Sitting of 3 March 1964

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    CUSTOMS ANNUITY AND BENEVOLENT FUND BILL
    Read the Third time and passed.

    PORT OF LONDON (EXTENSION OF SEAWARD LIMIT) BILL
    [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
    Bill read the Third time and passed

    NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME CORPORATION BILL
      BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
      As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
    BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
    As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
    ELIM CHURCH MOOR LANE BOLTON BURIAL GROUND BILL
    Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Clearance Orders (Houses)
    Mr. Boardmanasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if, in order to protect prospective buyers of old houses, he will request local authorities at the time of making a clearance order to mark clearly all house properties affected by the order.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): No, Sir. The best protection for a prospective purchaser is to make full inquiries of the local authority.
    Mr. Boardman: Is the Minister aware of the number of young couples with families who have bought such houses in desperation and ignorance and who now find themselves tied to a building society paying for a house which no longer exists? Would not the Minister agree that the simple marking of these houses would stamp out this blatant exploitation?
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that it would be simple to ensure that a system of marking houses physically would not be abused or misunderstood in some way. If, however, the hon. Member is aware of many cases like this, of people who have inquired of their local authority but have not been given accurate answers, I hope that he will let me know.
    Mr. Boardman: I will let the Minister have details of a case in which the town hall was consulted and solicitors were employed.

    Refuse Collection (Working Party)
    Mr. Longdenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs who is the chairman of, and what interests are represented on, the Working Party on Refuse Collection which he set up some months ago; what progress it is making; and when it is likely to report.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): The chairman is Mr. H. H. Browne, an Assistant Secretary in the Ministry. I am sending my hon. Friend a list of members. Most are local authority technical officers in charge of refuse collection services, but there are also a borough treasurer, a housing manager, a work study specialist, a housewife, and an engineering inspector of the Ministry. As regards the last two parts of the Question I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave my hon. Friend, the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) on 21st January, 1964.
    Mr. Longden: While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he can say why it was necessary to set up this Working Party? Was it because there is much more

    1101
    refuse than there was or is it because the character of the refuse has changed?
    Mr. Corfield: It is for both those reasons and also because of the development of alternative means of dealing with refuse.
    Mrs. Slater: Will the Working Party, when considering alternative methods, have regard to the composting of household refuse?
    Mr. Corfield: I cannot answer that question definitely, but no doubt that will be within its terms of reference.

    Motor Vehicles (Disposal)
    Mr. Longdenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what progress is being made in the discussions between his Department, the Ministry of Transport and the local authority associations on the disposal of unwanted motor vehicles.
    Mr. Corfield: A meeting with representatives of the bodies mentioned and of the London County Council was held on 2nd January, when a number of comments and suggestions were put forward. These are under consideration and my right hon. Friend hopes as a result to be able to give local authorities some useful advice.
    Mr. Longden: Is my hon. Friend aware that on the Continent it is common practice for machines to dispose of large old cars at the rate of 15 an hour, reducing them to an amount which can be wheeled away in a barrow? Is he aware that this will obviously become a very gravely increasing problem as time goes on, and can something be done about it fairly soon?
    Mr. Corfield: I am aware of both points. I can assure my hon. Friend that we regard the matter as one of some urgency.
    Mr. MacColl: Will the hon. Gentleman get in touch with his colleagues in the Home Office and make sure that the regulations about the licensing of vehicles which are left abandoned are enforced severely?

    Gypsies, Kent
    Mr. Doddasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and
    1102
    Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of the closing down in August this year of the temporary site for 50 caravans for gypsies and other travellers at Cobham, Kent, and of the slow progress made in arranging permanent sites for 120 caravans, what action has been taken to accommodate those families which will not leave the site for the farms; and what plans there are for providing sites for the remainder of the families when they return from the farms in October and November.
    Mr. Corfield: Kent County Council in co-operation with the district councils concerned is making good progress in the provison of sites. Many of the itinerants who usually reside in the county should find accommodation on these sites when they become available.
    Mr. Dodds: How can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say that good progress is being made when the situation is now worse than it was two years ago? Does he not understand that even with the four camps that are suggested, with a maximum of 12, that amounts to less accommodation than for the 50 caravans at Cobham? Will he do something with Essex to ensure that it is not sending its gypsies into Kent, because Essex has a terrific problem but is not itself making any provision? Why is not the Minisitry doing something and not just talking about progress which goes backward?
    Mr. Corfield: It is unfair of the hon. Gentleman not to give credit where credit is due. The plain fact is that there are now two sites in Kent but others have planning permission. A further planning application is before my right hon Friend and two more are before the county council. I agree with him that a great deal of the load on Kent is the result of other counties not taking their full share, and I am taking this matter up with them, bearing in mind, however, that I have no powers to direct land to be used for this purpose.
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of the facts that the situation of gypsies and other travellers without lawful camping sites in Kent continues to deteriorate and that the Caravans Act of 1960 has aggravated this situation, if

    1103
    he will take further steps, in consultation with the Kent County Council, to investigate the problem with a view to its solution.
    Mr. Corfield: I cannot accept that the problem has been aggravated by the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960. Sites are gradually being provided in Kent for itinerants normally resident there. The present influx appears to be directly due to the enterprise of the Kent authorities in establishing sites. This should be remedied when sufficient sites to meet local needs are established by districts from which these people have come.
    I am arranging for further discussion with the Home Counties authorities at an early date.
    Mr. Dodds: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that before the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, friendly farmers and others could give sanctuary to gypsies who worked on the farms, but because of the 1960 Act they are forced to get rid of the gypsies within 48 hours of a job coming to an end? Does he not appreciate that the 1959 and 1960 Acts have made the problem very great? If the Government can introduce laws like those, what is the good of their saying that they have no power to introduce something else to correct the situation?
    Mr. Corfield: I never said that we had no power to introduce further legislation. What I have said is that there is no power at the moment. It must remembered that before the 1960 Act was passed local authorities had no power to establish caravan sites.
    Mr. Dodds: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that in the Act provision was made for showground and fairground workers to have certificates in the winter because they have a particular problem? So have the gypsies on the farms. Why should this provision apply only to showground workers and not to gypsies who work on farms?
    Mr. Corfield: So far as I can recollect, the showgrounds were given certificates in relation to specific sites. The difficulty here is that these people are itinerants.
    Mr. Dodds: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice
    1104
    that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Burial and Cremation
    Mr. C. Johnsonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he intends to introduce legislation to consolidate, simplify and improve the law relating to burial and cremation.
    Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend is not intending to introduce legislation, but in accordance with an undertaking given in another place a Bill is in preparation to be handed to the noble Lord, Lord Colville of Culross, in place of the Bill which he withdrew. It is hoped that this Bill, which will simplify and amend the law relating to burial and cremation, will be ready before the end of the year.
    Mr. Johnson: Are we to understand by that reply that the Government will do all they can to expedite the Bill through another place? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Federation of British Cremation Authorities and other interested bodies have been pressing increasingly for legislation? It was understood that the Government had undertaken to introduce their own legislation when Lord Colville withdrew his Bill in another place.
    Mr. Corfield: I do not think it matters very much who introduces the legislation as long as we get it. This is an immensely complicated subject and a great deal of consultation will be necessary before we can produce a final draft.
    Mr. Buck: May we have an assurance that the Bill will cover closed church-yards and burial grounds, which are heavy obligations, especially for parish councils?
    Mr. Corfield: That subject will be considered in the consultations but I cannot guarantee now that it will be included in the Bill.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman guarantee that these improved arrangements for burial will be completed before the lifetime of the present Government comes to an end?
    Mr. Corfield: From experience in Committees, I think that would be unwise.

    Local Authority Members and Staff (Committees)
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what consideration he has given to the prospects for local authorities of continuing to recruit elected representatives and officers of the calibre needed to carry out the responsibilities now falling to local government; and what action he will take in this regard.
    Sir K. Joseph: At the request of the four main local authority associations I have appointed two Committees to look at the people in local government and the prospects of continuing to get and keep enough people of the quality local government needs.
    One Committee, to be chaired by Sir John Maud, the Master of University College, Oxford, will concentrate on the management of local government, with particular reference to its ability to attract elected representatives and chief officers of the necessary calibre.
    The other, to be chaired by Sir George Mallaby, until recently the First Civil Service Commissioner, will consider the staffing of local government.
    With permission I will circulate the terms of reference and the membership of both Committees in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that everyone will note with gratification that this action was taken at the request of the four main local authority associations? Will he confirm that it does not imply any disparagement of the still unfortunately limited number of people who do such excellent work in local government, but that we have to take into account the growing range of activities local government will have to perform? Could the right hon. Gentleman make it clear also that among the things these Committees will examine are questions of financial loss involved for people who undertake local government work, and the search for remedies for that situation? Has he formed any opinion as to when we may expect the reports of these Committees?
    Sir K. Joseph: I can certainly confirm that the initiative of the local authority
    1106
    associations in approaching the Government does Not in itself in any way reflect any discredit on people now serving in local government, either elected or official. But, like so many big organisations in these days of intense competition for talent, local authorities are very sensibly deciding to look at their own practice to see in what way they can improve the prospects of attracting and retaining necessary talent. I can also confirm that the subjects the hon. Gentleman mentioned will be within the terms of reference of these Committees, together with many other subjects. I do not think we can expect such a comprehensive job to be reported upon within a year. It will take more than a year but I hope not very much more.
    Sir H. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that because of the reorganisation of local government, particularly in county areas—in which there will be amalgamations—more time will have to be spent by many elected representatives in travelling and that this will mean more expense for them?
    Sir K. Joseph: These factors will certainly be taken into account, I am sure.
    Following are the terms of reference and membership of the Committees:

  COMMITTEE ON THE MANAGEMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Terms of reference
    "To consider in the light of modern conditions how local government might best continue to attract and retain people (both elected representatives and principal officers) of the calibre necessary to ensure its maximum effectiveness."
    Chairman Sir John Maud, G.C.B., C.B.E.—Master, University College, Oxford.
    Mr. F. C. Bagnall, C.B.E.—Managing Director, British Nylon Spinners Limited.
    Mr. W. J. Bennett, C.B.E., D.L —Alderman, Essex County Council.
    Sir Philip Dingle, C.B.E., LL.D.—Town Clerk, Manchester.
    Mr. V. Feathter—Assistant General Secretary. Trades Union Congress.
    The Earl of Gainsborough—Chairman of Oakham Rural District Council. (Chairman of the Council of the Rural District Councils Association.)
    Sir Francis Hill, C.B.E.—Alderman, Lincoln City. (Chairman of General Purposes Committee, Association of Municipal Corporations.)
    Mr. T. S. G. Hunter—General Manager and Director of Financial Times
    Miss G. Lack, M.A.—Headmistress, Rosebery Grammar School, Epsom.
    Professor W. J. M. Mackenzie—Mackenzie University.
    Mr. F. V. Magness, C.B.E.—Member, Willenhall Urban District Council. (Chairman of Executive Council of Urban District Councils Association.)
    Mr. E. B. Mayne, C.B.E.—Lately head of Shell Management Services.
    Mr. P. Mursell, M.B.E., D.L.—Chairman, West Sussex County Council.
    Mr. R. A. J. Porter—Member, Godstone Rural District Council.
    Mr. Morley Thomas, M.B.E.—Member, Connah's Quay Urban District Council.
    Mr. H. Watton, J.P.—Alderman, City of
    Birmingham.
    Mr. G. A. Wheatley, C.B.E.—clerk of Hampshire County Council.

  COMMITTEE ON THE STAFFING OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Terms of Reference
    "To consider the existing methods of recruiting local government officers and of using them; and what changes might help local authorities to get the best possible service and help their officers to give it".
    Chairman: Sir George Mallaby, K.C.M.G., O.B.E.—lately First Commissioner, Civil Service Commission.
    Dr. Elsie Briggs, B.Sc.—Secretary, Bristol University Appointments Board.
    Mr. S. T. Broad, M.A.—County Education Officer, Hertfordshire.
    Mr. A. H. Buckley—Principal Administrative Assistant, Education Department, Bolton.
    Mr. E. T. Butcher—Headmaster—Colne Valley (Comprehensive) High School Nr. Huddersfield.
    Mr. G. H. Carnall—lately Director of the Clayton Aniline Co. Ltd (Dyestuffs Manufacturers) and currently a Director of the Associated Company, CIBA Clayton Ltd.
    Mr. W. H. G. Cocks—County Treasurer, Glamorgan.
    Mr. J. R. Coxon, J.P.—Alderman, Durham County Council.
    Mr. A. Elliott, M.D., Ch.B., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., D.P.H.—County Medical Officer of Health, Kent.
    Mr. M. Henig—Alderman, Leicester City.
    Mr. G. F. Hickson, M.A.—Alderman, Cambridge City.
    Mr. W. Isaac—Town Clerk, Macclesfield.
    Mr. H. D. Jeffries—Clerk to Beeston & Stapleford Urban District Council.
    Mr. Bryan Keith-Lucas, M.A.—Nuffield College, Oxford.
    Mr. D. W. Newport, M.B.E —Clerk to Stratford-on-Avon Rural District Council. (Chairman of General Purposes Committee, Rural District Councils Association).
    Mr. P. J. Timms, A.I.M.T.A., D.P.A.—Establishment O. & M. Officer, Clerk's Department, Devon County Council.

    Mayors and Chairmen of Local Authorities (Allowances)
    Mr. Buckasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will seek powers to give additional assistance by way of extended loss of earnings allowance, or otherwise, to mayors and chairmen of local authorities to assist them during their period of office; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir K. Joseph: County councils, and county borough and borough councils, already have power to pay their chairman and mayor respectively such remuneration as they think reasonable, and district councils have power to pay to their chairman such allowance as they think reasonable for enabling him to meet the expenses of his office. I have no doubt that these arrangements will be considered by the committee under the chairmanship of Sir John Maud whose appointment I announced earlier this afternoon in reply to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart).
    Mr. Buck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the appointment of the Committees to which he referred earlier will cause satisfaction to those concerned with these problems on a long-term basis? But is he aware that there is a short-term problem? Can he confirm that it is Government policy to encourage employers to do all they can to assist those who serve as mayors or chairmen? If it is Government policy to do so, will he prevail on the Minister of Health to see that assistance is given to the Mayor-elect of Colchester, who is not being given any assistance despite the fact that he has taken on such arduous and worth-while duties?
    Sir K. Joseph: I think that my hon. Friend's supplementary question may have helpful effects. I should be unwilling to undertake to get in touch with individual employers.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that he has correctly divided the responsibilities of these two Committees? Would it not be better for one to deal with elected representatives and for the other to deal with staff, including chief officers?
    Sir K. Joseph: These Committees are being set up on the initiative of the local authority associations, whose decisions I am acting upon.

    Young Married Couples (House Mortgages)
    Mr. Abseasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether, in view of the large number of marriages now taking place of men under 21 years of age, he will introduce legislation to enable local authorities to advance mortgages to those under 21 years of age who, having married, wish to purchase a house of their own.
    Sir K. Joseph: This raises the general question whether a person under the age of 21 should be able to buy and hold land. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General have this matter under consideration.
    Mr. Abse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite the views of many self-acclaimed moralists, never in the history of British vital statistics has there been so high a proportion of been-agers getting married, and that there has been a fourfold increase since 1911? Is it not unfortunate that today even a young woman who marries someone over 21 in a society with an egalitarian family system is unable either to hold a vested interest in the house or jointly to share in the mortgage? Is it not high time that the Minister took some initiative? Does not his legalistic reply reveal the vapidity of the promises made by the Prime Minister yesterday to young people?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Sir K. Joseph: I did not want to waste the time of the House even by saying "No", but I will draw the point raised by the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend's attention.

    Former Office Building, Maldon (Conversion)
    Mr. B. Harrisonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why he reversed the decision of the Maldon Borough Council and has given
    1110
    permission for Acrow to convert a former office building into a workers' hostel.
    Mr. Corfield: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the decision letter on this case.
    Mr. Harrison: Does my hon. Friend realise that this firm has a dozen or a dozen and a half houses empty in a residential part of the borough and that the decision of my right hon. Friend has distressed and worried very considerably the local authority, which is the planning authority, and which can see no justification for it?
    Mr. Corfield: In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the answer is, "No". I did not know that it had other residential property available. In answer to the second part. my right hon. Friend came to the conclusion that there was no possible reason for refusing this permission.

    Joint Urban Planning Group
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what arrangements he is making for speeding-up the research studies of the joint urban planning group, so that reports may be issued without delay.
    Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport hope to issue advice to local authorities on parking and traffic management policies soon. In the meantime the research studies on the huge problems both of traffic and of obsolescent; in towns, which are concerned with the longer term issues, will proceed as quickly as possible.
    Mrs. Butler: Since there are multitudinous schemes of development and redevelopment both planned and going on here and all over the country quite unrelated to one another or to any form of regional scheme, does the Minister realise that the results of these studies are requires here and now before the whole face of the country is changed irrevocably? Can he speed up these studies?
    Mr. Corfield: Of course, my right hon. Friend realises the necessity of

    1111
    speed. The hon. Lady and the House must bear in mind that priority in many of these towns is slum clearance and that it will be some little time before the redevelopment of these twilight areas is appropriate. I would also ask her to bear in mind that once this advice is available, it does not follow that the internal arrangements of one town has any regional connection with the internal arrangements of a neighbouring town.

    South-East (Regional Study)
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he expects to publish the results of the regional study on the South-East.
    Sir K. Joseph: On 19th March.
    Mrs. Butler: Does the Minister realise that this news will be received with great joy by local authorities in the south-east region which are very considerably handicapped by the long wait for this study to be published? Does he realise that the London County Council has had some 12,000 planning applications and Middlesex 16,000 applications in the period since the study was commenced?
    Mr. MacColl: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the publication of these proposals on 19th March will create immediately a new demand for a run on land? Will he undertake to publish these new proposals for land acquisition in advance of use before the 19th March?
    Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade has already announced that with the South-East study on 19th March a White Paper will be published.

    Town and Country Planning Act, 1962
    Dr. Alan Glynasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, the operation of Sections 138 to 140 bears onerously upon owners of property for which no genuine market value can be ascertained; and if he will take steps to amend those Sections.
    Mr. Corfield: If owners of property consider that the price offered for their property under the blight provisions is not equivalent to the full market value of the property it is open to them to go to the Lands Tribunal. My right hon. Friend sees no reason to amend the provisions.
    Dr. Glyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that with all this wonderful machinery genuine hardship falls on the individual owner with property in this area and that it is impossble to get the market value or a reasonably quick settlement for the purchase of such property, which are practical problems in spite of the legal safeguards?
    Mr. Corfield: The case which my hon. Friend sent to me was rather unusual in that the purchase notice appears to have been lost en route.
    Dr. Glyn: Is not my hon. Friend aware that there are many other cases in a similar category?
    Mr. Corfield: No, I am not aware of problems arising where the provisions of the Act bite, but if my hon. Friend will send me other examples, I will look into them.

    Greater London Authority Members (Allowances)
    . Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of the longer distances councillors on the new Greater London boroughs and on the Greater London authority will have to travel in order to attend council meetings and committee meetings, if he is satisfied that existing powers are sufficient to enable the new administrative authorities to meet the out-of-pocket expenses and loss of wages incurred by councillors and, where necessary, to supply transport.
    Mr. Corfield: The distances involved in Greater London are by no means unusual. They would certainly not in themselves justify a departure from the arrangements which apply to local authorities generally.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that that is a merciless reply showing that he has no experience of the fact that, particularly in the new boroughs, great distances will have to be

    1113
    travelled involving much loss of time and extra expense? Can he not address himself to my proposal that power should be given to councils to send transport for those elected to local authorities?
    Mr. Corfield: These matters of reimbursement and allowances for local authority members are suitable subjects for the Maud Committee, to which my right hon. Friend referred earlier, but I cannot agree that these distances in themselves give rise to a special case. One has to remember that even the Greater London Area will be smaller than most of the counties, but it has a public transport system which is much more highly developed.
    Mr. Sorensen: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

  HOUSING

    Milner Holland Committee
    Mr. Denis Howellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of the activities of property owners in Birmingham, whether he will extend the terms of reference of the Milner Holland Committee to enable it to include Birmingham in its investigations.
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir.
    Mr. Howell: Why not?
    Sir K. Joseph: Because the Committee was set up primarily to look comprehensively at the state of housing in London, with the relations between landlord and tenant as only one of the implications of its survey. I hope that the lessons that emerge from London may be applicable to other cities.
    Mr. Howell: Is the Minister aware that apart from the fact that the Birmingham Corporation is taking commendable action against overcrowding, particularly among immigrants, the question of what one would call the normal landlord is virtually going by default in the matter of evictions in Birmingham, and that the problem is just as bad in the Midlands as in London? Will the Minister think again?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am not aware of these facts.
    Mr. Howell: The Minister should be aware of them.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Is there any possibility of the Committee extending its work to Birmingham? Is it not important to realise that this kind of problem is not exclusively a London problem?
    Sir K. Joseph: Certainly, housing problems a re not exclusive to London. I am sure that the whole House wants to get the Committee's Report as quickly as possible, but if it were now asked to divert its resources to take in Birmingham before completing its report we would have to wait much longer. The interests of all big cities will be best served by getting a thorough report on London as soon as possible.

    Housing Lists, London
    Dr. Alan Glynasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware of the practical difficulties, facing those individuals on council housing waiting lists, which result from the redistribuition of boroughs under the London Government Act; and whether he will introduce legislation requiring borough housing authorities to adjust their housing lists so as to take account of this new factor.
    Sir K. Joseph: Further legislation is not needed. Local authorities are solely responsible for the selection of tenants for their own houses, but I am confident that the new London borough councils will take account of any practical difficulties which may arise in setting up their new housing lists. It is my intention to issue general guidance to the new authorities on this subject.
    Dr. Glyr: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that information, may I ask whether he would agree that there is very real difficulty because local authorities have different standards and different priorities? The whole House would welcome it if he could issue a memorandum, which he has suggested, so that the difficulties could be ironed out and the anxieties felt al the moment resolved.
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir.

