be re-equipped by May 1964, and the whole within two years. That is the programme, and I have no doubt that it will be achieved. Finally, to satisfy the noble Lord's interest about the Drones, as I think they are called, I gather that the position there is that we are sharing the development of this curiously named reconnaissance vehicle with the Canadians, but I am not able to quote a date when it is likely to be in service.
I was asked about other forms of equipment, and not only that of B.A.O.R. I was asked about numbers of aircraft and about particular types of aircraft. I do not think I am in a position to add anything to what my noble friend the Leader of the House has said about the TSR 2, about which he spoke very fully and convincingly, and about the P.1154. But I should like to deal with one point which my noble friend Lord Teynham asked me, and that was whether we really needed the TSR 2, and could we not have got by with the Buccaneer. The Buccaneer is an extremely fine aircraft, which will certainly have a very long and useful Service life. But it is a quite different type of animal from the TSR 2. It was designed expressly for carrier operations, and it is considerably smaller. As a result, its performance in the rôles for which the R.A.F. have a requirement is far more limited.

315
Again, I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, whether so far as the Navy was concerned the introduction of the British Polaris fleet meant that we were giving or would be giving a lower priority in the Navy to anti-submarine warfare. I think that I can give him a categorical answer to his question: No; it does not mean a lower priority. To reinforce that "No", I would remind the noble Lord that since the Defence White Paper appeared two of the "Leander" type anti-submarine frigates, "Leander" and "Dido", have come into commission; that five out of seven of the new type-81 Tribals are in commission; that the eighth and ninth "O" Class submarines, whose rôle is primarily anti-submarine, are in commission, and the tenth has been accepted for service; and, finally, that the "Dreadnought", the nuclear submarine, whose rôle, of course, is again primarily anti-submarine (and I had the pleasure of visiting her yesterday in the Clyde) is in commission; that the second "Valiant" is about to be launched and the third is on the way. There is no slackening whatsoever in our antisubmarine effort and it is right that there should be no such slackening.
So far as Lord Shackleton's favourite aircraft, the Shackleton, is concerned (and I was not surprised when he referred to it), the position is that a complete modernisation is being given to the existing 90 Mark II and III Shackletons. It is not just a face-lift; it means new armament, new-type detection apparatus and new, or possibly supplementary, power plants. In addition to that, the question of a Shackleton replacement is under study. Finally, in answer to my noble friend Lord Teynham, I can give him, too, an assurance that there is no question of abandoning the aircraft carrier programme; and I was very glad, if I may say so, to hear what my noble friend had to say on the Navy as a whole.
I have dealt, admittedly cursorily, but it is rather late, with equipment, and I should like to turn back for a moment to Britain's deterrent force. I think this only right, since this matter has figured so prominently in our debate this afternoon. I feel that whenever this matter has been discussed recently, both inside
316
and outside Parliament, one essential fact has sometimes tended to be obscured: that our deterrent forces are essentially our contribution to the deterrent forces of the West as a whole. Indeed, that has always been the case. Anyone who knows anything about these matters—anyone who has visited Strategic Air Command at Omaha and knows about the joint targeting arrangements—knows this. Nassau, of course, marked a significant step forward in placing our V-bombers and, later, our Polaris force under SACEUR. This fact, the fact that our deterrent forces are part and parcel—an integrated part—of the Western Alliance, marks, I think, the essential difference between them and the embryonic Gaullist force de frappe.
I understand the point of view of those who oppose the British deterrent because it is linked with this concept of interdependence. Indeed, I often feel that many of those who do oppose our deterrent are really opposed to the Western deterrent as such. The basically pacifist or neutralist position is a perfectly respectable and understandable one; but it is not, as I understand it, the position of most noble Lords opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for example, and, I think, the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, are not opposed to the British deterrent, or have not been in the past, when embodied in the V-bomber force. But the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, appears to be opposed to it, or to have doubts about it, when it is embodied in a British Polaris force. This seems to me, frankly, to be a rather curious position, and I believe that its logic could be sustained only if it could be shown that the Polaris system was inaccurate and vulnerable, and that the British contribution by way of a British Polaris force was likely to be too insignificant, too expensive or too unpunctual.
I do not think that any of these arguments can be sustained. The Polaris system is an accurate system—far more accurate, for example, than Mr. Gordon Walker appears to imagine. It is as invulnerable (this applies both to the site, the submarine, and to the missile) as any that is operable at present. The British force alone, too, carries a very considerable nuclear punch, certainly