    Tenants, Birmingham (Eviction)
    Mr. Denis Howellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why he communicated officially with Mr. H. M. Madeley, of 202 Hagley Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, about the proposal of this landlord to evict two women and their children from 11 York Avenue, Bolton Road, Small Heath; if he is aware that, despite the information he gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath, that no pressure had been exerted upon the tenants to vacate the premises, they are to be evicted; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Corfield: Neither my right hon. Friend nor I communicated with Mr. Madeley, I have no reason to believe that the information which I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath was inaccurate and I do not think any statement is called for on my part.
    Mr. Howell: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me why it was that this wretched landlord, who decided to evict two women and their children, who had lived in the house for 24 years, for no other reason than that their mother, the previous tenant, had died—and he did that within a very short period of days indeed—[Interruption.] The landlord, after I had spoken to his solicitor, agreed that the tenants could stay in the house provided they paid almost double rent, and as this was the only alternative way of keeping a roof over their heads, this was agreed to. There was also a condition that 13 weeks' rent should be paid in advance. The solicitor and I agreed on the monstrous terms—[HON. MEMBERS:"Speech."]—I am taking a long time over this. If hon. Members opposite were being evicted, they would want some time taken over it. After that solemn agrement had been reached with the landlord's solicitor, the Minister with whom I communicated must have got in touch—[HON MEMBERS: "Question."]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand all the emotions involved, but the rules of the House exist in the interests of all of us. The hon. Member is making assertions at the moment. Would he mind putting them interrogatively?
    Mr. Howell: I will, Mr. Speaker. I am doing my best to state the facts on
    1116
    which I want to base my question. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Member is not allowed to do that."] Mr. Speaker will tell me, not hon. Members opposite. Let hon. Members opposite look after their own interests. I will look after mine. The point I want to put is: in view of what I have just said, why was the solemn agreement which I reached with the landlord's solicitor broken immediately after I had a letter dated 24th January from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary telling me the facts that I have set out in my Question, that no pressure was being put on the tenants? Why was it that, notwithstanding that reply from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and the agreement I had reached with the landlord's solicitor, the landlord sent back the deposit money which had been agreed and has now decided to evict these unfortunate women and their children?
    Mr. CorfieldWith due respect to the hon. Member, I cannot be held responsible for the action of a private landlord in Birmingham.
    Mr. Howell: Why not?
    Mr. Corfield: As to the information that I gave the hon. Member, I had an wholly unsolicited letter from Mr. Madeley, sent to his own Member of Parliament, who forwarded it to me.
    Mr. Howell: I rise on a point of order to say that I shall raise the subject on the Adjournment.

    Slum Clearance (Well Maintained Houses)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware that, preparatory to slum clearance, local authorities, whilst required to send notice to owners of the regulations regarding compensation for well maintained houses, are not required to notify tenants, and that some councils are not doing so even though tenants in certain circumstances are entitled to compensation; and if, in order to avoid tenants losing their rights, he will take steps to require local authorities to notify tenants as well as owners.
    Sir K. Joseph: Tenants with an interest of more than a month are notified direct by the local authority and

    1117
    landlords are asked, in the notice they receive, to inform other tenants of the possibility of claiming a payment. I believe these arrangements work satisfactorily but I am considering whether anything more is required. If the hon. Member has any evidence that difficulties have occurred perhaps he will send it to me.
    Mr. Allaun: I am grateful for that reply, and will certainly send the evidence. Does not this mean that at present there is one law for the landlord and another one, less favourable, for the tenant?
    Sir K. Joseph: No, I think not, The payment is made to the person who has carried out or been responsible for carrying out the maintenance. Generally that is the landlord, but there are arrangements for passing on the information to the tenant.

    House Prices
    Mr. Owenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware that the cost of house purchase continues to rise and what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government for assisting those affected.
    Sir K. Joseph: As I explained on 25th February in reply to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) the rise in house prices reflects the demand. The best way to help is to make more land available and to build more houses, and that is what we are doing.
    Mr. Owen: Are higher house prices and mortgage rates a reflection of Tory Party policy for a property-owning democracy? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that thousands of young married people are frustrated in their search for homes? Is he further aware that, during the past year, the average cost of houses has increased by 7 per cent.? Would he be prepared to look at the activities of building societies and estate agents to see what impact they are having upon house prices?
    Sir K. Joseph: House building for owner-occupiers has risen to record levels each year and looks like beating all records in 1964. For those who cannot quite afford the price of a new house, the Bill now going through Par-
    1118
    liament, setting up a Housing Corporation to stimulate housing associations, will be of great help.
    Mr. Gower: Is it not the case that. in the last 10 years, one of the most significant features has been the increase in the number of owner-occupiers? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we soon approach the American proportion of owner-occupation, which, I believe, is 70 per cent.?
    Mr. W. Hamilton: As the price of land represents a very large proportion of the cost of a house, and since the right hon. Gentleman said that he would bring forward new machinery to deal with the problem, may I ask whether that new machinery is in existence now? If not, when will he make a statement about it?
    Sir K. Joseph: I have said that the main way of dealing with the price of land is to release more, and this the Government are doing.

    Caravans (Fire Danger)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what reply he has sent to the proposals from a Salford resident regarding the elimination of fire danger in caravans.
    Mr. Corfield: The hon. Member wrote to my right hon. Friend on 26th January, enclosing a letter from one of his constituents on this subject. I replied to him on Monday, 17th February, drawing his attention to measures which have been taken recently to reduce fire risks.
    Mr. Allaun: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very helpful reply referring to the recent British Standard laying down certain minimum safety conditions which will be applied. Would he ask all the manufacturers to print and exhibit this standard on all caravans made?
    Mr. Corfield: I will certainly consider something on those lines.

    Co-operative Housing Associations
    Mr. Sydney Irvingasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs

    1119
    how much money has now been lent to co-operative housing associations of the £25 million set aside for this purpose by Section 7 of the Housing Act, 1961; how many schemes are involved; and how many projects still await his final consideration.
    Mr. Corfield: I know at present of six schemes intended to provide housing on a co-ownership basis, which will look for assistance under Section 7 of the Housing Act 1961. £43,681 has been advanced to two of the associations concerned to cover the purchase of land. As building contracts have not been let for any of these schemes, none can be said to be finally settled.
    The experience gained on these pilot schemes will help the proposed Housing Corporation to foster co-ownership schemes on a very much greater scale.
    Mr. Irving: Is not this a disappointingly slow rate of progress for three years? Has the hon. Gentleman no other suggestion to offer about the way he can help people to become members of a co-operative housing association?
    Mr.Corfield: The whole idea of the £25 million allocated under Section 7 of the Housing Act, 1961, was to produce pilot schemes on which the provisions of the present Bill are being founded.

    Flats, Hendon (Rents)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware of the decision of the Hendon Council not to use the power of compulsory purchase of a block of flats at Temple Fortune Mansions, Finchley Road, London, whose tenants are being asked by their landlords to pay increases of more than 100 per cent. in rent; and what action he will take in the matter.
    Sir K. Joseph: I understand that the borough council has reached no decision in this matter but that discussions are taking place between the council and the landlords.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable anxiety among the tenants of these flats because the council has decided not to deal with this matter and come to a decision until 48 hours before the date is due for the tenants to decide
    1120
    whether they will pay the increased rent, amounting to more than 100 per cent., or accept the alternative of eviction? Is this not a case where the right hon. Gentleman ought to intervene in the interests of the tenants concerned?
    Sir K. Joseph: No. I am satisfied that the council is taking such action as seems wise to it with all the knowledge of the facts.
    Mr. Shinwell: Should not the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices to urge upon the council the need for coming to an early decision, so that the tenants have an opportunty of deciding which alternative they would accept?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am sure that the council will note the right hon. Gentleman's comments.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the council not only takes note of what I am saying but of what he is saying?
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that it can be expected, and it is not right for local government, that I should grandmother local authorities which are perfectly able to act in the defence of their inhabitants in the way they think best. The local authority is in touch with the situation here and is discussing it with the landlords.
    Mr. Howie: Does the Minister recall that his attention was drawn to the fact that the chairman of the tenants' association here is in quite a special situation, in that he alone of all the tenants has been told that unless he redecorates his entire flat he will not be allowed a new lease when the date comes up?
    Sir K. Joseph: I deprecate any victimisation of tenants' representatives. I am making further inquiries about this case.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Although the Minister says that local authorities have power to deal with this kind of matter, does he not realise that this is not an isolated example and that the tenants in areas where the local authority is more sympathetic to landlords than tenants and will not use its powers are practically helpless, and that he has some responsibility for them?
    Sir K. Joseph: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will send me details of any case that he has in mind.

    Compulsory Purchase Orders, London
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many compulsory purchase orders for housing purposes in the London County Council area were submitted to him during the past year; and how many he confirmed.
    Sir K. Joseph: In 1963, 160 orders were submitted and 96 were confirmed, including 39 of those submitted in 1963. 114 of the 160 had not been decided at the end of the year.
    Mr. Lipton: Why is the Minister so lukewarm and dilatory about helping local authorities to acquire properties by compulsory purchase? Is he not aware that tenants in London are suffering more extortion and victimisation than ever before, largely due to the Rent Act, 1957, and Government policy? When will he take the prompt and decisive action required to help tenants in great distress instead of fobbing us off with more committees? He has announced two more committees today. When will he do something to relieve the terrible state of affairs which has grown up in London and from which many tenants are suffering undue hardship?
    Sir K. Joseph: One-third of the compulsory purchase orders were submitted on account of excessive rents and I am taking on average 13 weeks to make a decision on these. The other two-thirds relate either to slum clearance or to the general acquisition of houses by local authorities, raising very complicated legal issues, and I am taking on average 32 weeks to decide these in view of all the interests involved.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a special difficulty arises in cases where a compulsory purchase order relates to a house whose landlord is abusing his position under the Rent Act, in that cases are apt to go to court while the consideration is going on and that a possession order may be granted to the landlord, so that by the time the Minister comes to decide, he
    1122
    rejects the application since to do otherwise would flout the decision of the court? Will he lock into this question and deal expeditiously with such cases in order to assist local authorities to protect tenants from this type of landlord?
    Sir K. Joseph: If the hon. Gentleman would help me by sending me any case of which he is aware, I would certainly look into it.
    Mr. Lipton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

    Housing Costs, Slough
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what was the cost to the borough council of the purchase of land and of interest charges for loans for each house unit in Slough in 1951 and 1963, respectively.
    Sir K. Joseph: For dwellings built by the Slough Council in 1951 the average land cost was £70 per house and £50 per flat; the average initial annual interest charges were £46 and £37 respectively. For dwellings built in 1963 the average land cost was £70 per house—no flats were built during the year; and the initial annual interest charges were £123 for a 2-bedroom house, £132 for a 3-bed- room house, and £176 for a 4-bedroom house.
    Mr. Brockway: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the cost of house sites per unit has increased between five and seven times since 1951, that the land costs alone for a house now represent 17s. 4d. a week in rent, that the site and interest charges cost of a house before a brick is laid is £733? When will the Government do something to stop these swollen charges which do not reflect any service to the community?
    Sir K. Joseph: And yet more houses are being built and bought this year than ever before since the war.
    Mr. M. Stewart: When the right hon. Gentleman says that more houses are being built this year than ever before since the war, is he referring to this year, in which case he is judging on

    1123
    the record of only two months? Does he remember that the number of houses completed in Great Britain in 1963 was 20,000 fewer than the number completed ten years earlier?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, but I note that in the last quarter of 1963 we completed 1,013 houses every day.

    Land, Willesden
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will assist the Willesden Borough Council to acquire two and a half acres of land in Oman Avenue to build homes to meet the housing shortage in Willesden.
    Mr.Corfield: My right hon. Friend and his predecessor refused to confirm compulsory purchase orders made in respect of this land by Willesden Borough Council in 1959, and again in 1962, because they did not consider that the contribution which this small site, would make to the council's housing problem was sufficient to justify depriving owners of land on which they themselves intended to build flats. But he has recently informed the borough council that he would give them loan sanction if they were able to acquire the land by agreement.
    Mr. Pavitt: Does the Parliamentary Secretary recall that in my constituency 264 families are separated because of want of accommodation and that 48 of them are in Middlesex County Council hostels? Does he realise that private building will not make any contribution, because there are 5,928 on the waiting list and that Willesden is near enough to London for private houses to be converted to luxury flats? In the light of those facts, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider?
    Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I could not prejudge a further compulsory purchase order if one should come forward. It is relevant to bear in mind that only 2½acres is involved and that the development which All Souls College, Oxford, was carrying out was only interrupted by the war.
    Mr. Pavitt: That would house 40 families of the 48 split up.
    1124
    In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
    Ql. Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Leeds on 24th January about economic matters represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Wyatt: Does the Prime Minister realise that that madly optismistic speech was made before the Bank Rate went up and before the publication of the bad trade figures for January? Is he not aware that we are now fast running into a balance of payments crisis which is particularly illustrated by the fact that a large part of our imports in January was due not to stocking up, but to finished manufactured goods? Will he say whether the Government have started conversations with the International Monetary Fund and the European central banks with a view to protecting our reserves before it is too late, in view of the balance of payments crisis which we are running into?.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member would be wise to await the February figures.
    Mr. Callaghan: How does the Prime Minister reconcile that speech with what he said last night advising young people to jump on the Tory bandwagon? Can he explain how a free-for-all will assist us to recruit the nurses and the teachers and the postmen, and how an incomes policy fits into the Tory concept of a free-for-all? When he spoke of the congestion in the South and overcrowding and land shortage, did he ask his script writer who had been in power for the last 12 years?
    The Prime Minister: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question has nothing to do with the original Question. I do not know that any member of the Government, certainly not the Chancellor of the

    1125
    Exchequer, has ever talked about a Tory free-for-all. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked a question and he must listen to the answer. The whole theme of my speech last night was that we were going ahead with a steady and controlled expansion. I must add that if it were a choice between a free-for-all and controls for all, I would choose the first.
    Mr. Biggs-DavisonIs my right hon. Friend aware that not many young people will be tempted to jump on the one-man bandwagon?
    Mr. M. Stewart: When the Prime Minister used the phrase "controlled expansion", did that apply to rents and land prices, about which we heard earlier this afternoon?
    The Prime Minister: The Question has nothing to do with rents or land.

    LAND, SMARDEN (CONTAMINATION)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Prime Minister what action he is taking to co-ordinate and accelerate the efforts of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Transport to decontaminate the Smarden area of Kent.
    The Prime Minister: The Departments concerned have acted together throughout and disposal of the source of contamination is going ahead as fast as possible.
    Mr. Lipton:: Is this also an example of controlled movement, or controlled progress forward? Is the Prime Minister aware that this clearance will take an awfully long time? Why does he not spend a little more time supervising the dilatory action of his colleagues, instead of going round the country trying to create an image for pure party political purposes?
    The Prime Minister: My whole purpose in going round the country is to eliminate contamination.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a little difficulty in making myself heard. I called Mr. John Wells.
    Mr. J. Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people in Kent are well satisfied with the progress that is being made in this matter, and that the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) makes himself ridiculous by raising these questions with my right hon. Friend?
    The Prime Minister: I think that whole process will be completed by mid-April.
    Mr. Shinwell: When the right hon. Gentleman referred to his desire to go round the country in order to eliminate contamination, had he in mind what happened prior to his election as Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir, not in particular.

    CUBA
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister what agreement or understanding was arrived at between him and President Johnson on the subject of the United States cutting off what remained of financial, aid to Britain as a consequence of the sale of British buses to Cuba, and the subject of United States policy toward Cuba being treated as a matter of common concern to the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
    The Prince Minister: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question seems to be based on a misunderstanding. The termination of United States aid was not a consequence of the sale of buses to Cuba. It resulted from the application to the United Kingdom—among other countries—of a provision of current United States aid legislation which requires that no assistance shall be given to a county failing to take appropriate steps by 14th February to prevent its ships trading with Cuba. Her Majesty's Government felt unable to take such steps. The two Governments discussed the matter before the termination of aid was announced.
    As regards the second part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, it is open to any member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to raise with its allies matters which it regards as being of common concern to them. No specific agreement or understanding was reached

    1127
    between President Johnson and myself on this point; nor was any needed.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Did the Prime Minister take the opportunity to protest to the President against this legislation and against the penalising of shipping, including British shipping trading with Cuba? Will he draw the attention of the United States Administration to the fact that if this is a matter of common concern under N.A.T.O. it is the job of the Americans to pursue a policy that is consistent with the Charter and not offensive to her allies in N.A.T.O.?
    The Prime Minister: I have made it plain time and again to the United States Government that we do not approve of this legislation.

    UNITED NATIONS (PEACE KEEPING FORCE)
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he discussed with President Johnson and Mr. Lester Pearson the desirability of earmarking national contingents to meet any call from the United Nations, when urgent international military measures are to be taken, pending the creation of a United Nations Permanent Peace Force.
    The Prime Minister: In the limited time available, President Johnson, Mr. Pearson and I concentrated our discussions in this field on the particular problem of a peace-keeping force in Cyprus.
    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the progress of plans for a United Nations peace-keeping force with the Secretary-General during our visit, and in his speech at the Geneva Conference last week he repeated our warm support for building up the peacekeeping capabilities of the United Nations.
    Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact that the Canadian and Danish Governments have announced their intention of earmarking units of their forces for meeting any United Nations call pending the creation of a permanent force, why cannot Her Majesty's Government also announce their intention of earmarking British forces for the same purpose?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Member probably knows that the permanent members of the Security Council have not so far considered that this is appropriate, but I do not particularly want to rest on that argument. At this very moment we are doing a good deal of peace keeping all over the world, and without a very great margin, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman reminds us from time to time. We are always willing to consider this matter with our allies.
    Mr. Longden: Irrespective of the desirability of any such arrangements as these, does my right hon. Friend know why the Soviet Union will not operate the Charter as it is? Chapter 7 would serve a very useful purpose but it is constantly being vetoed by the Soviet Union.
    The Prime Minister: That is true. Why the Soviet Union take that line I cannot say.
    Mr. Henderson: Did the right hon. Gentleman discuss this matter with Mr. Lester Pearson, in view of the fact that Mr. Pearson made the announcement to which I have just referred?
    The Prime Minister: I said that we discussed the Cyprus force with Mr. Pearson. We did not go wider. But my right hon. Friend discussed it with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

    VIET-NAM
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Prime Minister what assurances he gave relating to Viet-Nam during his recent talks with President Johnson.
    The Prime Minister: I reaffirmed my support for United States policy which, as stated by President Kennedy as long ago as December, 1961, is intended to help the Republic of Viet-Nam to protect its people and to preserve its independence.
    Mr. Mayhew: We can sympathise with the Americans over their difficulties in Viet-Nam, but did the Prime Minister explain to the President that Her Majesty's Government would oppose any plan to extend the war to the north?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir, there was no such suggestion.
    Mr. Warbey: In giving full support to American policy in South Viet-Nam, did the Prime Minister receive any return assurances from President Johnson that the American Government intended to bring their war in Viet-Nam to an end and to seek a policy based on the Geneva Agreements of 1954?
    The Prime Minister: The whole purpose of this help to the South Viet-Nam Government is to bring these operations to an end, but there is a continuous infiltration of Communists from the north.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is it not plain that the only way to stop infiltration from the north is by having a conference? It is plainly impossible by military means to prevent infiltration in the Viet-Namese jungles.
    The Prime Minister: The situation is similar to that in Malaya, when we found ourselves involved in a very difficult operation. But it should not be impossible to protect a country which wishes to live in independence and peace.

    CYPRUS
    Mr. Rankinasked the Prime Minister if he will state the terms of his reply to that part of Mr. Khrushchev's message to him in which he said that everything was being done to prevent discussion of the Cyprus problem by the Security Council before which it has been placed by the Government of Cyprus.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest developments in the Cyprus situation; what communications have recently been received by Her Majesty's Government from the Governments of the United States, Greece, Turkey, and Cyprus, particularly with regard to the import of arms into Cyprus; and how soon he expects that the British troops in Cyprus will be reinforced or relieved by an international force.
    The Prime Minister: The texts of Mr. Khrushchev's letter to me on the Cyprus problem and of my reply were given in my Written Answer to the hon.
    1130
    Gentleman the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) on 13th February.
    Since my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary made his statement to the House on 17th February, the Security Council and the Secretary-General of the United Nations have been urgently considering the problem.
    Last night in the Security Council, a resolution was introduced drafted by its five non-permanent members. This resolution recommends the creation, with the consent of the Government of Cyprus, of a United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus, the composition and size of which is to be established by the Secretary-General in consultation with the Governments of Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Throughout the discussions in the Security Council we have made it clear that we are not prepared to bear indefinitely almost the whole burden of peace keeping in the Republic of Cyprus. On the point of timing, I naturally cannot anticipate the course of events in the Security Council, or the plans of the Secretary-General.
    While we are in close consultation with the other Governments concerned on all aspects of the Cyprus situation, no formal communications have been received from the Governments mentioned in the second Question on the particular matter of the import of arms into Cyprus.
    Mr. Rankin: Do I take it from that statement that the right hon. Gentleman has now changed his view, and that instead of supporting N.A.T.O.'s activities in Cyprus he is turning to the support of the United Nations peacekeeping activities? Is he aware that last Wednesday Admiral Zenker announced that West Germany was going ahead with the building of three submarines, to be followed later by six submarine killers? How can he support these warlike activities of West Germany while he boasts about his peace-keeping activities in Cyprus and other parts of the world?
    The Prime Minister: There is absolutely no connection between the hon. Member's supplementary question and the original Question. I think that we would wish to see the result of the Security Council meeting tomorrow

    1131
    morning before making up our minds about future steps.
    Mr. Driberg: In order to stress the urgency of the last part of Question No. 7—which is indeed accepted by the Prime Minister himself in the reply which he has given—can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the very disturbing figures about British units below strength in Cyprus given to the House yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)?
    The Prime Minister: I think that I should like notice of a Question about the actual strength of units in Cyprus. At the moment we have some 8,000 to 12,000 men there. That is a great many and they are doing their job extremely well.
    Mr. BottomleyAfter expressing the wish that the decision of the United Nations will be a successful one, and that help will be given to bring peace to Cyprus, may I ask whether the Prime Minister would agree that it would have been much wiser had the Government taken this matter to the Security Council much earlier?
    The Prime Minister: If I may say so, this is where right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite make a complete mistake and misjudge the situation completely. We have to carry with us in this matter not only the Greeks but the Turks who are allies in N.A.T.O. We have had to play this hand in a way which would get the agreement of the Greeks and the Turks, and we had to put a resolution to the United Nations which would not be vetoed by the Russians. That has been an extremely tricky thing to do and we should not have had a chance if we had done it earlier.

EUROPEAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE
The follow Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. WALL: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the West European Fisheries Conference.
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the
1132
House, I will now answer Question No. 52.
The European Fisheries Conference, which has met in three sessions under my chairmanship since 3rd December, 1963, concluded its work yesterday. At its final session a majority of delegations adopted ad referendum the final text of a Fisheries Convention together with a Protocol of Provisional Application, and certain ancillary agreements. The conference also passed resolutions on Fisheries Policing, on Conservation, and on Access to Markets. I am arranging for copies of the Final Act of the Conference, to which the texts of the relevant documents are annexed, to be placed in the Library of the House.
The Fisheries Convention enables signatory States to regulate fisheries within a 12-mile zone from the baselines from which their territorial seas are measured. Fishing is to be reserved to the fishermen of the coastal State within the inner six miles subject to a short phase-out period for foreign fishermen who have traditonally fished the three to six-mile zone.
During the conference, my delegation agreed with the other countries principally interested in the duration of this phase-out period so far as the United Kingdom is concerned. It will be until 31st December, 1965, except where straight baselines or new bay closing lines are drawn, where it will be until 31st December, 1966.
Within the outer six miles, fishing is reserved to fishermen of the coastal State and to those States which have habitually fished in the area between 1st January, 1953, and 31st December, 1962. Such foreign fishermen will be restricted to stocks and grounds which they already fish and subject to regulation and policing by the coastal State. The Convention will be open on conditions to be agreed for accession by other countries which were not represented at the conference.
It was agreed that any straight baselines and new bay closing lines should be drawn in accordance with the rules of general international law and, in particular, of the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea, 1958. I am placing in the Library of the House a copy of a

1133
map indicating our broad intentions in this matter.
The Convention is open for signature between 9th March and 10th April, and 13 delegations indicated that they would recommend their Governments to sign it. I am sorry that the delegations of Norway and Iceland, and the Danish delegation in respect of the Faroes and Greenland, were unable to accept the Convention. The Convention will, of course, remain open for accession by these and other States. The position of Denmark in relation to the Faroe Islands raises urgent and special questions on which a statement will be made by my right hon. Friend within the next few days.
So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, legislation will be necessary to give effect to our acceptance of the Convention and will be introduced as soon as possible. The signature of the Protocol of Provisional Application will enable early effect to be given to the new regime of fishery limits without waiting for ratification of the Convention by all signatories.
Mr. Wall: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his initiative in calling this conference, which has achieved far more than the two previous international conferences at Geneva? May I ask whether the question of access to markets was discussed? Is he aware that countries who do not sign this Convention must expect to have restrictions placed on their access to British markets?
Mr. Thomas: The question of access to markets was discussed, but any possibility of a more general agreement embracing trade as well as fishery limits could not be proceeded with because the Convention was not accepted by a number of countries and the six countries of the European Community felt unable to make or accept any suggestions on trade matters until they had agreed among themselves a common fisheries policy.
Mr. Hoy: We thank the hon. Gentleman for his statement. It is usual for copies to be made available to the Opposition of statements of that length, but they have not been supplied on this occasion. The hon. Gentleman will
1134
understand, therefore, if I put some questions to him arising from his statement, but, at the same time, reserve the right to ask for a debate on the whole matter in the near future.
First, may I say to the hon. Gentleman that we welcome—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question''] We offer the hon. Gentleman our congratulations on the decision about the limits, but is it not a fact that the whole agreement is weakened because it does not apply to the Faroes, to Greenland, or to Iceland? Is he aware, for instance, that the Scottish middle-water fleet, which derives an income of £2 million from this area, will experience a cut of at least half of that amount as a result of this agreement? Is he aware that this decision does not meet with the approvea1 of the trade or of the trade unions concerned? Is he aware that they have made a decision to introduce a quota for landings from the Faroes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question"] Well, it was a long statement.
Will the hon. Gentleman consider holding bilateral talks with the Faroes to see whether a settlement can be reached in this respect between ourselves and the Faroes, and any other countries who may wish to enter into conversations of that kind?
Mr. Thomas: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if he had not a copy of tn5 statement before I made it to the House. I was told that the Opposition Whips had two copies before 3 p.m. I apologise if that is not so. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it was my intention that he should have those copies.
I said in my statement that the question of the Faroes raises urgent and important matters and that a statement will be made by my right hon. Friend within the next two or three days. Perhaps I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the position of the deep-water fishermen remains as it was before. The Convention has not altered their position. Our agreement, for in stance, with Norway and our agreement with Iceland still remains. I agree that the position of the Faroes is something which we shall have to decide A statement will be made later this week.
Mr. G. R. Howard: Is my hon. Friend aware that his statement will give great

1135
satisfaction to many people in this country who want to increase all limits? May I take it from the statement that vessels, driftnet fishermen and trawlers of our own nation will be able to fish within these limits, especially round the Cornish coasts?
Mr. Thomas: I think it right to say, although this is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, that this convention does not affect the right of British fishermen to fish where they normally fish now. It is our intention that they should carry on fishing to the extent they have done before within our waters.
Mr. Crosland: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this conference, as many of us predicted, has turned out to be a total and frustrating waste of time for a large number of very busy men in many countries inasmuch as an extension of our limits could have been accomplished without this elaborate conference, whereas the middle-water and distant-water fleets gain nothing at all?
Will he convey to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—who surely ought to have been here on the occasion of this statement being made —the fact that now he has no further excuse for delaying? He ought to come out with a long-term policy and plan for the future of the industry without any further delay.
Mr. Thomas: I totally disagree with the hon. Member. If he suggests that it is a waste of time to reach agreement among the countries principally concerned in Europe, I disagree. If he suggests that we would benefit, in place of an association with all the countries of Europe, by making a unilateral move, and that this would be preferable to arrangements reached by agreement, he is wholly wrong.
If the hon. Gentleman is interested in our near-water fishermen I point out that they will benefit by the signing of the agreement from the extension of internal waters in an area where the straight base lines and new closing lines across bays have been drawn. They
1136
will have exclusive rights within a six-mile limit from 31st December, 1965, where the limit is drawn from low-water mark and after 31st December, 1966, where it is drawn from straight base lines and the new bay closing lines.
In addition, foreign fishermen outside the six-mile limit will be restricted to the stocks and grounds they already fish and be subject to regulation and policing by British authorities. To say that an agreement on these lines is a waste of time is absolute nonsense.
Sir J. MacLeod: Is my hon. Friend aware that this will certainly make a difference to the economy of the seven crofter counties? Can he say whether the Minch and the Moray Firth will be closed under the agreement?
Mr. Thomas: I have arranged for a map to be placed in the Library, but I can say for the benefit of those who would like to know immediately that it is our intention that the Minch should be closed. It would not be possible, under the 1958 Convention, to close the Moray Firth, but there is a bay closing line in the Moray Firth.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that Britain's foreign competitors have been allowed, owing to the negligence of the Government, to get away with unilateral action to the prejudice of the British fishing industry? Can he give any assurance by either the long, complicated statement he has read, or otherwise, that steps will be taken to protect the British fishing industry from that unilateral action? Alternatively, will he give an assurance that Britain will take unilateral action to protect the British fishing industry?
Mr. Thomas: I cannot understand the hon. and learned Member. In one part of his question he said that it was wrong to take unilateral action and Britain should do something about it—I do not know whether he meant that we should go war—and in another part he said that we should take unilateral action ourselves. Our hope was to reach agreement and I am happy to say that it looks as though we have reached it.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  Technological Change (Problems of Redundancy)
  Mr. Dodds: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 16th March, I shall call attention to the problems of redundancy in a period of technological change, and move a Resolution.
  Scotland (Unemployment Among Young People)
  Mr. Hoy: I beg to give notice that on Monday,16th March, I shall call attention to the continuing high rate of unemployment among young people in Scotland, and move a Resolution.
  City Hospital Patients (Traffic Noises)
  Mr. Hiley: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 16th March, I shall call attention to the distress caused to patients in city hospitals by traffic noises, and move a Resolution.

  PHARMACY
  3.45 p.m.
  Mr. John Hall: I beg to move.
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Pharmacy Act, 1954.
  My proposed Bill has one merit, in that it is very short. It has only two Clauses and the principal Clause seeks to amend Section 14 of the Pharmacy Act, 1954, which provides that every registered pharmaceutical chemist
  "shall by virtue of registration"
  be a member of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain.
  The Bill would allow those qualified pharmacists who have conscientious objections based on religious beliefs to be registered as pharmaceutical chemists without, at the same time, being forced to belong to the Pharmaceutical Society. It was my good fortune, as a private Member, to introduce the principal 1954 Act and to see it through to the Statute Book. If I had been aware of this point at the time I was drafting that Bill, I should have drafted Section 14 in such a way as to make this amendment possible.
  The Pharmaceutical Society has been consulted about this matter throughout. It agrees in principle to the Bill as now drafted—indeed, it has been drafted in consultation with the Society—but I want to make clear that comparatively few pharmacists are affected by Section 14 of the Act as it now stands. It was some years after the passing of the Act before those pharmacists felt increasingly concerned about their position as members of a Society which seemed to conflict with their religious beliefs completely and they could no longer remain members of the Society. They therefore resigned, or ceased registration, as the only way of resigning from the Society.
  The Pharmaceutical Society tried to find a solution to this problem for some time, but failed to do so. Eventually, a small number of practising and qualified pharmacists were removed from the Register and since 1958 a small number of those who have qualified as pharmaceutical chemists have been unable to register for exactly the same reason.

  1139
  These pharmacists have very strong religious convictions which prevent them from becoming members of the Society. Their convictions have led them to accept the severe penalty which has arisen as a result of being denied registration. It has meant that they have had to cease practising and give up their business or give up positions as managers of pharmaceutical firms. They have been prepared to do this because of this matter of conscience.
  The House has always recognised matters of conscience based upon sincerely held beliefs. I am sure that no one would wish qualified men and women of this kind to be penalised by reason of strongly held beliefs. I want to make it clear that this amendment of the law does not change in any way the other conditions of the Act, conditions relating to the professional qualifications which are necessary before a person can be registered, conditions as to the payment of registration fees, and so on. It merely gives to those who do not want to be forced to become members of the Pharmaceutical Society as opposed to being registered as pharmaceutical chemists, an opportunity to opt out of that provision.
  The Pharmaceutical Society accepts the principle of this proposed amending Bill. As sponsor of the original Act, I am very glad indeed to have this opportunity of trying to amend this small defect in an otherwise excellent Act, and I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Hall.

  PHARMACY
  Bill to amend the Pharmacy Act, 1954, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 20th March and to be printed. [Bill 100.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [9TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

DEFENCE (AIR) ESTIMATES, 1964–65

  VOTE A. NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a number of Officers, Airmen and Airwomen, not exceeding 140,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.
  3.52 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Hugh Fraser): The Estimates which I introduce today follow the pattern described in the White Paper on the Central Organisation for Defence. I hope that the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) will find no fault with the layout. Yesterday, he found some fault with the layout of the Navy Estimates.
  I also hope that no hon. Member will be inhibited in his remarks this afternoon by the new and surprising statement which has been made by the Leader of the Opposition about our forces overseas. It is very remarkable that yesterday we debated the Navy. I see rumours in this morning's newspapers that the Navy is to be given away, like the deterrent. Doubtless this will be cleared up, as these things have always been cleared up by hon. Members opposite. All I want to make clear, to satisfy the right hon. Member for Easington, is that what I am putting forward is within the Defence White Paper as laid down.
  Although the form of presentation and the title are new, the Vote headings remain unchanged. The net total of the Defence (Air) Estimate for 1964–65 is £504 million and this is very close to the figure in the original Estimate for 1963–64. The great bulk of this expenditure falls under two main headings—

  1141
  just over half goes on material, of aircraft, weapons and equipment of all kinds, and most of the remainder on manpower costs.
  In the defence debate last week we considered the broad pattern of defence. Although I am always happy to resume this debate, I do not think that the Committee will want to go over the same ground this afternoon. Instead, I would like to treat these Estimates under five main headings: manpower, the rôle of the Royal Air Force and how this rôle has been fulfilled this year, the equipment of the force, the question of management, and, finally, the future of the Royal Air Force as seen by the twentieth and presumptively the last Secretary of State for Air, unless certain gallant hearts and heads of oak in another place hold up the launching of the new "Leviathan," but this they are unlikely to do.
  First, manpower. The condition of this, without any words from me, reflects the spirit of the Air Force. What is more, men are the key to any system, machine or capital investment. Here I can report that the Royal Air Force is in good shape. The sum of£175 million for their pay and other emoluments takes account of the third biennial pay reviews and the actual increases will take effect from 1st April. I believe that this highly satisfactory situation as regards the manpower of the force reflects the belief of the young citizen of this country of the future of the Royal Air Force.
  To take aircrew first, last year we recruited all we required, except for one air electronics officer. The entry to Cranwell was the highest for several years and we continued to have a satisfactory flow of candidates from the universities to the general duties branch, many of whom had already flown in university air squadrons. The 18 university air squadrons provided 56 entrants, and we look to those and to the new university cadetship scheme, which was introduced last year, to provide a steady flow of graduates to the general duties and technical branches and supplement the provision of permanent commissions from the cadet colleges. In the future the Royal Air Force must aim to obtain its fair share of the increasing output of university graduates. We are cer-
  1142
  tainly under pressure from the universities to increase our number of squadrons, and this is a pressure I find agreeable.
  The encouraging aircrew recruiting picture has produced a better standard of entrant. This, taken together with the introduction of basic training on jet aircraft from the outset, has resulted in a market falling off in the number of failures during training. This is good news and gives us a better return for considerably less cost.
  The technical branch is fully manned, but there is some shortage of suitably qualified officers in their late twenties and early thirties. We are now making special efforts to attract qualified engineers from civil life and have introduced a new internal recruiting scheme, which offers commissioned service in the technical branch to ex-apprentices with good Ordinary National Certificates, plus practical skill, in lieu of the minimum requirement of two G.C.E. A levels which applied previously.
  I turn now to airmen. Hon. Members may have observed from the table at Annex C to the Air Force section of the White Paper that roughly 90 per cent. of airmen are on regular engagements of nine years or more. This is a very satisfactory figure. Although there are minor shortages in certain administrative trades, these are due not so much to any failure in recruitment, but to a temporary lack of balance between trades, which is unavoidable in a period of change. These shortages are offset by small surpluses elsewhere.
  Because the overall manning position is so encouraging, we needed to recruit relatively few men directly during the past year. Later this year, however, we expect to be able to offer an increased number of vacancies for civil applicants and I have, therefore, kept the recruiting machine in being. Last year we recruited all the apprentices and boys required. Here I am again glad to say that the standard of applicants was high and competition for vacancies from very keen.
  Finally, recruitment to the Women's Royal Air Force has been good. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deal with other detailed points of this nature because, as I have said, it is the

  1143
  key to any Service that one should attract the best possible type and that there should be competition for the vacancies which occur. This, today, is true of the Royal Air Force.
  I turn to the rôle and tasks of the Royal Air Force. Details of the work of the various operational commands were set out in the Statement on Defence, and I do not wish to weary the Committee with unnecessary repetition. As I said in the defence debate last week, the rôle of this country is neither that of the two giant Powers nor that of a purely European country. Geography, as Dr. Barnes Wallis has pointed out, places us in as naturally an advantageous a position in this century of air power as did our oceanic position in previous days. Our commitments overseas also dictate that rapid movement gives air power for us a central importance.
  Everyone who listened to last week's debate was struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) and hon. Members will have noted the stress on flight refuelling in the White Paper and the need for ever longer ranges for our aircraft.
  I would now like to say a few words about the various commands. First, as to Bomber Command. I dealt at some length last week with the assignment of the V-bomber force to N.A.T.O. and its deterrent capability, particularly in the low-level rôle. This afternoon I should like to repeat that we have now met the greater part of the capital expenditure involved in building up this force; expenditure on aircraft and weapons, on airfields, technical buildings and a great variety of ancillary services.
  From now until the end of the decade the cost of the V-force will average out at less than 2 per cent. of the defence budget. And I would remind the Committee that for this sum we are getting not only a deterrent, but also a very large conventional capability indeed.
  Mr. Frederick Mulley: Since the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the cost involved, can he tell us what the total cost has been up to date?
  Mr. Fraser: The total cost has been given in terms of the general figure.
  1144
  That figure has been quoted at about £1,000 million, including pay, equipment, and so on, over the period during which this has been building up.
  Mr. Mulley: That was the general figure, but what is the actual figure?
  Mr. Fraser: The figure I have given is a general one. It is a large sum and is based over the 10-year period. The hon. Gentleman can work out what the cost will be in the future comparatively easily. Although he will arrive at a somewhat round figure, this is a very large sum and I am sure that he can make the calculation.
  There are three points I should like to mention in connection with the low level rôle of the V-force. In the defence debate last week the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) asked what would happen to the black boxes when they were being buffeted at low level. Severe turbulence can be, and is, experienced at high level. For this reason all the black boxes incorporate anti-vibration mountings and we do not expect in the low level mode any particular difficulty.
  As regards navigation at low level, we have been gratified at the high degree of accuracy that has been obtained in trials and training using existing equipment in the aircraft. This is at once a tribute to the equipment in the aircraft and the very high standard of the aircrews, for low-level navigation requires different techniques, including a different method of route analysis before each flight.
  My third point about the V-force concerns fatigue life. This has been gone into thoroughly with the help of the experts, including R.A.E. Farnborough. A great deal of theoretical and practical study has been done and in this area the state of the art has advanced greatly in the last few years. We are confident that there is plenty of life in the aircraft to cover comfortably the period with which we are concerned. The future programme has been planned on the basis of giving the aircrews sufficient training at all levels to exercise the maximum number of options.
  During the past year the B.M.E.W.S. station at Fylingdales, which provides the essential early warning for the

  1145
  deterrent force, became operational within a very short time of the date originally forecast. This represents a considerable engineering and constructional feat, to which I should like to pay tribute. The B.M.E.W.S. station is administered by Fighter Command, which will be receiving the first of its Lightning Mk. IIIs equipped with Red Top later this year.
  A major task of the command is the reinforcement of overseas theatres, and this has been regularly practised. I draw particular attention to the participation of a Javelin squadron in air defence exercises in India in the autumn and the fact that this detachment subsequently practised reinforcement of the Far East. This is a very good example of the flexibility of air power allied to the techniques on in-flight refuelling. We are increasing the size of the tanker force and re-equipping it with Victors.
  Turning to Coastal Command, for operational duties the Shackleton continues to give excellent service and the introduction of a new homing torpedo will increase its operational capability. I am sure that the Committee would wish to join with me in paying tribute to the many skilful rescue operations carried out, often in conditions of great hazard, by helicopters and other aircraft and by mountain rescue teams and marine craft.
  For the air forces in overseas theatres the past year has been one of great activity, both in training and operations. In the Far East we have continued to support internal security operations in Northern Malaya—with transport, air supply and reconnaissance. Operations in Borneo have required a very large airlift of men and equipment from Singapore to the main forward bases, and this has been carried out by the theatre transport forces supplemented by Transport Command.
  In this extremely difficult country, troops operating in the forward areas can in many cases be supported only by air, and the medium and short-range transport aircraft and helicopters have done a first-class job. Further, Whirlwinds and Belvederes were sent to the Far East during the year for this task. The Far East Air Force has also provided aircraft for reconnaissance as well
  1146
  as fighters to deter aircraft from intruding over Malaysian territory.
  In the Middle East the medium range transports from Aden have supported Army detachments in Swaziland and also flew in troops to East Africa at short notice in January. Some details of the worldwide activity of Transport Command are given in the White Paper.
  During the two months since Christmas, to meet the emergencies in East Africa and Cyprus, Transport Command has flown more than 6,500 men and 700,000 lb. of freight, including 10 helicopters and over 500 vehicles. During this period, moreover, the Command has maintained its scheduled services. I am sure that the Commie tee will agree that this reflects great credit on the Command and illustrates the efficiency of the liaison between the Army and the Royal Air Force.
  Before leaving the subject of the operational commands, I should like to pay tribute to the work that the R.A.F. Regiment is doing, particularly in the Far East and in Cyprus. A squadron of the regiment was engaged in the peace-keeping operations in Cyprus from the beginning and was subsequently reinforced. These units have done a magnificent job in most difficult circumstances,.
  To sum up, the V-bombers will provide the strategic deterrent until Polaris is fully operational. We shall continue to support our allies in N.A.T.O. CENTO and S.E.A.T.O. and to give help to our friends and protect our interests overseas by the provision of striking power, of air defence with fighters and missiles, of maritime air power and of long, medium and short-range transport to carry troops and equipment wherever they are needed throughout the world.
  In selecting new equipment we must preserve a balance between the demands of these various rôles. Hon. Members opposite have pressed us to provide more transport aircraft and I agree with them that we must have more. These we plan to provide. But there is no point in carrying soldiers and their equipment half way across the world if one has no air defence to protect ones transports and no ground attack and strike aircraft to support or deter attack on them when they have arrived at their destination.

  1147
  I must remind the Committee that many countries in the Far East and Middle East have been supplied with modern combat aircraft in very considerable numbers and that this process is likely to continue. Past experience, sometimes bitter experience, has shown that without air superiority there can be no successful operations on the ground. Unless we have combat aircraft which can deter or, in the last resort, repel air attack, our ground forces and those of our allies will be in jeopardy and all our investment in transport aircraft will have gone for nothing.
  With this principle in mind, I would like briefly to survey our future equipment. In paragraph 169 of the Statement on Defence we have tried to indicate the main aircraft and weapons which will be purchased out of Vote 7 in the coming year. The lack of this information was something to which members of the Committee drew my attention last year and we have tried to go some way to meet this point. I should also refer to my right hon. Friend's statement in the defence debate last week about new equipment for the R.A.F.
  For short-range work on the transport side, the build-up of the Wessex helicopter force will be complete this year, and we shall then start acquiring the military freight and passenger version of the HS748. A little later, we shall get deliveries of the Belfasts and VC1Os we have ordered to augment our already substantial strategic transport fleet of Comets and Britannias. Then, later in the time scale, we shall be replacing our medium-range Hastings and Beverleys—and, eventually, the Argosies, too—with the revolutionary new HS681 tactical transport.
  This will be a really large STOL transport aircraft, big enough to carry the helicopters of our short-range transport force, and able to drop paratroops and heavy loads from the air as well as to land on short rough strips. Full development of the HS681 has now been authorised, and I look forward to the day when this one new type will replace the existing three types of tactical transport, for it will be a major milestone on the road to the rationalisation of our aircraft equipment.
  Mr. Mulley: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he expects the first HS681 aircraft to be in squadron service? Further, the right hon. Gentleman says that this aircraft is to replace the existing three types of tactical transport, but does that include the HS748, which is not yet in service?
  Mr. Fraser: No. That will be in service, I hope, certainly by the end of the decade—six years from now—and it will replace the Hastings and Beverleys and, to some extent, the Argosies. And there is a variety of miscellaneous aircraft that we are still using for transport—
  Mr. Mulley: But not the HS748?
  Mr. Fraser: No.
  For the V-bombers, low-level supersonic Blue Steel missiles will be delivered this year; more powerful and more varied electronic counter-measures have been introduced; and the new weapon to which I referred in last year's debate will be coming in due course.
  As the Committee knows, a production order is being negotiated for 30 TSR2s, which will be taking over from Canberras in a few years' time. We expect the TSR2 to make its first flight shortly; its engines are ready, and the aircraft that will make the first flight is being moved by road tomorrow from the B.A.C. works at Weybridge to Boscombe Down for this purpose. As the TSR2 is coming along, we are improving the performance of the Canberras by arming them with the AS30 air-to-surface guided missile. This is designed for use against fixed targets, such as bridges, parked aircraft and airfield installations, and also against heavilyarmoured vehicles, such as tanks.
  Full development has now also been authorised of the P1154. As the Committee is aware, strenuous attempts were made last summer to produce a common replacement for the Hunter, and the Royal Navy's Sea Vixen, based on the P1154. This proved impracticable—the difference between the rôles of these aircraft was too great—but the attempts were worth while, for much was at stake. The aircraft that will now be developed for the Royal Air Force will be a simple, more rugged version of the supersonic VSTOL, P1154.