317
no less than the V-bomber force. It is our intention that it should be fully operational before the 1970s, and its expense will be well below the hallowed figure of 10 per cent. All in all, I find it hard to understand why those who believe in interdependence, and who have supported within that concept a British contribution to the Western deterrent, should now change their stance, as it were in midstream.
I grant that noble Lords opposite may argue that they are not opposed to this concept which embodies interdependence. What they may be really questioning, as I understand it, is our belief that the Polaris deterrent will be an independent deterrent and that in the last resort we should reserve the right to operate it independently. But, if this is the real reason for their opposition, let us be quite clear—and I think it is advisable that your Lordships should be clear—where we stand. The British Polaris force will be equipped with submarines of British design. They will be powered by British nuclear reactors and armed with British nuclear warheads. The missile system, it is true, will be American. Here I should like to touch for a second on a misconception which came into our earlier discussion, although it may not be necessary to say much, in view of what my noble friend Lord Carrington said. We propose to equip it with the A3 missile. This is the very latest version which is not yet in service in the United States, although it is in production there; but, of course, as with all weapons, we plan development, and replacement in due course; and should a better equipment come up, then our ability to receive that is quite clearly covered by Articles 3 and 4 of the Polaris Sales Agreement.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the noble Earl said that the Polaris force would be not less than the hitting power of the V-bombers. If we have three submarines, each with sixteen A3 missiles, that gives, I think, 42 to 45 megatons. Is it really the case that the V-bombers can drop less than 42 to 45 megatons?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think I should go too deeply into this matter, but I was not speaking without having checked my facts very carefully in this particular respect, and
318
I ask the noble Lord to believe that I had done my "homework" before I used the particular phrase I used.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that that is one of the difficulties in raising this particular issue on an Election platform?
EARL JELLICOE: I think it is only if one is prepared to doubt my word.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sure we do not doubt the noble Earl's words, but we do understand it was a difference, and that the V-bomber force had a potential 300-to-400-megaton delivery capacity. I do not know whether the noble Earl would prefer entirely to reserve his position, but I cannot for the life of me see how the Polaris submarine can have the same megaton delivery. I support my noble friend on that.
EARL JELLICOE: I should prefer not to go too deeply into that, and if the noble Lord would prefer me to use the phrase that I am "reserving my position" I am quite prepared to do that. But I have no doubt as to my position on this point.
It is quite clear, as I said, that the missile system, as such, is American; but once the submarines are operational there is nothing, either in the Nassau Agreement or in the facts of the situation, which would lead one to suppose that these submarines would not be subject to the full control of Her Majesty's Government, exercised, if need be, independently. The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition asked me to read paragraph 9 of the Nassau Agreement. I think the sentence he had in mind was this:
"The Prime Minister may declare that except where Her Majesty's Government may decide that supreme national interests are at stake these British forces will be used for the purposes of the international defence of the Western Alliance in all circumstances."
I see nothing wrong with that sentence.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will follow and answer the supplementary point I put. Do the Government consider they will face such circumstances in which they will use an independent strike as a first strike, and do they anticipate any result of that but

319
a holocaust of counter nuclear attack upon our country?
EARL JELLICOE: I really feel the noble Earl could pot have been listening to what my noble friend Lord Carrington said in his introductory speech. The point is not to use it. It has failed if it has to be used. The point is deterrence.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Why independent?
EARL JELLICOE: I think it is a perfectly fair question and I should like to put to those who ask it the following questions. We do not doubt ourselves—we have never doubted—that the United States will honour its obligations to us and our other NATO allies. That is not doubted. My noble friend Lord Carrington made that absolutely clear. But can you be quite certain—and this is the rub—that the Soviet leaders will always in all circumstances believe this too? They have miscalculated before. They miscalculated only a year ago over Cuba. Are you quite certain that they will believe that the United States, in the last resort and in all circumstances, many of which we cannot foresee at the present time, would be prepared to put Chicago, Illinois, or Birmingham, Alabama, at nuclear hazard because Birmingham, England, was threatened? I am merely saying that this might well be a Soviet miscalculation. I am casting no doubts whatever upon the willingness of our American allies to honour their obligations to us and Europe.
Given all the uncertainties of the world situation, are you prepared here and now to opt out—and probably that would mean for all time—when others in Europe are not opting out? Are you absolutely certain, if you do so, that this country will retain its present influence in world affairs? Can you really be so certain of this, when the logic of your own leaders' arguments in another place is that possession of nuclear weapons lends us weight in nuclear negotiations with the United States? Those are the questions I suggest which really require answer, and they have not been answered, at least to my satisfaction, by noble Lords opposite this evening.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, of course I shall read the last two or three hundred words from the noble Earl very carefully when it is in print, and I do not want to be unfair in any judgment. I must say, just as we have been trying to build up for decades in this country a real adhesion to the use of collective security in every respect, this taking of a single, independent line that is in paragraph 9 of the Bahamas Agreement is dangerous, and I am quite sure if it is put in that way to the electorate the Government will gain nothing from it
EARL JELLICOE: I am not wishing to make an electoral issue but merely stating the arguments behind paragraph 9, which are not new. This all applied with the V-bomber force just as much as with the Polaris submarine force.
Although I have not answered all the points put to me this afternoon—some of them covered matters of relative detail—I am in some danger of breaking my promise of not being unreasonably long. The Opposition claim that our defence policies are unsound. I would claim, on the contrary, that they have been proved sound in the hardest of all schools, the school of experience. The proof of the pudding is that we are at peace to-day. Where, since the war, we have been faced with actual, or threatened, or limited, or bush, war, our Armed Forces have shown their ability more than once to act promptly and efficiently. This is proof of a sound policy, soundly conceived. The Opposition have also claimed that our policy is inconsistent. I would merely reply that my noble Leader has fully documented this afternoon its essential consistency.
I suppose, since they argue that our policy is both unsound and inconsistent, the Opposition would claim that their policy is both sound and consistent. Let me briefly, in conclusion, examine those implied claims. One cannot expect an Opposition to produce a detailed alternative defence policy, particularly when they have been out of office, and have deserved to be, for a long time. But we can reasonably expect them—and I am sure the noble Earl would agree with me here—in addition to criticising this 'plane or that 'plane, this piece of equipment or that piece of equipment, to sketch at least