  1149
  In the meantime, the joint evaluation programme for the P1127, which we are undertaking with the Americans and the Germans, will enable us to get the practical experience of VTOL techniques which will, I am confident, have a revolutionary effect on the methods and tactics of air warfare, especially in support of ground troops.
  In the interceptor rôle, the Mark III version of the Lightning all-weather fighter will be coming into service this year. This fighter is a great advance on the Mark I and Mark II from the point of view of both speed and range. It is equipped with a highly complex radar system which, in conjunction with Red Top, will give it a far better attack and interception capability. Red Top is a very advanced air-to-air missile that has been developed to match the per, formance of the Mark III Lightning, and to provide it with an integrated weapon system capable of dealing with supersonic targets on a collision course.
  We shall also be reinforcing our air defences abroad later this year with the air-transportable Bloodhound 2 surface-to-air missile system. Compared with the Bloodhound 1, there is a considerable advance in the capacity of this weapon both on range and general performance. For use with both the Lightnings and Bloodhounds we shall this year be buying four Sperry AN/TPS34 air-defence radars which will be used in conjunction with British display equipment. We shall be able to move these new radars, too, in our medium-range transport aircraft quickly to any trouble spot that might flare up abroad.
  There remains the maritime rôle. The modernisation of the Shackleton force continues, and we shall be equipping the Mark Ills with Viper auxiliary jet engines to improve their take-off performance. As I have frequently told the House, intensive studies have been going on to decide how best we can replace the Shackletons; whether by some interdependence venture or by the adaptation of a type already in existence or planned. The Ministry of Aviation is now evaluating studies that the industry has undertaken into these problems, and it should not be too long before we are able to come to a decision.
  1150
  These are some of the equipments we shall be obtaining for the Royal Air Force. With them, we shall have air power that will provide the means of swift reaction, rapid reinforcement and flexibility of response—all characteristics essential to our defence strategy.
  I should like now to refer to the management of our resources. I am sure that everyone will agree that this is one of the great problems of any armed force, where the costs of development and equipment are so very high. Our aim is to provide the most effective front-line that we can get from the money available, but it must be based on a solid foundation of effective machinery for training, supply, communications, and so on.
  We often concentrate too much on the front-line, and on questions of new aircraft and weapons, and there is a tendency to forget that the front-line is as it were, no more than the visible part of the iceberg. For the visible part to be effective, one has to see that the rest of the iceberg is, if I may mix the metaphor, properly managed. If operational squadrons are to be able to perform their rôle effectively, they must be properly backed by the essential minimum of support facilities. I say "essential minimum" advisedly, because it must be the aim to provide these extremely costly supporting facilities in sufficient, but no more than sufficient, quantities to support the operational task.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to tell the Committee what is available for support. Is it not true that he has nearly 5,000 civilians on the staff at headquarters? Is it not true that, with the out-stations and the industrial staff, those personnel are far in excess of the 103,000 officers and men that the right hon. Gentleman has in the Royal Air Force? He has plenty of support—in fact, I think that he has too much.
  Mr. Fraser: We always look forward to what the right hon. Gentleman will say. I had intended to touch lightly on some of those points—
  Mr. Shinwell: I have no intention of making a speech. I am enjoying the right hon. Gentleman's speech and following it very carefully. He talked about

  1151
  support, and I merely asked a question that he should be able to answer at once. He has the facts before him, and must know how many there are at headquarters —there is a large body of civilians available at headquarters—and how many at the out-stations. He must be able to tell us something about this vast army of civilians.
  Mr. Fraser: The details are in the Estimates in front of us, but one of the processes to effect economy has been that of civilianisation which, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree, has been one of the objects of both parties since he was in office. But there is a limit to civilianisation, because people backing the R.A.F. may, at an appropriate moment, or at the moment, have to be engaged in combat. I therefore think that we may almost have reached the limit of civilianisation in the Royal Air Force. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will deal more fully with this question when he winds up the debate.
  The main problem, that of management, entails a constant endeavour to allocate our resources to the best advantage by scrutiny of establishments—and here my hon. Friend can give figures which will be of interest to the right hon. Member for Easington—by the reduction of overheads, by the application of techniques of management and work study, by economic deployment, by taking advantage of the speed of air transport for the delivery of equipment to reduce stocks, and by insisting, wherever possible, on simplicity and reliability. Only by the constant application of these and similar techniques can we get the most effective return for our money.
  I know that hon. Members have taken a great interest in Mr. McNamara's statement before the House Armed Services Committee of the United States Congress on 20th January. References were made to it in the defence debate. I, too, have been studying these matters. Mr. McNamara gave a few examples of what he calls value engineering savings—the elimination of what he graphically summarised as gold plating. Direct comparison with our own procurement is possible only in one case. The United States, by lowering the specifications for tweezers for first-aid kits, reduced unit costs from 50 cents
  1152
  to 15 cents. I am happy to inform the Committee that tweezers to the R.A.F.'s specifications cost only about 8d. a pair. Perhaps our economy drive started rather earlier than some people imagine.
  Across the whole field of management we continue to take stringent measures to secure economy. We have overhauled arrangements for providing the Royal Air Force with communications aircraft, at a saving of £300,000. We have increased the length of overseas tours and so saved a further £300,000 in travelling costs. We are concentrating units on the minimum number of stations and are so saving overheads. We have pressed on with manpower establishment reviews and work study. My hon. Friend will give more details of these later which, I hope, will be of some assistance to the right hon. Member for Easington, who asked this extremely interesting and intelligent question.
  I turn to the future. On 1st April the Air Ministry will cease to be a separate Department. The office of the Secretary of State for Air will disappear and a new appointment of Minister of Defence for the Royal Air Force will come into being. The history of the Air Ministry as a separate Department has not been a long one in comparison with that of many of the other Departments of State. Nevertheless, it has been eventful. Looking back on its short history, it is extraordinary to think that the Air Ministry has frequently had to battle for the maintenance of the air arm. It is an almost incredible thought, but historically it is true, and it sometimes makes one ask whether it was safe to leave war in the hands of politicians.
  Mr. Shinwell: It depends who they are.
  Mr. Fraser: But we have come through all this, and I am now happy that my right hon. Friend has succeeded in pushing forward the reform, which springs not so much from development in aviation but from the fact that in present circumstances there must be a single unified authority to determine both the policy and the financial arrangements for all three of the fighting Services. The identity of the Royal Air Force and its sister services will be firmly maintained, as will the high standard and tradition which the Royal

  1153
  Air Force has so gloriously built up in its short history.
  In matters of administration and discipline the Air Force Board, under the new organisation, will stand in much the same relationship to the Service as the Air Council does today. I welcome this new organisation, which will have great opportunities. This new Department, if I may say so with respect to my right hon. Friend, will perhaps have something to learn from the junior of military Ministries where the happy combination of civil servants and airmen, who have grown up together in the task, has made the Department instinct with efficiency and, I believe, amongst the most competent of all Government Departments.
  This unification is also, I believe, an opportunity for concentrating still further the management of air power. Today, it is only sixty years since man effectively broke into the air. We are only on the verge of the full use of this element. Huge new vistas arise in technology, laminar flow and variable geometry. New forms of propulsion, new metals, new techniques, new possibilities of speed and movement, make it essential that this country should remain in the van. This can be achieved only by a proper and concentrated use of our resources.
  Today, the Royal Air Force has the men and, I believe, will continue to attract them. Over the next years we shall be giving them machines worthy of them—the Lightning Mk.III, the P1127, the HS748, the Belfast, the VC10, the TSR2, the HS681 and the P1154. But, beyond this, the future of this Air Force stretches out as unlimited, I believe, as man's own determination to master and explore the firmament.
  4.27 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Mulley: This, in a sense, is a historic occasion, because we are probably participating in the last Air Estimates debate in its traditional form. We have certainly heard the last speech from a Secretary of State for Air. I am sure that it will have been noted with pleasure by all hon. Members that the right hon. Gentleman for this occasion returned more to his normal style from the synthetic passion which he managed to produce last Thursday. It is not unfair perhaps to
  1154
  say that it is characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman—as it was of many of his predecessors—that he tends, particularly in his peroration, to talk about aeroplanes which do not exist and which may or not be in existence in the next five or six years.
  We do not know exactly what form the new Estimates will take, or the new debates which will arise from the decision to amalgamate the Services under one Minister. There is a great deal in what the Minister of Defence has said —that we ought to try to have more informative debates on defence, perhaps taking in fields of controversy rather than going Service-wise as we have done hitherto.
  Our argument is that the amalgamation or the new structure, which the Opposition have supported, will not solve the basic problems of our defence system. We see that it is an improvement, but until we have a policy and the right priorities we shall not in substance have any great improvement. As Members we want much more information than we have had hitherto. Our complaint is not about the shape of the Defence White Paper and the Estimates, but about their content, or lack of content.
  I heard many years ago a story about a Minister who got lost in the fog. I think that it is apocryphal, but it might well apply to the present Minister of Defence. The Minister lowered the window of his car and asked a passer-by where he was. The local man simply said, "You are in a fog" and himself disappeared into the fog. The Minister, in a burst of un-parliamentary language, remarked to his private secretary how unhelpful it was. The civil servant replied, "I am bound to say, Minister, that the answer was completely within the rules which we have in the Department for answering Parliamentary Questions. It was accurate, it was concise and it told no one anything that he did not know before." I am not sure how far the right hon. Gentleman fulfilled the first and second requirements, but we certainly have the impression that his object is to tell no one anything that he does not know already.
  I hope that the Secretary of State and the other members of the new Defence Ministry will study the speeches of the

  1155
  United States Secretary of Defence, not only for their admirable content but also to see how far not only Members but the public at large could be informed about the problems of defence without any breach of security. The constant answer that it is not in, the public interest to answer our questions is, by implication, a criticism of the U.S. Secretary of Defence, that he is letting down the alliance by giving away all this valuable information. If the United States Congress can be told in public, why cannot we? I appreciate that American Senators and Congressmen also receive a great deal of off-the-record information which, with our existing procedure, would not be possible here, put in public documentation we have a long way to go to catch up with other Parliaments.
  Talking of Mr. McNamara, I hope that the Minister will at some time take the opportunity to correct the serious error he made in his speech last week when he gave the wrong number of Minuteman missiles which the United States has now and will have in 1966. I know that the Minister is more concerned in these debates with local applause here than with informing the public outside, but there are people who read and take as accurate the Minister's statements, and I ask him, therefore, to take an opportunity to correct what was a very misleading statement about the size of the United States missile force.
  I come now to the question of the efficiency of the Royal Air Force. On this, there is nothing between the two sides of the Committee. We are immensely impressed by the high standard of efficiency which all sections of the Royal Air Force have achieved, and in the visits which many of us have been able to pay to various stations at home and abroad we have been much struck by the high quality of attainment. When we differ on policy with the right hon. Gentleman, this is an expression of view about the political responsibility and direction and in no sense implies a criticism of the officers and other ranks of the Service. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to convey to all units which have received visiting Members of Parliament at home and abroad during the year our appreciation of the very great trouble they have
  1156
  taken and of their generosity in time and hospitality in making sure that our visits are as pleasant and as useful as possible.
  It will be the wish of the Committee, also, to pay tribute to the errands of mercy and rescue work of Coastal Command, recorded in paragraph 188 of the White Paper. During the year, 206 people were rescued by the R.A.F. and two members of the Service received medals in recognition of their gallantry on these occasions.
  I endorse what the Secretary of State said about the efficient and ready manner in which the Royal Air Force has supported our operations all over the world, in Malaysia, Borneo, Swaziland, British Guiana and East Africa. We endorse what he said about the R.A.F. Regiment, too. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us something about the plans for the R.A.F. Regiment. It is, in a sense, a different part of the Royal Air Force. Are there plans to increase its strength? It would be useful to know the actual strength now apart from the general strengths given in the document.
  It is commendable that it is an airman, Air Chief Marshall Sir Denis Barnett, who has had the very heavy responsibility of taking charge of our peace-keeping mission in Cyprus. I am sure that he deserves the appreciation of the whole Committee.
  I commend R.A.F. Germany on its success in two competitions in AIRCENT. When one bears in mind the considerable disadvantage under which it competes very often in the speed of the aeroplanes under its command compared with those of its competitors, one realises that it was a particularly worthy performance. I ask the Secretary of State to convey our congratulations to the people concerned.
  Now, manpower. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) will he developing some aspects of this subject in more detail later. The significant fact about manpower is that there is a steady decline in the total strength of the Service. Does the right hon. Gentleman expect the decline to continue or have we, in his expectation, reached the end of the run-down? Although, clearly, it makes recruitment easier—I do not wish in any way to denigrate the very satisfactory

  1157
  recruitment which the right hon. Gentleman has announced to the Committee—the run-down probably does create problems of adjustment within the Service, problems of promotion, and so on. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us whether there are any bottlenecks in promotion for officers and other ranks as a result of the adjustments which have been made after the end of the Thor programme and the fairly sizeable general reduction in the strength of the Service over the past four or five years.
  We are told in paragraph 223 that there is to be a new trade structure for the ground trades coming into force on 1st April. May we have a little more information about how it is proposed to change the career structure for these other ranks? One has the impression that there is a certain sense of frustration and uncertainty among other ranks about whether their expectations of promotion will be fulfilled. Corporals who have been corporals for nine or 10 years wonder whether, if it had not been for the cutback, they might already have been sergeants, and they are wondering whether they will ever get the promotion they felt entitled to expect.
  Generally speaking, man management in the Royal Air Force is outstandingly good. It will be subject to greater strain at this time, and I hope that the new scheme will be fully explained to all the people affected. This rather brief phrase that there are
  "surpluses in some trades and deficiencies in others"
  ought to be amplified. We attach great importance to the men in the aircraft having adequate and efficient technical support on the ground, and this is an increasingly important matter now in Royal Air Force affairs.
  I come now to several small points regarding manpower and welfare, most of which I have made before but without getting very far. First, the thorny question of the local overseas allowance. Will the Government give us an assurance that they are reconsidering this, and, in particular, whether it can be given to the personnel in Berlin? I have in my possession a circular from the N.A.A F.I. which explains why everything in Berlin costs much more than it does in Britain. This is understandable, of course, because of transport
  1158
  and the rest, but when the Air Ministry is asked to give the local overseas allowance in Berlin the reply is that, of course, prices in Berlin are just the same as they are in Britain and it cannot be given. This is a serious injustice to people who are discharging a very difficult job in the Berlin garrison.
  The education allowances paid to Service men abroad still give rise to difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman will have noted the paragraphs in the Plowden Report which make proposals for improvements both in the number of visits by children on holiday to see their parents and in the amount of allowance for boarding school education. There has for long been a feeling in the Service that Service men ought to have the same standards in this respect as members of the Foreign and Commonwealth diplomatic service. In any case, if the Plowden proposals for the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth service are accepted by the Government, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will ensure that comparable improvements are made for Service men serving abroad, particularly in respect of the two holiday passages a year for children. This separation of children from the family is one of the most difficult burdens of service in the Armed Services abroad.
  I wish to make a point about housing. It was brought to my attention recently that it is extremely difficult for an ex-Service man to obtain a mortgage to buy a house. I had a case recently of a young mail who was one of the reorganisation surplus and who had saved up enough money for a deposit, but he could find neither a building society nor a City housing scheme which would accept him because he had not a sufficent record of civilian employment. It seems very hard when a young man coming out of the Services cannot get a council house because he has not been on the waiting list for sufficient time, and cannot buy a house, although he can put down as much deposit as the next man, because he has not the record of civilian employment which is wanted. This is a point which the Ministry of Defence or the Service Ministries should take up. A man's record in the Services should be sufficient guarantee, with his money and he should be given a loan.
  Mr. H. Fraser: If the hon. Member will give me a note of that, I will take the matter up with the companies.
  Mr. Mulley: I have written to the Secretary of State for War and I will also write to the Secretary of State for Air. It seems extremely hard that a man who has saved up enough money should not be able to get a mortgage to buy a civilian home for his family.
  What is the Secretary of State's view about the arrangement under which the works services were transferred to the Ministry of Public Building and Works? I felt at the time that this was a mistake and that this was clearly the sort of service which should have been amalgamated in the new single Ministry. Many of these people were ex-Royal Air Force personnel and specialists in the kind of works which the R.A.F. carries out. It was a pity that they should be put into another service outside the defence field. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been difficulty as a result of this decision or whether everything is satisfactory? Is this the right arrangement? If there are difficulties which impede our defence preparations, I hope that this decision will be reconsidered.
  I want to say a few words about aircraft. I wish particularly to refer to the Answer which the Secretary of State gave me in column 603 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for Thursday last, concerning the money spent on new airframes, engines and major weapons over the last five years. He told me that from 1959 to 1964 the expenditure was£510 million—43 per cent., or £200 million, for Bomber Command; 28 per cent., or £140 mililon for Fighter Command; and only 13 per cent., or £65 million, for Transport Command. In each figure there is a balance not accounted for, in the current year it is 43 per cent., of the total of these items which does not go to Bomber, Fighter or Transport Command. It would be useful if we could be told what that consists of in terms of new planes and equipment.
  Mr. H. Fraser: These figures are always complicated. The hon. Gentleman has asked for them in a different form from that which he adopted last year. This is new equipment. The figure he asked for was in respect of equipment
  1160
  generally, and it came to nearly double this. The gap of 43 per cent.—those elements not covered by Bomber, Fighter and Transport Command—is in respect of Training Command and various commands overseas not covered by these central commands. It affects large areas of the world and a great deal of equipment, especially training equipment. It depends whether one has been re-equipping, as we have been with the Gnat fighter.
  Mr. Mulley: It seems extraordinary that there should be as much spent on Training Command and commands overseas as on Bomber, Fighter and Transport Commands combined, particularly when one has the impression that most of the equipment sent to the Far East was first introduced into the Commands here.
  Mr. H. Fraser: I am talking about the one-year period, not the five-year period.
  Mr. Mulley: This is the kind of difficulty we get into when we try to obtain hard facts about how our money is spent. This is one of our complaints. This information should be readily available.
  Another extremely surprising thing in the figures is that, whereas over 20 per cent. of the total Votes from 1959 to 1964 seems to have gone on new airframes, engines and major weapons, it is proposed to spend only 13 per cent. in this way next year, despite the grandiose flourish with which the Minister of Defence produced the White Paper.
  Mr. H. Fraser: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but these are very important points. The great bulk of this will come on the Ministry of Aviation Vote until such time as I take over the aircraft.
  Mr. Mulley: I had made a note to mention that point.
  How is the allocation of the cost of aircraft divided between the Ministry of Aviation and the Air Estimates? The whole system seems to be designed to confuse anyone who wishes to get at the truth about where all this money has gone. Is it put on the Ministry of Aviation Vote one year and on the Air Vote the next? It is pointless to put a

  1161
  big chart in the Statement on Defence showing how much is spent on aircraft and how much on personnel if this kind of juggling is going on and if, as the right hon. Gentleman says, it is impossible to say how much comes on one Vote and how much on another.
  There was a very illuminating Written Answer given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley. The right hon. Gentleman said that last year —and this is the measure of fact against fantasy—we had only one Argosy and a squadron of Wessex helicopters as an addition to our transport capability and that next year we shall get some unspecified number of Argosies. This gives us a different impression from that which we had from all the grand talk about planes coming along. According to the Air Estimates for this year, we are to spend only £3¼ million on Transport Command. In view of all the grand talk about VC10s, the 748s, the 681s Is, the Belfasts, the Beagles, and so on, we wonder who will pay for all this.
  Is not the truth of the matter that there has been all this talk with a view to gaining some political capital out of it and that the bill has been saved up for a future Government? It is no good the right hon. Gentleman commending my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) on his speech if, out of a bill for over £500 million this year, there is an additional sum in respect of mobility of only £3¼ million.
  The Secretary of State said today that he was pleased that the development of the 681 had been authorised. Last year, he was pleased to tell us that it had been approved and would be going ahead. It has taken 12 months to approve the engine from the date of approving the airframe. I hope that it will not be another six years before we get this welcome addition to our transport capability.
  When we look at the future demands of the R.A.F. for aircraft, we get a most frightening financial picture. The cost of all the things which I have mentioned for Transport Command will come to a sizeable bill. Then there is the TSR2, the Shackleton replacement, the Hunter replacement and the question of whether it will be the P1154, and so on. What will be the size of
  1162
  the aircraft bill in future years? The orders have been placed, but we have been given no indication of the financial commitments involved. It is pointless having a debate about the cost of the Air Force and being asked to approve Estimates unless we get this kind of information.
  The P1154 is the classic case of a significant technical advance in this country being frittered away by Government incompetence and procrastination. We had the lead both in the P1127 type of vertical take-off and in the engines developed by Rolls-Royce, but the probability is that the first VTOL aircraft in service will not he British, although it may use British engines. It seems much more likely that either the German Dornier or the French Mirage IIIK will be in service a long time before we have this system, even though we pioneered it ourselves.
  Over and above that, there is a serious consequence for our aircraft industry from what has been said in this debate and from the decision—no doubt, on financial grounds, the right one—to buy the Phantom II. If, however, we look at these aircraft requirements for the Service, in no case can we produce them economically ourselves if the size of the order has to be limited to the requirement of our own Service.
  It was a great pity, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) said last week, that before arranging to buy United States aircraft we did not make arrangements of a bilateral character whereby America would buy, or at least contribute to the development of, aircraft here. I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will give attention to this. It is a scandal that nothing has been done to develop, either in N.A.T.O. or bilaterally, arrangements whereby we develop aircraft or provide licences for their manufacture in other countries and, in return, we acquire weapons from them. As the Committee will know, there is great concern in the aircraft industry that the hard financial facts that prompted the Phantom decision will be applied in other directions as time goes on.
  I want, finally, to say, as is inevitable, some words about the deterrent. Before dealing briefly with the V-bombers, I should like to ask some further questions

  1163
  concerning the cost of the deterrent, about which the Secretary of State said something this afternoon. This is the paradox about the kind of information we get. When it suits the Government, they give us the most precise figures showing that the cost of the deterrent this year—we have no means of checking it, so we must accept it—will be 8·4 per cent. of the total, next year 7·6 per cent., 8 per cent in the late 1960s and 5 per cent. in the 1970s. What we would like to know, and I ask that we be told today, is the total figures on which the percentages are based.
  Is the cost of the deterrent thought to be going down in this way because the total projected cost of the defence bill is rising, or what is the explanation? To give the precise figures that the Minister of Defence has given, the Government must have worked out the future shape of defence. What component of this will be for new aircraft, whether on one Vote or another? Can we get the figures that the Secretary of State anticipates will be spent on new aircraft next year, and subsequently, so that we get an idea of the cost of the programme that he has put before us?
  Secondly, I have asked this question concerning the cost of the deterrent on other occasions, but I have not been given an answer. In these calculations are the TSR2 and the Canberra included?
  Mr. H. Fraser: It has already been stated that the cost of the V-force will be about 2 per cent. of the defence budget between now and 1970. The figure of the deterrent in general—that is to say, the figure given by my right hon. Friend as he explained the other day—does not include the TSR2, because the TSR2 is not part of the deterrent, although it has a deterrent bonus. Its main object, as I have always said from the Dispatch Box, is that of a tactical strike reconnaissance aircraft, which will have a nuclear bonus thrown in, in the same way as during the last war the Mosquito had a strategic bonus in being able to attack Berlin.
  Mr. Mulley: If we wanted any further evidence of how the whole of the defence figures and debates are being twisted for party political ends, this is con-
  1164
  clusive. When it suits the argument, the TSR2 is included with the nuclear weapons. I hope that in the light of the Secretary of State's courageous statement in saying that the TSR2 is not included, we shall have no more silly speeches from his right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation on this theme.
  Mr. H. Fraser: It has never been included in the deterrent. It is a bonus.
  Mr. Mulley: It is being a little bit illiterate simply to use the phrase "deterrent", because this begs the whole question. At least, we have cleared the point about the TSR2.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Perhaps the hon. Member has overlooked, in connection with expenditure on aircraft, that if he examines the Estimates for the Ministry of Aviation he will find that it is there separated into expenditure on research and development in Ministry establishments, on the one hand, and under Vote 8 in the Ministry of Aviation purchasing repayments services, which comes under the bulk settlement for Service Departments. It is essential to realise that in the bulk settlement arrangement there has to be a forecast, which may or may not prove accurate in the event, and that that is altogether a separate item from research and development.
  Mr. George Wigg: When my hon. Friend takes note of that, will he also go back and look at HANSARD—
  Mr. Denis Healey: We have it with us.
  Mr. Wigg: —for the debates in November, when we were told specifically by the Minister of Aviation and by his henchman the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro), whom we have not seen since our contretemps about drinks during the Prime Minister's by-election, although the hon. Member writes regularly every day to the Press, that we on this side were throwing away the deterrent in not accepting TSR2?
  Mr. Healey: That is that the right hon. Gentleman said last week.
  Mr. Mulley: That seemed to be the purport of the Secretary of State's synthetically passionate speech last week.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. In view of the observation by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) about my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro), it is only fair to say that my hon. Friend should not be attacked for his absence when he is ill. He may be fit to write letters to the newspapers, but he is not fit to turn up at the House of Commons, and the hon. Member for Dudley knows it.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Wigg: Have things yet reached the point that it is an attack upon hon. Members opposite to remind the Committee of what an hon. Member has said whether he is sick or fit?
  The Temporary Chairman: No point of order is involved.
  Mr. Mulley: I take note of the point made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) about the difficulty of tracing the figures through the Ministry of Aviation Estimates. I have already said that one cannot form a picture without including the two lots of Estimates. The point which I desire to underline, however, is that it is about time that the House of Commons was given figures in an intelligible way so that in a given year we could know what money had been spent on aircraft and on other aspects of defence.
  Furthermore, I see no reason why we should not be told the number of aircraft that have been bought and how much they cost. Until we get this kind of information, it will be impossible to have an informed public opinion outside Parliament about defence. I am sure that the Government do not give the information because they do not want such an informed public opinion outside, as such an opinion would not swallow the tommy-rot put out by the Government in the guise of Defence Statements.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: May I remind the hon. Member of the reason given by the Minister? He said that it had never been done before and that that was why we could not be given these facts and figures.
  Mr. Mulley: That is quite contrary to the facts. In the past, a great deal of information has been given from time to time. As I have pointed out. when it suits the Minister's argument he can be informative and precise.
  The Under-Secretary of State muttered something about security. Obviously, he was asleep when I referred to the kind of information that Mr. McNamara has given. I take it that he is making the implied criticism that Mr. McNamara has let down the security of the alliance.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Ridsdale): What I was saying was that it is much easier for Mr. McNamara to give more information with a 50 billion dollar budget than it is for us with a much smaller budget.
  Mr. Mulley: The logic of that completely escapes me.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: Will the hon. Gentleman say how much information Mr. McNamara gave Congress about the All?
  Mr. Mulley: I am not prepared to answer off-the-cuff questions for Mr. McNamara, but I can give the hon. Gentleman, if he has not seen it already, a most detailed presentation of the defence requirements of the United States, which, among other things, includes the cost of the modification of the B52s for low-level flight. That is a figure I have twice asked the right hon. Gentleman to give me, but he has refused on grounds of security. That illustrates my point admirably. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be contrary to the public interest to disclose the figure. That being so, has the information given by Mr. McNamara let down the security arrangements of the alliance?
  The truth of the matter is that all these security arrangements are a guise to keep from us the incompetence of the Government and prevent us from probing the political propaganda which they conceive defence to be. They do not really want the House to approach defence in the proper way. It seems to me that unless we are given a much more plausible and documented case for the lox-level rôle of the V-bombers, we shall have to conclude that this is a gimmick to try to restore their fading credibility—
  Mr. H. Fraser: This is a very rash thing for the hon. Gentleman to say. Of course I should like to give him these figures, but there is a security element in this. Of course, there is a security aspect in an interpretation of what we have done to the aircraft. If any hon. Members have any doubts about the feasibility of this rôle, I would cordially invite them to come to Bomber Command to talk to the people on the ground and see for themselves.
  Mr. Mulley: I would accept—
  Mr. Wigg: If it is desired to refer to the standard of security covered in the Royal Air Force, we had an example last week. I tabled a Question about documents which were circulated as "restricted". One concerned the anniversary conference of the Royal Air Force. So the standard of evaluation of the right hon. Gentleman is suspect in a major particular.
  Mr. Mulley: I recall that my hon. Friend raised that point, and also that the Secretary of State was going to look—so far as he has authority these days to do such things—at the security classification within the Service with a view to making it a little easier for information to be given to the public. I hope that he will look at the question of the costs and the arrangements for low-level testing of V-bombers. In the meantime, I am sure that hon. Members will be glad to know of the invitation to visit Bomber Command, an opportunity of which I myself should certainly like to take advantage.
  But over and above the function of the V-bombers in the low-level rôle, we must look at the tactical rôle which we understand they are now called upon to perform. It is not much use assessing the V-bombers unless we know what they are going to do. In paragraph 174 of the Statement on Defence, we are told:
  "In May the V-bomber force was assigned to N.A.T.O. in accordance with the intentions expressed in the Nassau Agreement (Cmnd. 1915). The Supreme Allied Commander Europe described this as 'an important and powerful addition to the air capability of Allied Command Europe'. The V-bomber force is now fully integrated into SACEUR's war organisation and covers a substantial proportion of the co-ordinated targetting plan."
  I take this to mean that the targetting plans for the V-bomber force have been
  1168
  completely changed as a result of this decision to assign them to SACEUR. Hitherto, we were always told that they were closely tied in with S.A.C.—the American bomber command. Therefore, as I understand it, putting the V-bomber rôle in the tactical rather than the strategic field must be a complete change of plan. I have heard successive SACEURs say that they wanted tactical aircraft and that the plans that they had to discharge were tactical in character. We ought to draw some conclusions from this.
  Mr. H. Fraser: It would be very rash for the hon. Gentleman to draw conclusions from that. Of course, the question of targetting—all targetting—is fundamentally conditioned by the thinking of S.A.C. on these matters—that targets must be concentrated at one point. So far as the V-bombers are concerned, there has not been much change in targets, and the areas covered are much the same as before
  Mr. Mulley: In other words, we can conclude from what the right hon. Gentleman says that the V-bombers have not really been assigned to the tactical rôle. He must begin to understand that there is a limit to how many times one can have the same thing both ways. One cannot transfer it and get all the credit, as the Government have sought to do, for being good boys in the alliance—they do not talk about it here because it does not fit the independent rôle of the V-bomber, which, as the right hon. Gentleman says, is our "deterrent" until the 1970s; but in N.A.T.O. circles the Government want to get medals for being good members of the alliance—and they say that everything is just as it was before.
  We know that the so-called independence of this force hangs on the very thin thread of the power to withdraw it by national rather than international decision. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman—I will not ask him what plans have been prepared—whether plans, targets and so on have been prepared for the use of the V-bomber force in an independent non-alliance rôle. Unless there are such plans, it makes nonsense to talk about the independent deterrent. Has he explained to the United States and the other allies that the Government have these contingency plans, which are

  1169
  presumably different from the ones that they had in a combined operation with S.A.C., and different, indeed, from the ones that have been decided in conjunction with the Supreme Allied Command, Europe. Have the Government got this separate set of plans and targets for independent use? We ought to be told this.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mulley: I think that the hon. Gentleman is in no position to answer this question. Either the Minister must answer it or we must conclude that there are no such plans.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mulley: Does the right hon. Gentleman want to answer? [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says that he is satisfied. I take it from that that there are no such plans for independent use. If he would care to get up and deny the statement, I will give way willingly. Will he deny it?
  Mr. H. Fraser: What is the question?
  Mr. Mulley: I was saying that I must conclude from the interpretation of this paragraph that there are no plans, no targets, no co-ordination of strategy, no contingency planning for the use of the V-bomber force in an independent rôle, independent of S.A.C. or of the European Command. If the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that, with the implications that it has for our allies, I must conclude that there are no such plans and that all this talk about the independent deterrent is mere propaganda and political talk.
  Mr. H. Fraser: I was not paying very close attention to what the hon. Member was saying, but all this is carefully set out in the Statement on Defence. It is stated that N.A.T.O. naturally welcomes the fact that we have assigned the aircraft to its command. This is eminently satisfactory. Of course, as I was explaining, overall all these plans are, naturally and properly, co-ordinated through S.A.C. in the United States. In addition to this, we believe that if need be, in an extreme national emergency, we shall be able to withdraw the force and use it independently, and it is quite clear that if we
  1170
  propose to use it independently, we shall use it independently if the target exists.
  Mr. Mulley: I did not ask whether the targets existed. Targets exist all over the world. I asked whether the organisation of an independent use of the force is as well prepared as the other use. That is what we want to know. The main issue over defence is about the use of the V-bomber force in an independent rôle. We are merely asking for confirmation that all the planning and preparation have been done in case the Government wished to give substance to their propaganda. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that these plans do exist?
  Mr. H. Fraser: It means having an independent rôle and therefore a target.
  Mr. Mulley: I think that the truth is that the target of the V-bomber force as an "independent British deterrent" is the British electorate and that the so-called deterrent has no factual basis. It is quite clear from the arrangement to assign the force to the Supreme Allied Command that the bombers are to be used in a tactical rôle and this raises the other and more fundamental problem about the future not only of the V-bombers but of all our tactical Air Forces in Europe. This is a part of N.A.T.O. strategy which has not been worked out.
  The question is: how will these bombers be used if there is conventional fighting? Will they be brought in to indulge in what is called "nuclear interdiction"? If so, then, clearly, this would bring about nuclear war and all talk of political control would go by the board. Obviously, they could not be used for nuclear interdiction without the risk of a global nuclear war. On the other hand, if they are used to give conventional support to our ground troops then they will probably be shot down before the question of using them in a nuclear rôle arises.
  This is the great dilemma for the Supreme Allied Command in deciding what to do with the Tactical Air Forces in Germany It looks, therefore, possible that, before the Government could bring them out of N.A.T.O. because they were not satisfied with what was going on, these bombers may have been used in a conventional rôle and subjected to very severe casualties, for we know the

  1171
  strength of the Soviet fighter force and other air defences.
  Indeed, we know that there is no aircraft in the Air Force really suitable for ground attack except for the aged Hunter. We have not given thought to the rôle that the Tactical Air Force should play. It seems that the only way in which it could be used independently for nuclear purposes would be by way of a first strike. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I am wrong, I hope he will say so.
  The probability is that our V-bombers would be used up in conventional hostilities before they could be used independently for a nuclear rôle and that if they survived the conventional rôle the only credible way in which they could have a nuclear rôle would be by way of a first strike. Since targets do exist, who would the right hon. Gentleman strike, for it is not credible that we, as a nation, would be singled out for surprise nuclear attack above all other countries and that, if such a thing did happen, our bomber force could survive sufficiently to be a credible retaliatory force?
  I will not develop further the nuclear heresies held by the Government, because I have already taken up considerable time and other hon. Members wish to speak. But, of course, it is in this nuclear obsession that we see the Government's false air power priorities, and our case against the Government is that, despite the expenditure of enormous sums of money—over £20,000 million in the last 12 years and another £2,000 million proposed for next year—we have neither the defence policy nor the defence forces that the nation needs.
  The Government's incompetence, procrastination and prevarication, directed at party political rather than military needs, have done and are doing great disservice to the fine body of officers and other ranks in the Royal Air Force and have prevented them from making their maximum contribution to the defence of the nation.
  5.15 p.m.
  Sir John Eden: I agree with the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) and share with him the sense of historic occasion in that we are
  1172
  probably witnessing the last occasion on which the Secretary of State for Air will present his Estimates for the Royal Air Force.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way he presented the Estimates. Though he made a somewhat valedictory address, he will not take it amiss if I remind the Committee that, whilst we may be witnessing the imminent departure of the Secretary of State, nonetheless the Air Force will go on for very much longer and that we are not foreshadowing in our changes in defence administration the end or the imminent departure of the Air Force as such. Indeed, the Air Force has a very significant rôle to play, and these Estimates indicate the importance of the tasks it faces now and will face in the future.
  I approve of the form of the Estimates, although I think one may have further studies of this. In trying to consider the general presentation of the costs of defence as a whole further improvements no doubt can be made. This is, however, already a step forward. We have been given these Estimates in a more clearly presented form.
  I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park, said about the amount of information given, although I do not agree with many of his reasons. The time has come when we have to be given a lot more information than we have recently been vouchsafed in Estimates. I rather suspect that my right hon. Friend feels the same.
  We must remember that we are living in a period of reduced international tension and that, in such a period, it is none the less vital to maintain an effective defence. We must ensure that we keep up our guard and do not lessen the effectiveness or preparedness of our forces. It is important that we emphasise this to the taxpayers and to the electorate and that we carry them with us in fulfilling these obligations.
  But, in order to do that, we must have much more information than we are given at present. I do not know whether my view is shared by other hon. Members on this side of the Committee but I feel that, in times of relaxed international tension, we must carry the electorate with us by giving it a great deal

  1173
  more information than we have been doing.
  In the Statement on Defence, the first paragraph of the section devoted to the Royal Air Force is extremely significant. It says
  "Speed and flexibility are the essence of our defence requirements."
  This has been shown to us most clearly in recent weeks by the calls made upon our forces and by the extraordinary ability with which the Air Force has assisted in meeting them. Speed and flexibility are of vital significance to British forces in the sort of rôle they are likely to be called upon to play for many years ahead—limited obligations in territories overseas, helping to maintain law and order and supporting our allies and friends. The most significant feature of this kind of operation is the speed with which they can be mounted and the effectiveness with which they can be supported. In this, Transport Command plays a vitally significant rôle. I was most interested, as I am sure were other hon. Members, in the figures my right hon. Friend gave to the Committee in demonstrating the extent to which Transport Command services had been employed in recent operations in East Africa. I am sure that we shall see a continuing significance in this rôle of Transport Command, and that is why, like other hon. Members, I attach a great deal of importance to the type of aircraft with which Transport Command is equipped. I look forward to the early introduction of the VC10, for example, into full service.
  I want to touch briefly on other aspects of the Statement on Defence and the various Commands of the Royal Air Force. On Fighter Command, I have one comment with particular reference to paragraph 185, in which we are given some information about the P1127 evaluation unit. Can my right hon. Friend say a little more about the actual experience which has been gained as a result of this work? Can he also say whether, apart from the officers and airmen employed in the tripartite evaluation unit, we are training men outside it, in other branches of the Royal Air Force, to prepare for the introduction of the VTOL aircraft. We have for some time now had knowledge of VTOL but we have not been very speedy in making a
  1174
  decision to give practical experience to men of the Royal Air Force in this work.
  Now that we know that the P1154 is to come the way of the Royal Air Force before long, although be it in a "simple and rugged" form, it will still be an extremely complex weapons system, and the earlier the opportunity that we can get in training our airmen and pilots to use this new aircraft system, the better will our interests be served. I hope that we shall not just wait for progress to be achieved in the evaluation unit, but that we shall go ahead with some training steps in our own Royal Air Force.
  I noticed that in paragraph 187 on Coastal Command there is reference to the Shackleton Mark 3. Can my right hon. Friend give a time scale associated with this aircraft and some indication of how far into the future he sees the Shackleton remaining in service, even in developed form, with Coastal Command; or is he now already taking active steps to prepare for its ultimate replacement with a still more advanced type of aircraft for this work? Can my right hon. Friend also say a little about the experience that the R.A.F. have had through operations in Coastal Command in co-operating with the Navy?
  I turn to the Near East Air Force which is referred to in paragraphs 195–6. I notice that particular attention has been paid to the valuable work being done by the Canberra strike squadron. In a recent visit to certain parts of the Middle East, as I usually call it—although I recognise that we are becoming increasingly Americanised, and therefore have to call it the Near East these days—it was borne in on me how very important is the rôle of the R.A.F. in that part of the world, and how highly it is regarded.
  This is not just because they are decent chaps—which they certainly are —and get on with the people of the country, wherever it happens to be, but it is primarily because the citizens and Governments of these countries recognise the very efficient striking power which is in the hands of our Royal Air Force, based on Cyprus. They also recognise that we are in a position to defend our interests if they are threatened anywhere in the Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf. This is taking on special significance these

  1175
  days with the activities of Egypt and the aggressive moves that it is making in the Yemen, supported as Egypt is by Russian technicians with Russian equipment, assisted with Russian personnel, and Russian aircraft. It is of very great significance indeed that we have in the area an alert and efficient fighting force in the R.A.F., which can be deployed swiftly to any trouble spot in that area where its presence might be required. I have learned—I am sure other hon. Members who have been to these areas will bear me out—that it is universally understood that the presence of R.A.F. units is synonymous with stability, and it is this which, above all, is necessary in that part of the world. Even though they are not perhaps engaged in any particularly dramatic rôle, these men, with their equipment, are playing a most vital part in supporting our alliances and friendships and protecting our interests in that part of the world, and by doing so they are contributing very substantially to the general interests of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries by protecting their perimeters.
  This leads me logically to turn to the rôle of the Far East Air Force. Like other hon. Members, in years gone by I had the privilege of visiting some of its stations in Singapore, and I would endorse most heartily what the hon. Gentleman said about the manner in which members of this Committee are received in visits overseas, and the amount of attention paid to details both in providing information and comfort which the R.A.F. attend to whenever we go to its units abroad.
  What has been the experience of the R.A.F. in close support work and general co-operation with the Army, particularly in recent operations in Borneo? I notice that paragraph 198 of the Statement on Defence refers to the STOL/VTOL airlift for forward ground forces. This appears to have been supplied by helicopters. Were these R.A.F. helicopters, or did they include helicopters from the Royal Navy? It would be interesting to have some examples of the degree of integration of the three Services operationally, for we are all talking against the background of the new central organisation for defence, and the extent which the Services
  1176
  already work together may not be fully appreciated. The operations of the three Services in the Far East recently are a good illustration of what I have in mind, but more information on the subject would be welcome.
  I should like to comment on some of the things which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park said about Bomber Command. I should have thought that the rôle of Bomber Command was made perfectly clear in the Statement on Defence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] In those paragraphs dealing with the independent British deterrent and nuclear co-operation in N.A.T.O.—on pages 6 and 7 of Cmnd. 2270.
  I do not understand what is the difficulty in the minds of hon. Members opposite. They seem to be most anxious to belittle the strategic and strike capacity of Bomber Command. They always pooh-pooh that suggestion and say, "No, no" and that they never said anything of the kind; but time after time, whenever they have the opportunity, they question every figure and every detail of performance, in order to achieve what? In order to get a more efficient fighting service? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] If so, let them say so. If they want a more efficient fighting force, let them say so. If they want the V-bomber force to be far more effective in its deterrent rôle than it already is, let them say so. But this is not what they have made clear. If that is what they want, let them say to what extent they are prepared to pay for it, because everyone in the country will be interested to hear. Certainly that view has not been supported by what was said by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park. Hon. Members opposite have been going out of their way to ridicule the capacity of the V-bomber force to meet its commitments in the deterrent rÔle.
  Mr. Shinwell: What are the commitments of the V-bomber force? Did not the hon. Gentleman listen to the defence debate last week? Was it not made abundantly clear by the Secretary of State and his superior, the Minister of Defence, that the V-bomber force was not intended to be used, but was a deterrent and that if it ever were used, the hon. Member could depend upon it that he would not be here any more than I would?
  Sir J. Eden: I do not wish to be rude to the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Shinwell: Nothing would please me more.
  Sir J. Eden: —but he makes me be rude. He makes an extraordinarily childish remark, rather in keeping with the sort of things which we are used to getting from the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). Comments of this sort are becoming increasingly boring. The fact is quite simple and the right hon. Gentleman, if not hon. Members opposite, ought to understand it. Of course the whole purpose of the deterrent is that it shall not be used, but for this deterrent to be effective in its rôle of deterrence it must be the latest that technological knowledge and development can produce and must be a match for every defence of which our Intelligence is informed. In the V-bomber force—the B2 bombers—we have aircraft which can out-perform any other known bomber in the world today.
  Mr. Wigg: Nonsense.
  Sir J. Eden: That is known to be the fact by the United States of America and is recognised as such and known to be the case by the Soviet Union.
  Mr. Lubbock rose—
  Sir J. Eden: I will give way in a moment.
  Mr. Shinwell: Give him a chance.
  Sir J. Eden: I always give the Liberal Party a chance, even if it is the only one it will get.
  As defences against the V-bomber force are improving, so must its penetration capacity be changed. That is why it has been given the low flying capacity, because it is calculated that the defences of the Soviet Union against a high altitude approach will be so effective as to render the deterrent rôle in that position less credible. This must be known to hon. Members opposite. It is the point of the deterrent that it must be credible in the mind of the potential enemy. It is not what matters to us but what matters to that potential enemy which is of significance. That is why in the fulfilment of our deterrent rôle we have to have a variety of options available to ensure that we can penetrate the
  1178
  defences of the Soviet Union. I maintain that we already possess this capacity in the V-bomber force, but what we are planning to do is to ensure that we continue to possess that capacity and we are now preparing to take account of likely developments in Soviet defences in years to come. I now give way to the Liberal Party.
  Mr. Lubbock: My intervention does not fit this part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. However, he seemed to be carried away by his own eloquence when he said that the V-bombers had a performance better than that of any nuclear carrier in the world. Has he not heard of the B58 Hustler, now in service with Strategic Air Command and able to travel at twice the speed of sound?
  Sir J. Eden: I am not aware that the Hustler has the same capacity as the V-bomber at high altitude. The V-bomber can fly higher than any bomber at the moment and before long, when the new developments have taken place, it will have additional capacity in that it will be able to fly at a very low level as well. It was designed to fly at altitudes of greater than 50,000 feet, but it is now to be designed also to fly at altitudes of 500 feet and below. This is a significant feature which hon. Members opposite should welcome. But they never do. They never give credit for these achievements. This is extraordinary. I do not know what it is in them which causes this. Generally speaking, they are not small-minded people. On the whole, they are reasonably generous—certainly the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) in his more expansive moods. Why should they not give sc me credit to some of the products of British industry and to the achievements of a British military service as more than evidenced by Bomber Command?
  I attach a great deal of importance to the support given to Bomber Command by the men responsible for manning the aircraft, the men of the Royal Air Force whose duty it is to fulfil the rÔle with which they are charged. I am always loth to bring in Service men, but the other day I saw a remark by the A.O.C.-in-C. Bomber Command, Air Marshal Sir John Grandy. He said:
  "Penetration by aircraft of Bomber Command of areas covered by the most modern