321
the outlines of an alternative policy. But you cannot do that if you duck the main issues, and ducking the main issues is precisely what the Opposition do and what they have done to-day.
Here, at least, they have been consistent. They have failed to tell us when discussing the overall impact of our defence policy on the national economy whether they would or would not devote a larger share of the national income to defence. They have failed to tell us, when discussing manpower, whether, like us, they will continue to opt for professional, highly trained all-Regular armed forces. They have failed to tell us whether they propose to cut our defence commitments abroad, and if so where. Maybe this does not apply to noble Lords opposite, but it certainly does to some of their leaders in another place.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We are attacking your record in this matter and the present condition of the Forces, and all this other is eyewash.
EARL JELLICOE: And, while very free with their criticism of our policy on the deterrent, they have failed to produce a consistent and coherent policy of their own.
I should not be so bold as to claim that the defence policy of the Opposition is at all times and at all points unsound. It shifts so rapidly that it is just conceivable that at some given moment some part of it may be valid. Nor would I deny the charms of their defence policy, at least to Socialists. It is all things to all Socialists. It is one thing to Silverman, another to Paget, another to Shackleton, another to Wigg. At least it has the merits of extreme flexibility. But what I do deny is that a
policy which shifts from Party Conference to Party Conference can be both sound and consistent.
Your Lordships know that our cousins across the Atlantic have of late become addicts to playing war games on computers. Since the Labour Party have apparently just discovered science and electronics and automation, such games may have certain charms for them. But let them beware of asking any computer, even a Socialist one, at any time whether the Labour Party's Defence policy has been both sound and consistent. I feel it is quite inevitable that, after a painful struggle, all that the poor computer could offer would be a mournful croak. But it is not necessary for us who are not "whizz kids" to rely upon computers. Given the vagaries, given the oscillations of the Labour Party on Defence, I think it has required real nerve on the Opposition's part this afternoon to move an Amendment in these terms. If noble Lords opposite are ill-advised enough to press this Amendment, I trust your Lordships will reject it, and reject it decisively.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I have been appealed to by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge and others, not to proceed with this Amendment, but after the speech I have just heard I will be only too determined to proceed with it. The open insult to the Labour Party in the recent remarks about science and education, after what we have struggled for 70 years to get out of Tory Governments, is just about the last word.
8.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 71.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Latham, L.

Shackleton, L.

Attlee, E.

Lawson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Silkin, L.

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Stonham, L.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Summerskill, B.

Henderson, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taylor, L.

Henley, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Walston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Derwent, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Devonshire, D.

Merrivale, L.

Albemarle, E.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Milverton, L.

Allerton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Molson, L.

Alport, L.

Dundee, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Effingham, E.

Mottistone, L.

Amory, V.

Ferrers, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Fortescue, E.

Newton, L.

Auckland, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Remnant, L.

Baillieu, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Balerno, L.

Grantchester, L.

Sandford, L.

Bessborough, E.

Grenfell, L.

Savile, L.

Blakenham, V.

Hailes, L.

Soulbury, V.

Bossom, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Brentford, V.

Hastings, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Horsbrugh, B.

Suffield, L.

Carew, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Swansea, L.

Carrington, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Swinton, E.

Coleraine, L,

Jessel, L.

Teynham, L.

Colyton, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Conesford, L.

Long, V.

Waleran, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lothian, M.

Ward of Witley, V.

De La Warr, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Denham, L.

Margesson, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until to-morrow.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Silkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

  KING'S CROSS STATION FOREFRONT
  KING'S CROSS STATION FOREFRONT
  GOODS LOST ON BRITISH RAILWAYS
  GOODS LOST ON BRITISH RAILWAYS
  NEW SCOTTISH HOSPITALS
  NEW SCOTTISH HOSPITALS