  1179
  and sophisticated air defence systems could not be successfully prevented."
  That is another way of saying that we shall get through should the need arise.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield Park made great play with the argument that this force was a first and not a second strike weapon. From the number of debates which we have had on this subject it is about time that they knew that the purpose of the V-Bomber force in the strategic rôle is not to attack anybody—as the right hon. Member for Easington has just said. I wish that he would remind his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park of it. This is not a first strike weapon, in the sense that we shall take off and bomb cities as we did in the last war. This is a totally different project.
  Mr. Shinwell: A second-strike weapon.
  Sir J. Eden: It is a second-strike weapon, and the degree of credibility depends upon the amount of assurance that we have—and, more important, the amount that a potential enemy has—of our capacity to get aircraft off the ground in the event of our being attacked by nuclear bombs from outside.
  I should have thought that hon. Members opposite could take a great deal of comfort from the fact that we now have the most effective early warning system in being at Fylingdales, linked with the most efficient Command communications system, which hon. Members opposite would see if they went to Bomber Command. I hope that they, especially the hon. Member for Dudley, will take up my right hon. Friend's invitation. The state of readiness and alertness of our bomber crews is extraordinarily efficient. Within one-and-a-half minutes they can get off the ground.
  I know that all this is known to hon. Members opposite, but this point needs emphasising again and again. We should not be concerned with narrow points of criticism, made for party political purposes; the point we should be emphasising is the fine state of readiness of our Bomber Command crews now. That we are able to sit here and conduct this sort of debate is entirely due to the fact that at this moment our
  1180
  V-bombers are lying alongside their take-off runways, with the Blue Steel weapon at the ready, and their crews, with all their clothes on, living in caravans alongside them.
  That is what is meant by a state of readiness, and the deterrent rôle. This is now at the disposal of the British Government, in an independent capacity. It is in our hands now, and under our command. That is our effective independent deterrent. Let that fact sink in.
  At the same time, we have assigned a substantial number of these bombers to SACEUR. There is no difficulty here. There is no split. This rôle is spelt out quite simply on pages 6 and 7 of the Defence White Paper. Perhaps the hon. Member for Dudley will follow me as I read from it. It says:
  "we have fulfilled our part of this undertaking"
  that is, the undertaking arising from the Nassau Agreement—
  "by assigning the V-bombers to N.A.T.O. The Government have reserved the right to order the use of these forces at discretion if they decide that supreme national interests are at stake."
  That, again, is quite clear. Any British Government, whatever its political views, must reserve that right. If the Labour Government—should they ever come to power—are not going to reserve that right to themselves, let them say so now. If the Labour Party has as part of its policy this very significant departure from our present Government's view that it is essential to reserve the right of independent action with our V-bomber force, let that party say so now, and let the electorate know that it is going to be the decision of the next Labour Government not to use the V-bombers at their discretion in circumstances of supreme national interest.
  If that is what they are going to say they will make very big inroads into the limited votes that they might secure at the next election in any case.
  Mr. Shinwell: In what circumstances does the hon. Member consider that the V-bomber force—which he describes as part of our independent nuclear deterrent—would be used?
  Sir J. Eden: I concede at the outset that the circumstances in which this requirement is likely to be called upon

  1181
  are remote. But no one can foresee what will be the future trends in international politics. If the right hon. Gentleman knows what is likely to take place in terms of the power conflict between East and West, I certainly do not. If he can say what is likely to happen in relation to the organisation of our various defensive alliances, on both sides of the Atlantic, I cannot. It is incumbent upon the Government—in fact, it is their prime duty—to ensure that if British national interests so dictate they shall have at their disposal the most effective means to protect them. This is the most important factor. It may very well be that independent control over a nuclear deterrent force is the best way of protecting British national interests in the future.
  It is important that this ultimate weapon, power or capacity to protect British national interests should be left securely in the hands of a British Government, of whichever political party it may be formed.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the withdrawal of a force like the V-bomber force is not something that one does, just like that, at a moment's notice. One has to have an alternative command system in being, and an alternative contingency plan. When it is admitted by the Minister that no alternative command system or alternative contingency plan is in existence or contemplated, it is clear that the argument for retaining a right to withdraw this force in the event of a great national requirement is a complete phoney; it is directed to bluff the British electorate, and not a potential enemy.
  Sir J. Eden: I am sorry to disagree with the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman in his speech. I do not share his view about withdrawal in the context in which he used it—as though it involved uplifting a military force from a position overseas, bringing it back here, and putting different personnel in it. That is not the case, as I understand it. I may be completely wrong, and if I am I am sure that my hon. Friend will correct me.
  But in reply to the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, perhaps I may put the position as I see
  1182
  it, which is that the assignment of the V-bombers to N.A.T.O. is a targeting arrangement—an arrangement to give SACEUR control over the disposition of the strategic force in planning for the defences of Europe, but that if this force were to be uplifted from its assignment and used in an independent rôle it would be a mere matter of switching targets. It would merely be a case of turning from target group A to target group B.
  Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member thinks that it is a case of bows and arrows.
  Sir J. Eden: No. In this context it is infinitely simpler than bows and arrows, because it is clear that the V-bombers have specific targets assigned to them, and that in certain contingencies they would be operated under the direct command of SACEUR, whereas in other contingencies they would be operated under British military command, and against different targets. This is not a question of uplifting and transferring forces from one part of the world to another to fulfil an independent rôle after those forces have been assigned to European command.
  Mr. Paget: The position that the hon. Member is adopting is very similar to that which General Doolittle adopted when he first brought the American bombers to Europe—the conception that one can switch targets at a moment's notice, and that it is a simple thing. Even twenty years ago that was shown to be out of step with the situation. Today it is literally fantastic.
  Sir J. Eden: I am sure that he has already visited Bomber Command headquarters, bui I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to pay another visit and discuss these points with the men who are actually concerned. I am certain that he will find the answers he is given very reassuring. I do not believe for a moment that these things are anything like so complex or involved as the hon. and learned Gentleman would have us believe.
  Owing to one or two interventions I have gone on for longer than I intended. So may I cut out the intervening paragraphs and conclude with a reference to the central organisation? I hope that this new step which is being taken to

  1183
  reorganise our defensive system from the centre will result, in time, in some reduction in the personnel employed at the centre. If it does not, it would seem to me to defeat part of the objective. I hope that before very long—although I know it is a difficult thing to do in the initial stages—we shall see progress being made in that direction.
  In his peroration my right hon. Friend referred to the huge new technological possibilities, and to some extent probed into the future of the Royal Air Force. I hope that we are not excluding the possibility of finding a manned rôle in space. We have to take that into account, although I am horrified at the cost prospect of it. We have to bear in mind the fact that undoubtedly there is in the future a rôle for man in space. I hope that the Royal Air Force will be closely associated with developments in that direction.
  Can my hon. Friend say to what extent there is a relationship between the Royal Air Force and the British aviation industry? The Royal Air Force is currently being re-equipped with a number of exciting new aircraft and new weapon systems. I am sure that this indicates the existence of a close relationship between the serving personnel and the scientists and technicians who develop our new aircraft projects in industry. This is of outstanding significance for the future, particularly if in the years to come we are to concentrate—as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence indicated during the defence debate—on keeping our operational requirements as simple as possible and not trying to find too many complicated solutions to too many problems by the provision of one type of aircraft or one weapon system. I should like to hear from my hon. Friend on this matter.
  I conclude with the thought, which I know was shared by my right hon. Friend today, that there is a tremendous future for the Royal Air Force during the coming decades. As the deterrent rôle of the V-bomber force gives way to the deterrent rôle of the Polaris missile, the other weapon systems such as the TSR2 will have added significance. I am sure that this will contribute greatly to guaranteeing and
  1184
  maintaining a strong and effective Royal Air Force which is so vital for the security and defence of this country.
  5.52 p.m.
  Mr. George Wigg: Experience has told me that in these debates an essential ingredient in any speech must be the spelling out of the same thing again and again. One must keep on saying the same thing in defence matters in the hope that, little by little, in the end, someone will take notice. At the moment my remarks are addressed to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). The reason why we press for more information is that experience has shown that in a democracy the only possible way for an Executive—even though it be composed of all the Fellows of All Souls, or of commuters with souls—to be kept on their toes is for them to be questioned and brought to account on the basis of established facts. An intelligent Minister would welcome questions being posed as providing an opportunity to give more information and as providing an opportunity for him to find out what is happening in his Department. And when we extol the virtues of Mr. McNamara, it is not because we imagine he is a candidate for a stained-glass window, but because he has worked out a system of control technique and cost effectiveness which has enabled him to get as much defence result out of a dollar as is humanly possible. In our country there is not even an attempt made to do that.
  The hon. Member for Stroud imagines that he played the joker when, like some yapping child, he says, "What about the A.11?". We do not for a moment anticipate that Mr. McNamara in America or any Minister here is going to tell anybody—perhaps not even his own colleagues—about vital matters affecting security. What we do expect him to do, in the interest of his own Service Department, is to make known —so that the maximum amount of interest may be created—all that he possibly can compatible with security. Because by so doing—and accepting that it is the view of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that there should be effective defence—a Minister builds

  1185
  up an informed public opinion which gives him greater freedom to act.
  This seems to me so obvious that I should have thought that a child—even a retarded child—would be able to see it. But clearly I am wrong, because an hon. Gentleman who has been in this House for years comes along and asks, "What did McNamara tell Congress about the A.11?", as if by so doing he is answering my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley). He is not. He is demonstrating a lack of intelligence and the fact that he has been hanging round here for years for some purpose which no one understands.
  When I come to talk to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) I have to talk as if I were telling the story of The Three Bears, and I will try to do so. Once upon a time, seven years ago, when the Suez war was on, and he was engaged in a sordid intrigue to get a better man out of Bournemouth, East in order to satisfy a primitive impulse—
  Sir J. Eden: I really do object—
  Mr. Wigg: It is true.
  Sir J. Eden: I do not mind about any reference which the hon. Member cares to make about me personally. But to indicate Mat I was engaged in an operation like that is really shameful.
  Mr. Wigg: I paid the hon. Gentleman the courtesy of giving way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—I will withdraw nothing.
  Commander Anthony Courtney: On a point of order, Sir William. Is the expression "sordid intrigue" in order when applied to an hon. Member?
  Mr. Wiggs: Sir William, my instinctive good manners made me give way to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, although, when I came into the Chamber, I had resolved that if there was one hon. Member opposite to whom I would never give way it was the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West. Last week the hon. Member refused to give way to me, and what hon. Members opposite will not get from me is any courtesy which they do not extend to me or to my hon. Friends.
  Sir J. Eden: The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said that I had been engaged in a sordid intrigue to get rid of one of my hon. Friends from a neighbouring constituency in Bournemouth. That has no bearing whatsoever on the facts or on the history of this affair at all. I think that a direct accusation of that kind should not be allowed to pass, Sir William, and I ask you to call on the hon. Gentleman to withdraw.
  Mr. Wigg: Sir William—
  The Chairman (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I think it much better that the debate should go on without imputations of any sort being made by hon. Members. I should prefer that the debate went on and that the matter be left. Mr. Wigg.
  Sir J. Eden: Further to that point of order. I seek some form of protection from the Chair on this occasion, for I think that the hon. Member for Dudley has really gone too far. I am prepared to take a lot from him—or any other hon. Member—and he can say what he likes about me or what he thinks about me personally; but to insinuate, as he did, that I engaged in the operation of getting rid of a former hon. Member for Bournemouth, East is a monstrous distortion of the facts, and is in fact a total lie, and I think that it should be withdrawn.
  The Chairman: Order. We shall get into difficulties if we go on like this. I did not read so much into the comment of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) read into it. Maybe if I had done so, I should probably be correct in deprecating the term which was used; but having done that, I think we should continue the debate.
  Mr. Wigg: May I pay compliments and respects to the Chair in its impartiality. It is always impartial, but sometimes more impartial than at others. In my view the job of the Chairman is to interpret the rules of the Committee, not to deprecate or indeed approve anything an hon. Member says. I never seek the protection of the Chair. If you, Sir William, feel that you have discharged your duty on the one hand in deprecating something I said and on the other in allowing an

  1187
  hon. Member opposite to characterise it as a lie, I must congratulate you on this occasion on your impartiality. I trust that I shall never rise to such levels myself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] If hon. Members want me to give way, they should stand up.
  Mr. Victor Goodhew: I am delighted to stand up if the hon. Member wishes me to do so, to suggest that he has a duty to withdraw the very unpleasant imputations he made against my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden). If he were a man, he would do so.
  Mr. Wigg: One of the reasons why we have this kind of thing is that I am talking to retarded adolescents.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) to go on with the fascinating story he began about "The Three Bears"?
  Mr. Wigg: I shall go on with the story of "The Three Bears" but, Sir William, on the Question of what we call each other it is apparently perfectly proper in a speech on defence for the Secretary of State for Air to charge us with lack of patriotism and being unilateralists—this is good clean fun and the Conservative Party can say what they like about anyone—
  Mr. Shinwell: The Prime Minister last night.
  Mr. Wigg: Yes, the Prime Minister last night. This comes from an inverted and ingrowing form of obsolescent aristocracy which came out so well in the Kinross by-election. He imagines that it is no breach of the electoral law to buy shepherds a drink of beer while his lordship drinks whisky. When one hears the—
  The Chairman: I am sure the Committee appreciates that we are debating the Air Estimates. It would be better if we did so in an orderly fashion. I hope the hon. Member will make his speech bearing that in mind.
  Mr. Wigg: At the moment I am slightly smarting, if that is the right word to employ, under the impartiality of your Ruling that it is proper for you
  1188
  to deprecate what I say and for an hon. Member to say that I lied.
  The Chairman: Order. It is essential in the interests of the conduct of business that I invite the hon. Member to continue his speech, please. Criticising the Chair does not fit in with that invitation.
  Mr. Wigg: I shall continue the story of The Three Bears. In 1956 or 1957 when the hon. Member, so he says, was not engaging in a sordid intrigue, there was a war in Suez. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air, who has just returned to the Chamber, wrote a famous article under the heading "Smash Nasser Now". "Smash Nasser now" he said, and then, after waiting for three months, he found that owing to the imprudence of various Ministers of Defence we had no air cover—and like whipped curs with their tails between their legs, they crawled out. They had no air cover although there had been six years of Tory rule and the Tory Government, in order to placate their supporters, got rid of their Prime Minister and after a sordid intrigue—I am sure the Foreign Secretary will agree—they got another Prime Minister. Why anyone should worry about a sordid intrigue after what happened in connection with the selection of the present Prime Minister is beyond me. I thought that in Tory circles the expression "sordid intrigue" was a compliment and that the hon. Member was on the way to a Cabinet post—[Interruption.] If an hon. Member wants to interrupt he must stand up.
  Mr. Goodhew: I am delighted to intervene again to comment that the performance of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is rather reminiscent of "Sunday Night at the Palladium".
  Mr. Wigg: I do not watch any Sunday night performance. All I have to do for entertainment is to read the speeches of hon. Members opposite. When the right hon. Gentleman was saying "Smash Nasser now", they had too few tank landing ships and too little air cover and air transport.
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is allowed to make reference to historical things, but this is not a debate on foreign affairs. We are considering the Air Estimates in Committee and I

  1189
  should be obliged if he would direct his remarks to that subject.
  Mr. Wigg: That is precisely what I am doing. At Suez, because of the improvidence of the Government at that time, there was too little air cover and the whole thing had to be dropped. Hon. Members should read the dispatches of the Commander in Chief, Sir Charles Keightley, in November 1957. The point I want to make in connection with my fairy story is that I wanted to get those dispatches debated, but they were never debated in this House. One thing the Government wanted to do was to cover up against any hon. Member who opposed Suez. This is what I thought happened at Bournemouth.
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West this afternoon talked to us and preached to us. He imagines that he is playing with another juvenile with a ball on the floor. He thinks it is a crime for us to cast doubt on the V-bomber force, but who was the first to cast doubts on the continuation of the V-bomber force? It was the Government in the 1957 White Paper. They said that the V-bomber force was obsolescent, that it had no future and that they would not provide a successor. According to the 1957 White Paper, the V-bomber force had finished.
  On this point I must again apologise to my hon. Friends for reading something which I must have read 66 times before but the penny does not drop. We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends the regard in which the V-bomber force is held overseas. In his speech last Thursday the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Boys at Omaha. And he made the point so often made, that the deterrent to deter must be credible, and it must be credible on the basis of not only what we think about it, but of what our enemies think of it. Here is a document which I did not write, neither did it come from Transport House. It was a Staff Study prepared for use by the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate. It is dated 14th September, 1962, almost two years ago. It says:
  "The British strike force is already approaching obsolescence. Its credibility as an instrument of British policy is steadily
  1190
  declining. Its future, if it has one, may be as a contribution to an integral part of a multinational European force."
  Either those words are wrong and are completely misleading, or they are right. If they are wrong, I should have thought that some right hon. Gentleman at some time would have given the lie to them.
  Mr. H. Fraser: I do not know what this report is, but may I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, important though this document is, it must be remembered that the Americans are very divided on this issue? Mr. McNamara has decided to retain the B52 bombers in the low level rôle until 1969. I think that this fact clinches the argument.
  Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman is making my point for me, but we have not quite got there yet. He tells me that he does not know what this document is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It is not shame. It is a matter of sorrow. The right hon. Gentleman does not know what it is, any more than the Minister of Defence knows what is inside Mr. McNamara's report to Congress. I have quoted from it before. It was a document presented to the United States Senate. I should have thought that somewhere in the vast staffs in the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Defence somebody would be doing a comparative study of the defence forces of the world, so that Ministers would know what others are doing. It is such remarks as those made by the right hon. Gentleman that convince me how right I am when I assert that Ministers are ignorant. I said yesterday that the Polaris should be charged to the Conservative Central Office. I think that the V-bomber force should be, too. It is tied up with presenting a picture to the British electorate. My point is that it does not deceive our allies.
  There is something else. My hon. Friends have read McNamara, as I have. The principal test that Mr. McNamara applies to the credibility of the deterrent is neither the number of missiles nor the capacity of the B52 nor the Hustler. Does the right hon. Gentleman know what it is? Mr. McNamara spelled it out in great detail. What is the one test which the Russians will apply to the credibility of the deterrent? I will gladly give way to the right hon. Gentleman, if he wants to supply the answer. Does he

  1191
  accept my invitation? Apparently not. The test is the efficiency of the civil defence of a country. The thing that makes the Americans worry about Soviet policy is the efficacy and efficiency of the Russian civil defence system. In the speech made on 27th January, Mr. McNamara said that they already have places for 70 million Americans and the number of places is increasing all the time. This statement refers to the provisions which would enable large numbers of Americans to survive a nuclear attack.
  Despite the earnest, well-meaning efforts of hundreds and perhaps thousands of our fellow countrymen, we all know that not much has been done about civil defence in this country. It has not been done because right hon. and hon. Members opposite regard civil defence as a waste of money and a waste of time. The absence of civil defence in this country on a sufficiently wide basis is the basic fact which gives the lie to the whole of their deterrent policy.
  In the 1957 White Paper—at any stage I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes to interrupt—there was no pretence whatever at carrying on with the V-bombers. Then it was to be Blue Streak. It was to be a nuclear streamlined atomic force. That was the trick. Right up to 13th April, 1960, the V-bomber force was not a starter. As soon as Blue Streak went, they found a new prince to worship—Skybolt added to the V-bomber force.
  Here again let me say with all sincerity that it was not that hon. Members opposite are wicked. They just do not understand. The Americans spell it all out for us. The job of Skybolt was as a defence suppressant. The B52 is a much heavier weapon than the V-bomber. In terms of performance this or that advantage can be argued out, but the plain truth is that Skybolt was to go in and knock the enemy defences and then go on and deliver its bombs. The V-bomber force plus Blue Steel is not a substitute.
  But we are now told that Blue Steel is a weapon of great striking power. If this were so, one would have thought that the Government would go on with it; but what did they do way back in the days of Skybolt? At the time the
  1192
  Minister of Aviation said to Mr. Kennedy, "We must have Skybolt. Our nuclear striking power depends on it". They cancelled Blue Steel Mark II. They then complain that I do not now believe what they say about the virtues of Blue Steel. They cancelled Blue Steel Mark II and left themselves with Blue Steel Mark I. They then found that they were vulnerable at high level. Their propaganda department always has one gimmick left. We were then told that, if they could not go in high, they would go in low, and thus Blue Steel was the weapon of perfection.
  The Government talked this afternoon as if the 180 V-bombers will be redesigned. Something that already physically exists cannot be re-designed. What can be done with it is implicit in the existing design. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West asked us what we would do with the V-bomber force. We have told him. I can only suggest that we make gramophone records of it and send them round. We have told him over and over again. It is not a deterrent. It breaks on the issue of a deterrent because of the lack of civil defence. It breaks as a deterrent on lack of performance. But it has a nuclear capability. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park pointed out this afternoon with great ability and pertinacity, it is capability fitted into the bombing programme of SACEUR.
  We were told the other day that it is not ownership but control that matters. If the test is control, I must point out that as to the V-bombers which are consigned to the Second Tactical Air Force, namely, the Valiants, and the atomic weapons of the Rhine Army, the control is exclusively in the hands of the Americans. They are, of course, obsolete weapons. The Corporal, Honest John and the atomic howitzer are manufactured in America but they are obsolescent. The keys are under American control. The A-bombs in the Second Tactical Air Force are American as well. What then in the name of goodness is the use of the Minister of Defence arguing in the House that control is the test, as if he was scoring a point against us? Even though it is established beyond any doubt that the control in Europe is American, they still talk about the "independent" British deterrent in relation to N.A.T.O.

  1193
  If the Government earnestly believe in the deterrent policy, if they earnestly believe that the possibility exists of a situation arising in which this country has to fight alone, they should acquire missiles, or something of the sort, and keep them on British territory. But keep them as far away from the British Isles as possible, because, in the absence of civil defence, a country which possesses a second-strike weapon will be obliterated if it engages in nuclear war.
  I will now carry on with my "Three Bears" concept. This is what hon. Members opposite cannot see, but it is implicit in paragraph 1 of the 1958 White Paper. Again I describe it as the biggest piece of nonsense that was ever written. I must always attach that qualification to it. We were told that
  "The world today is poised between the hope of total peace and the fear of total war."
  If the deterrent is associated with total war, if it comes to be used, life for us in any form, if anybody happened to survive, would not be worth living. Life as we know it in these islands if total war comes is absolute, complete and total obliteration.
  By possessing a second-strike weapon all the Government are able to do is to be sure that after we are all dead, after these islands have been wiped out, a number of missiles fired by Polaris-carrying submarines, or even by such V-bombers as could get off the ground, would blast the Russians to hell. That would not do us any good. This is where hon. Members opposite should go to the electorate and say, "We are wanting, and spending sums of money on, a weapon that will never be used while you are alive. If the worst happens, through a mistake or whatever the cause, this may blast Russia and revenge your death, but it cannot save your lives".
  I move to the total peace concept. Looking round the world now, is there total peace in the sense used by the then Minister of Defence, that saintly character the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies—is it the Kingdom of Heaven? I do not think that the world is a Kingdom of Heaven, nor is it likely to be.
  Therefore, it is a British interest to maintain the rule of law. For this reason, conventional forces are needed which are capable of sustaining the law
  1194
  and asserting British authority in those areas which are essential to our wellbeing. This seems to me to be such a sensible proposition that it establishes that what we should then do is join an alliance in which the power of revenge is infinitely greater than that which we ourselves can exercise and at the same time put all the resources we have into trying to make the world a better place and being able to police it in the interests of world peace.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air was not present last night when I asked hon. Gentlemen opposite, the same question which I now ask him. I must inform him, however, that I did receive an answer from one of his honest hon. Friends, but only one. When, from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, did he become convinced that Polaris was a runner? When did he become converted to the Polaris concept? I am willing to give way if he wants to reply. It appears that he does not. A hen I asked that question of his hon. Friends last night the only reply I received was from the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers). She said, "Nassau". That one answer from that one hon. Member opposite gave the lie to the whole of the Tory case. We see that their policy is one of expediency.
  I do not wish to detain the Committee [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I have felt it my duty to join in the debate and I wish today to refer particularly to the Secretary of State for Air. Last week he was the right hook, so to speak, in the conspiracy which he and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence engaged in denigrating my hon. Friends. I have no complaint about that, although the Minister of Defence and he both thought that they could embarrass, on political grounds, my hon. Friends and myself who accept that there must be adequate defence arrangements for this country and those of my hon. Friends who are pacifists. I hasten to add that we are proud to have as colleagues those of my hon. Friends who are pacifists We find them a great source of strength.
  We begin with the right hon. Gentleman's speech last week, which I have done him the honour of studying with great care. He began by saying and

  1195
  complaining that when the Tory Government came into power 12 years ago they found a difficult situation. He described in some detail the terrible mess they found, with 249,000 soldiers in depôts. There was a terrible mess, he told us, but is he not aware that the Korean war was going on at the time? I recall sharing some of the anxieties that were expressed at the time. The happiest and proudest time of my membership of the House of Commons was my association with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). He ordered and organised the Commonwealth Brigade which went into Korea. The lads in that brigade fought hard and well hut, according to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that was not good enough. In the debate in February, 1951, they criticised us saying that we were not doing enough. On that occasion they forced a Division because they hoped to drive a wedge between my hon. Friends with pacifist leanings and others of my hon. Friends and myself, but they did not succeed.
  If the party opposite found such an appalling state 12 years ago, at the very time when we were fighting a war which might easily have spread and which, it was feared, might lead to a third world war, let us test the sincerity of what they say by considering the actions they took. Will the Secretary of State for Air accept that test? If there was such an appalling neck-breaking situation one would have thought that they would have done something about it. They did. Considering that there were 249,000 soldiers in depots, they could have been expected to have surveyed the manpower position and have taken them out of the depots and sent another formation to Korea.
  They did not do that, but they did something else. Do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite recall the soul stirring action which was taken by the then Conservative Government—action which probably caused the death of Stalin? What is it they did? They reformed the Home Guard. That was—
  The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will relate his remarks to the Air Estimates.
  Mr. Wigg: With respect, Sir William, the Minister's salary is borne on these Votes. I am challenging his competence.
  1196
  I am challenging his personal integrity. When he spoke last week, anything would do to attack us. He did not even stop to think. It was the aristocrat talking to what he regards as his social inferiors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It is true. Anything he could say would do provided it damaged us. The right hon. Gentleman does not think that we have memories. We lived through that time and while the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are intellectually incapable of remembering what happened five minutes ago, my hon. Friends and I readily recall the happenings of 12 years ago.
  Twelve years ago those right hon. and patriotic Gentlemen opposite used the stick that we were not doing enough, and when they came into power they performed an act which savoured of a pantomime—although they did not even follow that through, because their plans on that occasion were cancelled a year later. They proceeded not to boost up but to cut down; and they cut down under financial pressure without regard to the consequences. The result has been that we have had chaos ever since. When we came to Suez they could not raise a brigade, air cover or—
  The Chairman: Order. I am finding it very difficult to relate the hon. Member's remarks to the Air Estimates for 1964.
  Mr. Wigg: It is a British habit, and one I have acquired, Sir William, in the House of Commons to approach most questions historically. That is what I am doing. With a little patience it will be seen that I am demonstrating that the right hon. Gentleman last week made great play with the fact that when they first took office 12 years ago they found that my hon. and right hon. Friends had left them in a mess. He stressed the inability, undesirability and unworthiness of my right hon. Friends to take responsibility because of what they found. I am exposing the right hon. Gentleman for what he is; a cheap skate and a "phoney"—[Interruption.]—because he came to Parliament with arguments which have no validity at all, although I do not wish to dwell overmuch on this point.
  Let us examine the rest of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. This afternoon he discovered that the TSR2 was not part of the deterrent. He did not

  1197
  say that last week. I interpose that in an effort to recapture the thread of my argument, because what the right hon. Gentleman will always do, as will his hon. Friends, is to pick out any fact, irrespective of whether it is true or whether or not it fits the argument—any stick is good enough to beat the dog—for they are engaged in a political exercise, not in a search for truth. The only right hon. Gentleman opposite who is constant is the Prime Minister. He is doing it all the time. He is like a needle on a gramophone that has got stuck. It keeps on saying the same thing.
  The Secretary of State interposed the point about the Americans and the Hound Dog. That was staggering, because from reading Mr. McNamara's comments both last year and this year we find that that gentleman has declared that he intends to have 1,700 missiles. We learn that at present he has 126 Atlas's, 108 Titans, that there will be 600 Minutemen by 30th June, nine squadrons of Polaris with 144 missiles in 1963—that is what he said last year—and 144 more missiles in 1964. That is what he has said this year. He has also said that the Hound Dog, which is superior to Blue Steel or anything like it, will give him extreme flexibility. He believes that that will give him the capacity to do the job over and above the job which his missiles will do.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence argued that we could rely on British missiles. What British missiles? We do not have one. We do not possess a single missile and to get the picture right, to see it in its strategic concept, we must look at the broad pattern of missiles which can be deployed at the maximum distance from their targets. We must consider the problem in terms of missiles in hardened sites and the soft ones being phased out as fast as possible. The Americans have Hound Dogs, B52s, B70s and other aircraft coming along, including the Phantom 2. That is the American situation up to 1970; after that, they expect research to produce something else to follow on.
  Mr. McNamara argues the respective merits of the missile against the bomber. There is an argument for both, but he has come down in favour of missiles in
  1198
  hardened sites, and also in favour of extreme flexibility, because he can afford that, too. We have abandoned the missile policy we adopted in 1957, because we could not, face the cost and then, facing that fact, we have—always post facto—invented overwhelming excuses, including attacks on the personal patriotism of those on this side of the Committee to justify the weapon that is the fashion at the moment. That is the significance of what I dragged out of the hon. Lady the Member for Devon-port last night; this honest hon. Member who said, "Polaris? Not until Nassau." And if tomorrow, for some reason, the V-bomber force or Polaris could not operate, thy; party opposite would find something else and would then justify the new weapon.
  I want to turn to the right hon. Gentleman's own personal record in relation to the purchase of the Phantom aircraft —[HON. Mt MBERS: "He's gone away."] The right hon. Gentleman may have left the Chamber, but I can still say what I want to say. This man was appointed, above all, to safeguard the interests of the Royal Air Force, and he knows as well as I do the significance of the purchase of the Phantoms. I say quite frankly that I do not believe the reasons we have been given for that purchase, and we are not told the range, the cost and the numbers of the Phantom II because to do so is politically inconvenient to the Government. The figure spoken of is 50, there has been mention of 112, but the significant figure is 120 because I believe, and this is confirmed by what I heard in last night's debate, that the ultimate object of the predominant political group opposite— the naval group—is three aircraft carriers and 120 Phantoms as the first instalment.
  After the First World War a controversy went on—controversy still goes on —between Lord Trenchard, on the one hand, and those in what is called the "blue water" school of the Navy, on the other hand. Whilst Lord Trenchard was alive he succeeded in maintaining the position of the Royal Air Force, and it is brought out that what he was after was an independent bombing force and the strategic Bomber Command of the last war. That is brought out by the four volumes on the Strategic Air Offen-

  1199
  sive, but the more I study that official history the more convinced I am that we paid a very heavy price, and did not get the return we should have had.
  I think that the rôle of Royal Air Force is to support the Army, to carry the Army, to provide close support and carry out reconnaissance for the Army, and in those terms it can be seen that the R.A.F. has been sold down the river. Its independence was finally sunk by the decision, announced in last week's debate, to take the Phantom.
  The Phantom 2 is an aircraft of great capability. I said last night—my eyes sometimes play me up—that the Americans had ordered 3,400 of them, but the number is 1,700, of which 500 have been delivered. I saw the first figure when I read my speech in HANSARD last night, and I thought the best course was to correct it here today. The Phantom takes off from 4,800 ft., which means it is not STOL. It can fly 500 nautical miles. It can then drop 4,500 lb. bombs, shoot a Bull Pup at a bridge and shoot another at a radar station. It can shoot two Sparrow 3's head on at an enemy Fishbed—the Russian MIG21. It can fly up to 2.5 mach when escaping, and can return with adequate reserves. It has a cruising speed of 2·2 mach. It is a wonderful aircraft but, essentially, it is an interim aircraft. It has the American GEJ79 engine.
  The Government have said that they will take out the GEJ79 engine and put in the Spey 168, but whether or not they succeed in that does not matter. The reason for the change, I suspect, is to save sterling and get range. What matters is that the Royal Navy has been given an aircraft which, even if its speed is hotted up only slightly, is not only a bomber but it is also an interceptor of the first class. And what has the Royal Air Force got? It only has the ageing Hunter. It is perfectly obvious that for the next decade the Navy will be able to do for the Army the job that the Royal Air Force ought to be able to do. That is because the Royal Air Force has broken down in the discharge of its duty to the Army. It broke down at Suez; the Army did not get the air support at Suez that it should have had. And without up-to-date aircraft, it cannot do its job for the Army today.
  1200
  Again, we are told about the Cyprus airlift, but, once again, all we had there were the Britannias, one Comet 4. some Comet 2s, the ageing Beverleys and Hastings, and all we have coming on are ten Belfasts and the Argosies. So the R.A.F. is ripe for take-over by the Navy. The Air Staff know it but, much more important, the right hon. Gentleman, who has left the Chamber, knows it, too. Nobody in this Committee has a clearer view of the impropriety—I withdraw that word; of the consequence of the purchase of the Phantom to both the Army and the Air Force than the right hon. Gentleman. The Army has already paid the price—the AW681 has been delayed, Blue Water has been cancelled and the Army is without sufficient air transport. For air cover, the Army is left with the ageing Hunter, and nothing coming on after it.
  But the Army's word does not count these days. It has been completely sold down the river. I was astonished to hear with what great passion the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West made his charges against us, but why does he think that I criticise the strength of our units in Cyprus? For fun? Because I particularly want to expose the weaknesses? No, it is because battalions should not he asked to undertake semi-active duties at such strengths, and I think that I am doing my duty in telling the facts about air strength or anything else when I believe the Government are concealing the facts.
  Last night I read extracts from the speeches of a former Prime Minister, the then Mr. Baldwin. I looked up the record last Thursday night, and that made me read again the speeches made before the war by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). I do not doubt that the things that the hon. Member has said about us today is the kind of thing that lot were saying about the right hon. Gentleman before the war. The consequences were that they won an election in 1935, but the bill had to be presented, and the bill was presented on the beaches of Dunkirk.
  Sir J. Eden: What was the Labour Party doing then?
  Mr. Cyril Bence: The Labour Party was not in Government.
  Mr. Wigg: In the absence of—
  The Chairman: Order. It would be much better if the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) would come back to the Air Estimates.
  Mr. Wigg: With respect, Sir William, I have not wandered very far from them.
  An Air Force does not exist in a vacuum. It exists to do a job. The test in course of debate is to see what that job is and whether the Air Force is doing it. My answer is that the Air Force does not know what the job is, and even if it did it could not do it. Then the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, who seems to have perfect licence to move from place to place in this Chamber, and I must read the new version of Erskine May as applied to the hon. Member—
  The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member is not criticising the Chair.
  Mr. Wigg: That would be the last thought in my mind. I never criticise the Chair. All I ever do is to inform my poor imperfect self of the logic of what the Chair says. Occasionally if it appears to be criticism that is not my fault but my imperfect understanding. I thought that it was out of order to move from one place to another in the Chamber, but I appear to be wrong and I present my humble apologies to the Chair.
  Mr. Bence: What about "The Three Bears"?
  Mr. Wigg: I thought that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, had gone. I shall not go back to "The Three Bears".
  The Secretary of State for Air has access to the Cabinet. He knows as well as any hon. Member, and far better than the overwhelming majority of us, what is the significance of the Phantom 2 purchase. The Committee ought to be informed of how this has been brought about, but we are given fobbing-off answers. It is one thing one month and something else in three months' time. When the White Paper is issued we look eagerly for the decision, but there is nothing there. We wait for the Minister to address the Committee, but we are told nothing, but inside the
  1202
  Cabinet there must have been discussion and there must have been understanding.
  In my belief there was a battle and it has been decided in terms of the Navy. I believe that the essential battle was not about Phantom 2 but about aircraft carriers. Last night it became absolutely crystal clear in the debate that in the ultimate we are to have three or more aircraft carriers, and these interim aircraft are being purchased to be put on those aircraft carriers.
  I say that there is the greatest possible significance in this for the Royal Air Force and for the aircraft industry, and that the strategy which is now to be worked out is once again to be post facto. When Lord Head had been a Member of the House of Commons, and had been not only Secretary of State for Air but for a brief period Minister of Defence, he told us in the few speeches he made after his resignation that we would not have a policy worked out in advance and decisions taken in relation to that policy. We would go on recruiting where we could and by whatever means we could find and ultimately our defence policy and our foreign policy would be dictated by the number of men we could recruit and the money that we could afford. In other words, we would be attacking the problem in reverse and it would be bound to be a piecemeal policy.
  Every Defence White Paper looks a hotch-potch. It becomes well-nigh impossible to decipher what it is all about and to find a coherent plan. The only way at hon. Member can do this if he wants to understand, for instance, the V-bomber rôle is to remember that he has beet told that the V-bomber is the nearest thing to the B47 and to find out how the Americans are employing that aircraft. The same applies to Blue Streak. He is told that it is the nearest thing to Atlas and he has to study what the Americans are doing with Atlas before he gets a picture of what is going on. Yet here we are arguing, discussing and wrangling about obsolescent equipment which has no contact with reality but is a political mirage to be used in exactly the same way as the Conservative Party always uses these things to present a picture before a General Election in order to secure a political advantage.

  1203
  My prescription—and I said this last night and I repeat it—is that by some means the British people who are sovereign in these matters must be brought to an understanding of the facts. Here we are handicapped. One or two newspapers have excellent defence correspondents. The rest of the papers take no interest and the facts about defence are presented in a jangle. I.T.N. and "Panorama" are not much better. The information is presented for a few minutes only. In America, however, things are done differently. Detailed accounts of defence policy are presented to Congress. Experts give evidence to Congress Committees. High-ranking officers are brought in from Europe and are cross-examined in detail. They are even questioned on the radio for an hour on end so that nobody in the remotest part of the United States can possibly have any doubt about the objects of American defence policy in relation to the maintenance of a free world. The result is that the American people are prepared to make the sacrifices.
  I am astonished that hon. Members do not stop and jerk back on their heels when they realise this fact. People in the United States carry on their politics much more vigorously than we do. They would not worry about remarks that the Prime Minister was elected as a result of a sordid intrigue. If that were so they would take it in their stride. Fighting as vigorously as they do, the question of selective service is never an issue at a Presidential election. Why? It is because the American people have come to understand that if they want the power of the United States to be sustained, not only in the North American Continent but as a world Power, there are obligations which a free people must accept. They therefore accept a bill which we would regard as catastrophic, an annual bill of 50,000 million dollars, and they accept curtailment of the liberty of their young men. But over here, try as we will on this side of the Committee without any help from hon. and right hon. Members opposite, we can never get beyond an argument which has been presented and twisted in preparation for the hustings.
  It is a very sad day when we have Ministers like the Secretary of State for
  1204
  Air and like the Minister of Defence, both of whose careers I have watched because they both either represent or once represented North Staffordshire constituencies, who are both primarily in politics for one thing and that is the preservation of their class interests. As long as their is no conflict between their class interests and their patriotism they are patriotic, but as soon as there is a conflict they are Munichers. Let us never forget it. If my hon. Friends follow the Prime Minister and watch this rather stupid, waspish figure with his infantile habit of flicking his tongue out like a viper when he thinks that he is scoring a point, they will notice that he is perfectly true to form—a P.P.S. to Neville Chamberlain. I can imagine—
  The Chairman: Order. I have asked the hon. Member again and again to address his remarks to what is being discussed and that is the Air Estimates for 1964.
  Mr. Wigg: I am doing my best. At that point I was dealing with the Prime Minister and I will shortly resume my seat. I wanted to remind my hon. Friends of what is happening at this stage in British history. The British people are at the crossroads, certainly in defence policy, with a bill as high, perhaps, as a democracy can be expected to bear, unless the note of emergency is more urgently sounded. They have not been told the facts. They have not had spelt out to them what the consequences would be if N.A.T.O. was smashed. They have not had spelt out to them that fulfilment of our treaty obligations is an essential requirement of the security of these islands.
  They have been taught by right hon. Members opposite that all one has to do is to make noises in support of N.A.T.O., that all one need do is say, "We support N.A.T.O. and we would do this and that", irrespective of the facts and the obligations involved. I am glad that the Secretary of State has come back to his place. I was, in his absence, charging him with disloyalty to the Royal Air Force and of being the architect of the death of the Royal Air Force. He knows as well as I do—and he knows that I know—that the decision to buy the Phantom 2, which is linked not to one aircraft

  1205
  carrier but to several, is a wrong decision. Looking him straight in the eye. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that, if he had any guts and any patriotism, he would have resigned to prevent that decision being carried out. In not resigning, he has been disloyal to the Royal Air Force and to everything for which it stands, because he has put the interests of his class and his party above the interests of the Service of which he is the Minister.
  6.52 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has made a certain amount of play with the word "patriotism", and I rather regret it. I am sure that no one would doubt the patriotism of the hon. Gentleman—I certainly do not—but I must remind him that patriotism is not enough. The hon. Gentleman has the worst Parliamentary manners in the House. He is so bursting with conceit that he considers that everything he has to say on defence matters he is entitled to say for 60 minutes and more. He has been making the same speech now for eight years and more. It is just as dull as is was when he started. He is so bursting with pride at having been for so long a big fish in a very small Opposition defence pool that it has become quite intolerable that he should continue.
  I beg the hon. Gentleman not to give way to excitement as he does. I am sure that it is not good for him. One of these days, he will have a heart attack on the Floor of the Chamber and we shall be deprived of his company. In his own interest he ought to stop it.
  As I have had occasion before to say to him, he is now the Cassandra of the British Forces. He takes obvious delight in notifying every shortcoming which he suspects to exist. He takes obvious pleasure in denigrating the equipment with which our forces are provided. He spends at least half of every speech in impugning the personal honour of one or other Member of the House. In a small way—because he is not very important—the hon. Gentleman is a national disaster and, so far as he has any influence in defence matters, that influence is wholly against the interests of his country. I am sure
  1206
  that he does not mean it, and I suggest, therefore, that he should stop.
  Incidentally, I think that it would be quite a good idea—I hope that I shall not be out of order in mentioning it —if we could have television in the Chamber so that the public could see the cheap buffoonery with which the hon. Member for Dudley regales his followers end the childish idiotic laughter with which his remarks are received.
  Mr. Shinwell: May I interrupt?
  Mr. Kershaw: No, not now.
  Mr. Shinwell: Will he give way?
  Mr. Kershaw: No.
  Mr. Shinweell: I wish that television could show this. Look at the benches opposite, and we are discussing the Air Estimates.
  The Chairman: Order. Only one hon. Member may be on his feet at one time.
  Mr. Shinwell: He is not an hon. Member. He is not honourable. He is a Member.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member for Stroud has the Floor.
  Mr. Kershaw: Having unburdened myself of those few thoughts about the hon. Member for Dudley—
  The Chairman: Order. I hope the Committee will remember that we have certain rules of order. I hope that I was not right in hearing the right hon. Member for Easington suggest that the hon. Member for Stroud was not an honourable Member but only a Member. That would be out of order.
  Mr. Shinwell: That is something something which I shall not withdraw for the Chair or anyone else. I do not regard him as an honourable man. After all is ;aid and done, in the House of Commons Members are expected to yield to other Members if they indulge in anything in the nature of an attack, and that is what the so-called hon. Member for Stroud was doing. If that is what Parliamentary manners are, or if that is what Eton educates them up to, I shall not withdraw for the Chair or anyone else. He is not an honourable man.
  The Chairman: I cannot help feeling that the Committee is getting very excited and that there should not really have been all that much excitement about it. The practice of the House is to address hon. Members or right hon. Members as honourable or right honourable. The right hon. Member for Easington has been in the House a very long time, and I have been in the House a very long time—
  Mr. Shinwell: I have been here longer than any of you.
  The Chairman: —and I am inviting the right hon. Member to assure me that he did not mean to impute the word "dishonourable" in what he said.
  Mr. Shinwell: Out of my extensive vocabularly I could find some other word to use. For example, I think that the so-called hon. Member opposite was stupid and was dishonourable in the sense that when a right hon. Member seeks to ask another Member to yield that other Member ought to do so. He showed disrespect for Parliamentary manners and even for the traditions of the House. But, Sir William, since I have great respect for you—you are an old colleague of mine and I remember you as a very gallant soldier during the war and as a very honourable Member of the House—I will withdraw.
  The Chairman: I am sure that the whole Committee is very much obliged to the right hon. Member.
  Mr. Shinwell: But I do not withdraw for him.
  Mr. Kershaw: I did not know that the right hon. Gentleman was so fond of the hon. Member for Dudley.
  Mr. Shinwell: That will teach you to listen.
  Mr. Kershaw: We have been discussing whether the Royal Air Force has an independent rÔle.
  Mr. Shinwell: I do not think that I shall bother to listen to this.
  Mr. Kershaw: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is past learning anyway. It might be just as well if he did leave.
  1208
  The Royal Air Force, in the rôle set out for it in the Memorandum on Defence, clearly has an independent rôle, and I think it very odd that the Opposition should fly in the face of what are the present facts in suggesting that it has not. It is true that the equipment which it has today will wear out in due course, but this is not to say that today it is not an extremely important weapon with the attributes the Secretary of State said that it had.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) invited the Opposition to say whether, or to what extent, they would retain control of the weapons which we have in the Royal Air Force and the V-bomber force, no answer was forthcoming. I think that we know the answer. The Leader of the Opposition has said that he would give our V-bombers, without right of withdrawal, to N.A.T.O. I always regard this as a very odd posture for the Labour Party to find itself in. After all, hon. and right hon. Members opposite have resolutely refused in the past and they still resolutely refuse to get closer to Europe on the ground that it would give to the Europeans power to influence our economic and foreign policy. Yet they are willing to hand over a decision much more fateful for the people of this country, that is, the decision to use our V-bomber force, irrevocably to those same people to whom they will not afford even the slightest influence on our foreign policy as a whole. It seems to me that this is a very odd posture which cannot be justified in logic.
  Incidentally, if the V-bombers are to be nationally manned when they have been allocated to N.A.T.O., and I presume that that is the proposal—I mean manned by members of the Royal Air Force—how can one withdraw their control from this country and carry any conviction either to one's enemies or to one's friends? I am sure that no one would think, whatever the protestations, that they had been entirely withdrawn from our national control. That is why in the American proposal for the mixed-manned force mixed manning is suggested.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) envisaged the possibility that the R.A.F. would have been either destroyed or so diminished in strength

  1209
  as a consequence of conventional operations that it would not be open to us to resume, if necessary, a nuclear rôle. That is arguable in theory, but I find it a very remote possibility because I cannot understand how it is possible to imagine large-scale conventional operations being undertaken in Europe without the immediate danger of an escalation into the use of nuclear weapons. Therefore, a conventional war on this very large scale could hardly ever take place.
  The idea that it could take place is founded upon what I conceive to be an error in the way in which our nuclear forces should be looked at. Our V-bomber force, while it must be deployed in a military manner with military targets and military control, is not primarily a military weapon. Its job is not to fight a nuclear war but to deter one. It seems to me that in that regard this country has a rather special and slightly different position from any position which the United States or Russia can adopt. In the United States, reasonable and genuine studies have been made into how one can fight a nuclear war. That makes a certain amount of sense to them because in the United States, as in Russia, there are very large areas which are comparatively empty. Therefore, it is possible to imagine nuclear weapons being used by an enemy on purpose in such a way as to give warning rather than actually to engage in full-scale, all-out nuclear war.
  In these islands, which are very crowded and full of buildings and population, such a strategy carries no conviction and makes no sense. Therefore, while I respect the opinions and possibilities open to the American and Russian strategists, they do not make sense to us and any plan which envisages fighting a full-scale conventional or nuclear war is impossible for us.
  Mr. Paget: If that is acknowledged, how can we credibly threaten to use nuclear weapons? Unless we can credibly threaten to use them independently and without the support of our allies we do not have an independent deterrent. That is the whole argument.
  Mr. Kershaw: That is the nub of the question. But clearly if we are to deter we must carry to the mind of our opponent the faint possibility that we may use the weapon. If it is certain
  1210
  that our weapon is no good—and I have tried to deal with that point—or that we will never use it, it is a complete loss and there is no point in having it. There must be this doubt—[Interruption.] I am arguing that it is wrong.
  The policy of the Labour Party in running down the V-bomber force and denigrating its possibilities achieves the worst of every possible world. It is no good incurring the expense of a nuclear force and then saying it is no good because a potential opponent can say, "We can forget entirely about them. We may not be able to forget entirely about them if they think that their force is good, anal if they say that they may use it. But if they think that their force is bad and say that in no circumstances will they ever use it, it can be completely written off and there is no sense in their having it".
  Mr. Paget: The hon. Member must not confuse the two things. We have never said hat the force was bad and we have never said that it was incapable of causing appalling damage in Russia. Of course it can. What we have said is the other leg, which I think is quite plain and which the hon. Member pointed out himself, namely, that if we live in an island which is plainly indefensible and if the consequence of our action would be to render us a cinder, it is incredible that we will use it. It is unreal because nobody can believe in It. To distort all our other forces into making a threat which nobody except the British electorate is expected to believe is not a serious way of conducting a defence policy.
  Mr. Kershaw: I think that the hon. and learned Member is assuming that we would threaten to use our weapons as first-strike weapons. If we have a second-strike weapon—and I should say that the V bomber force is, to some extent, a second-strike weapon, and, of course, Polaris will be a second-strike weapon—the fact that it is impossible for an enemy to wipe out this country without suffering irreparable damage himself is a factor in his planning. Therefore, a second-strike weapon ideally but a bomber force at the moment most certainly deters and is of use to this country in its diplomacy.
  We have gone over these matters a great deal in the defence debate and

  1211
  today. I think that the position of the parties and different speakers is very well known and therefore I will not pursue it. I turn to discuss one or two details of the White Paper and the Vote which we are discussing. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, as he observed, will probably be the last Secretary of State to bring these matters before us in their present form. As a man who saw some service in the Army, I should like to take the opportunity of saying that I have always found the bearing and discipline of the Royal Air Force to be a singularly happy combination of the modern and traditional. The efficiency of the Service is very great because of the way in which it approaches its task, and I am sure that the change in organisation will not be allowed to alter the spirit in which the Royal Air Force has so honourably discharged its duties.
  If the form of our debate is to be altered in future, we might with advantage bear in mind the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence. The attendance during part of today's debate has been very small. It would perhaps be more interesting to discuss matters in relation to areas of the world and all the forces concerned in it rather than to discuss them merely Service by Service. There is a certain difficulty in doing that. I think that the criticisms which have been made this afternoon about the amount of information which we have are fairly well founded. It is very difficult for an amateur and back benchers to go through the Votes as we have them and to know what is happening, and it is very difficult to make meaningful speeches. That perhaps accounts for the sparse attendance and for the fact that more or less the same old hands speak in these debates year after year. I hope that it will be possible to make a slight alteration.
  My intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park concerning the A.11 in the United States was designed to show that, although they may show very well in their accounts or by the way that they present their reports to Congress what is going on, they still retain the interesting possibility of keeping the expenditure of millions of dollars absolutely secret from committees of
  1212
  Congress and, apparently, the public. This extraordinary appearance at one bound of an enormously complicated and expensive machine like the A.11 is an example of the strange way in which the United States manage their affairs. Probably it has resulted in a great asset to that country and, therefore, I do not grudge the Americans their methods.
  I notice that over the next two or three years, there is to be a sharp fall in the numbers of women enlisted in the Royal Air Force. I wonder what is the reason for this. I am sorry that it is so. It seems to me that there are many jobs in the Royal Air Force which the girls can do very well—for example, the technical signals and radar jobs at which they are very good. It is surprising to see how drastically it is proposed to cut down the number of women in the W.R.A.F. I should like to know the reason for this.
  My next question concerns the R.A.F. Regiment. I have looked carefully through the documents, but I cannot find the number of men. I do not suppose that this is particularly secret, but I wonder why it is not made clear. How many squadrons are there? How are they trained? Is there any difficulty in recruiting? Are they up to strength? If so, and if recruitment is easy, why are not more men recruited, because it appears that they fulfil a useful rôle. I share the tribute paid by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his speech today to the R.A.F. Regiment.
  I understand that the situation concerning married quarters is usually much easier in the Air Force than in the Army, because R.A.F. bases tend to be longer established than Army bases, which, obviously, are moved rather more often. There appears, however, to be a shortage in the number of married quarter buildings. How great is the shortage and what proposals are there for ensuring that everybody who needs a married quarter has one?
  I should like to ask, finally, for a little more information about cooperation between the Royal Air Force and the Army in Borneo, of which I have read in the newspapers and elsewhere. I understand that in that part of the world it is impossible for one Service to function without the co-operation of the others. I should like to know how

  1213
  this co-operation has been going, whether the equipment used by the Royal Air Force is satisfactory for the purposes and whether in that difficult country the co-operation has been all that the House of Commons will expect. Those are the detailed points on which I should very much like to be given an answer.
  7.12 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: I am pleased in a way to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), because it gives me an opportunity to come to the defence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I was shocked that the hon. Member did not give way to my right hon. Friend. In the 12½ years that I have been a Member of the House of Commons, both my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) have consistently invited hon. Members to interrupt them and have always given way to anyone wishing to pose a question to them or to take up a point which they have made.
  It is an essential quality of the House of Commons, whether in Committee or otherwise, that we have this practice of giving way to each other, seeking information and taking up points made by hon. Members. This quality of debating has enabled us to preserve our great Parliamentary democracy and enabled us to conduct our affairs in a manner which is admired by everyone who visits this country and examines our procedures. I am sorry that the hon. Member did not give way. I hope that I shall never again witness such a scene, because it was committed against one of my right hon. Friends who is always most generous in his attitude to other hon. Members.
  I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Stroud—and this has been the burden of my complaint on many occasions—concerning the difficulty that we experience in examining Estimates as they are presented to Committees of the House. I am a member of the Estimates Committee and I have never concealed the fact that because of the complexity and structure of the wide base between the Ministry of Aviation and the Royal Air Force, it is difficult to sort out all the different branches and the developments which take place in industry with the support given by the Government to the
  1214
  Ministry of Aviation through the Royal Air Force and through the Secretary of State for Air and the support which is given to industrial research and development. It is all complex and it is difficult to find whether we are getting value for money.
  Already, one slip up has been revealed in the Public Accounts Committee. I do not blame anybody for the crazy structure which has evolved. I understand the difficulties in the technological development of the industry to support, on the civil side, two State airlines and, on the military and naval side, this tremendous striking power which we call the Royal Air Force. Anyone who treats this a; an easy matter has not got down to examining the whole problem.
  I resent the attitude taken by politicians, whichever side they happen to represent—and I certainly charge the Government and hon. Members opposite with this—in trying to convey to the people that they are obtaining, the acme of defence and the greatest security which they have ever had or are likely to have in the figure quoted in the Defence Estimates, and in the Air Estimates in particular.
  If we look at the Air Estimates and then at the Civil Estimates, we find in the latter vast expenditure for the Ministry of Aviation upon research and development in the aircraft industry, much of which, no doubt, can be accounted for by research and development to be used for developing aircraft of all kinds for the Royal Air Force, the Navy and the Army.
  Anybody with experience of applying research and development in any industrial activity in the modern age knows that no matter who is in power or whatever the ccuntry—it happens in the United States and in Russia, and it happens here, perhaps, to a higher degree than elsewhere, for a number of reasons—we are always in the process of taking off the drawing board and putting into production something of which we know very well that when we have produced, say, one-quarter of what we want in that form, that one-quarter will be out of date. It will be outmoded by further research and development.
  That is going on all the time. It is the easiest thing in the world to show that one's latest scientific development in

  1215
  almost any field is being outmoded by further research and development in the same sector in one's own country or elsewhere. This is the price that the British people must pay if the party opposite seek to convince the people that they must always be armed and prepared to act militarily as an independent, sovereign Power. It is our duty to tell the people that the price which they must pay for that is very heavy. The Air Estimates by no means reveal the real cost that will be charged upon the people if they wish to preserve what the party opposite pretends to call real independence.
  I was looking at some quotations from the speech made recently by the Prime Minister in Glasgow, in which he said that no one has a right to take out of the community more than he puts into it. I do not want to condemn any individuals, whether scientists, technicians, managers, administrators or anybody else, but in this huge complex of the air industry, with its three great units that were brought together by the shotgun marriage, I wonder how much is being taken out of the taxpayer's purse. How much of the taxpayer's money is passing through this complex of the air industry, with all its subsidiaries and feeders? How much is passing through for which the taxpayer is getting nothing at all? I have no doubt that millions are being frittered away, because it is impossible to obtain control of expenditure in this vast complex. I believe that in the structure of our aircraft industry we have the worst of all possible worlds.
  The hon. Gentleman said that one of the great problems was the management of our resources, the best way to use our manpower and physical resources. This is always a terrific problem. But this should be told to the country. I agree that this is one of the Minister's problems. Of course it is. It is one of the problems of all the Service Departments. It is also the problem of the management of every company—how to manage one's resources; and "manage" means control. But what is the good of saying that in the House of Commons when the Prime Minister in Newcastle suggests that everybody should do as he likes and that we should stop control from White-
  1216
  hall? It is the amateur talking again. We shall get the worst of all worlds if we mix amateurism with professionalism and fail to achieve proper management of our resources.
  The right hon. Gentleman gave the analogy of the iceberg with a mixed metaphor. What we have to worry about is not only what is showing above the surface but what is underneath. The difficulty is that there is no single-mindedness of purpose in many of the units which make up the British aircraft industry. I wish that the industry behind our national airline service and our air forces in general was as single-minded in its objective as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has always been. I am not condemning those who run the industry. They have loyalties in various directions. It is, however, difficult for any Department to obtain control of the facilities and regulate them and ensure that those which exist are used at the proper time for the proper purpose—to support the forces of defence.
  It we are economically and successfully to create defence forces we must have as big a team as possible engaged on research and development to keep us ahead of or level with other forces in technology. But what is important in keeping us strong is not only the quantity of our output but the technical quality of a few units. This is a very expensive and difficult business. People generally have the impression that defence is not expensive and that it is a simple and easy matter, and it is thrown around that the Socialist are not interested in defence and that only right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite are. That is nonsense. I am as keen as anybody else on defending my country. I give way to no one on that. Most of my hon. Friends are keen on it. Even my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is keen that the country should be defended from attack by any foreign Power. But he does not believe that any foreign Power would bother to attack us.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to explain my own position.
  Mr. Bence: My hon. Friend will explain his position later on. I am certain that our people are being deluded by

  1217
  the Conservative Central Office but I hope that they are not being completely deluded into believing that we can out of our industrial base create the power to be a purely independent Power capable of taking action on our own and sustaining it from our own resources, because that is nonsense.
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) said that we should support British facilities and equip our troops with British materials. I agree with him; of course we should. But there has been an admission by the Secretary of State for Air and the Minister of Defence that our industrial base is not sufficiently technologically developed to give us the best equipment in the world. So we have to buy American equipment. Immediately we have to go outs 'de our industrial base and rely on that of another country we are no longer completely independent in our attitudes and policies and the military action that we can take.
  It does not worry me from the point of view of taking military action against the Soviet Union of any other great Power whether the Tory Party is in power or whether we are. What worries me about the Tories remaining in power is the domestic state of the country. I am convinced, however, that whether we have the Conservative Party, the Labour Party or the Liberal Party in power, they will never declare war against the Soviet Union, France or the United States. I cannot see Britain ever again taking a unilateral decision to go to war. That seems to be right out. I do not see that we are serving the purposes of N.A.T.O. or any other alliance if, while subscribing to the alliance and seconding our V-bomber forces to it, we tell our allies that we are always liable at any time to take action if we consider unilaterally that British interests are threatened. That is sheer nonsense.
  After all, I am a supporter of the N.A.T.O. Alliance and a great believer in Western civilisation. I believe that basically we have probably evolved some of the best philosophical ideas in world history, and I am determined to play my part in defending Western civilisation. see world problems as being not purely British or purely American
  1218
  problems, but the problems of Western civilisation. I do not believe that France, Western Germany, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom or the United States would take action which would lead to a world conflagration. Furthermore, I do not believe that the Soviet Union would, either.
  This is often said in the House. Ministers have aid that they do not believe that these things will happen. It has been said that if it happens we shall be a cinch r. I overheard one of my hon. Friends mutter that the V-bomber as a second-strike weapon is nothing more than a post mortem spasm, because if it is a second strike it will be in response to a first strike, and if one thinks in terms of nuclear war, the result of a first strike on this country would be shocking and civilisation here would be completely destroyed.
  We have had a long argument about the V-bomber force and its secondment to N.A.T.O. I would like to see our forces committed more and more to N.A.T.O. With the modern instruments of war, national capacity to take unilateral action becomes more and more remote. Nations are becoming in creasingly inter-dependent. Paragraph 8 of the Statement on Defence says:
  "At Nassau the Government of the U.S.A agreed to make Polaris missiles available 'on a continuing 3asis'."
  As I understand it, that means, using an industrial interpretation, that this will be supply not on the basis of stocking but of renewing that which is expended.
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir James Duncan): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are now debating the Air Estimates. Polaris missiles are referred to in the Navy Estimates.
  Mr. Bence: Polaris has been mentioned often in this debate, Sir James.
  The Temporary Chairman: I was not here earlier. My impression is that the Polaris missile is on the Navy Estimates and not on the Air Estimates.
  Mr. Mulley: While Polaris is on the Navy Estimates, Sir James, surely it is permissible to make brief reference to it because vie are here concerned with the nuclear deterrent, of which the V-bombers are part.
  The Temporary Chairman: While Polaris does come under the Navy Estimates I agree that a passing reference to it would be in order. But the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) was beginning to develop the subject of Polaris rather too much.
  Mr. Bence: I am sorry if I gave the impression that I wanted to develop this into a full-scale debate on Polaris. I was using it as an instance of our depending upon supply from a foreign industrial base. The same applies to the Phantom.
  We are told that the idea of having an independent deterrent is that we might have to take unsupported action as an individual nation in defence of a fundamental British interest, whatever that might be. I think that I would be asking the impossible if I inquired what a fundamental British interest might be, in the context of modern conditions, which would not also affect other nations.
  But, if that is so, would it not be possible that, in such a case the United States, if it did not wish to become involved, would refrain from continuing the supply of Polaris? The agreement is for supply on a continuing basis. We are not to manufacture the missile here, even under licence. Nor indeed will we be making the Phantom here. We shall be maintaining our air squadrons from an industrial base in another country.
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to an aircraft which is to be bought for the Navy. He must keep to the Air Estimates.
  Mr. Bence: The Phantom is for aircraft carrier use, but I was using it as an instance for the case that our industrial base is inadequate to support the concept of our being an independent military power at this level.
  We are mainly concerned here with aircraft of very high power. The whole debate has centred around not the conventional Air Force but of the supply to our defence forces of first and second strike strategic weapons—the deterrent. My point is that our industrial base is quite inadequate for the purpose.
  1220
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West hoped that our forces could be equipped with the products of British industry. As a member of the Estimates Committee, I have encountered the great difficulties of questioning and examining under our complex system of estimating. Some amazing things are said in this House. These sums are called "Estimates", and I suppose there is an historic reason for doing so. But the public—and perhaps some hon. Members —do not know that the Estimates are really records of money already spent and that the Estimates Committee can only question how the money has been spent. Supplementary Estimates are drawn on the Consolidated Fund. These, too, are not Estimates of money to be called for in future.
  Our task on the Estimates Committee is to summon witnesses and question them on how and why the money was spent. That is a difficult task and very wearing. Here today we are being presented with two sets of Estimates, one from the Ministry of Aviation and the other from the Air Ministry. There is a figure in the Air Estimates of over £190 million for research and development but that does not tell the whole story. There is also an allocation for research and development of transport aircraft and aero-engines in the Civil Aviation Estimates, but no one would imagine that this has anything to do with defence. The aircraft industry thus gets money both from the Defence Departments and from the Ministry of Aviation.
  It has been argued that the Americans have always been more successful in building airframes than we have, but I am not competent to assess the truth of that. Nevertheless, it seems extraordinary that, whereas the wage level in the American aircraft industry is much higher than here, American airframes are cheaper than ours.
  The United Kingdom to the American industrial business community is a low wages area. It sometimes amuses me to hear politicians talking about keeping wages down, the wages board and all the rest of it, as if Great Britain were one of the high wage areas of the world—it is not. The wage economy of the United States, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and Canada is far higher

  1221
  than ours. With American wages far higher than they are in British industry, why is it that the American aircraft industry can produce cheaper airframes than we can? Raw aluminium is cheaper in this country and all the semifinished material that go into airframe construction can be bought more cheaply in the United Kingdom by our aircraft manufacturers than it can be bought by the aircraft manufacturers in the United States. Yet we go to them to buy airframes.
  Not only have we the Secretary of State for Air and the Minister of Defence looking to the United States, but we have our air services doing the same thing. I believe that there is something wrong. There is some leakage. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley was quite right when he said yesterday that we would not nationalise the aircraft industry; we would investigate it. There should be a Royal Commission to investigate the structure of the British aircraft industry to find out what is wrong.
  It has been said in this debate and it was said yesterday that £20,000 million had been spent on the defence of this country since 1951. Yet we still seem to be in a very weak position. Our resources seem to be inadequate. But with all the expenditure of this money, the British public learn that we have to go to the United States to purchase aircraft.
  It has been said that this is a better form of presenting the Estimates. When this Bill goes through the Ministers for the Services will be under the Minister of Defence, and I presume that the Estimates will be brought more and more together and we shall get less and less information out of them.
  The control of the public purse is becoming more difficult. The Executive seem to be able to get away with spending public money more freely than ever before, and as a Member of Parliament I find it more difficult on behalf of my constituents in the job that I try to do as best I can on the Estimates Committee to find out where this money is going. I pay particular attention to the Supplementary Estimate on the Navy Estimates, but I cannot quote an example from that today because I should be out of order. I am however,
  1222
  absolutely certain that the same thing applies to the Air Estimates as to the Navy Estimates. We have this tremendous channelling of money from the Departments of State into private industry, and although I have thought a great deal about this, I cannot honestly say that I have found an answer to the problem.
  The time has come, whatever Government is in power—I hope we shall be in power this time next year—to inquire into the structure of the aircraft industry and into how research and development is financed within the industry. I am satisfied that, although one cannot perhaps accuse anyone of particular neglect, the general organisation and structure of the industry and the methods we employ—and historically some of it has grown up, like Topsy—is not effective in the modern age.
  Many of us in this House are laymen. This is an amateurish institution where we employ, professionals to carry out the function of Government, and when we are presented with documents like this I challenge anyone in Great Britain to get any understanding of how our industry is organised to defend our country. There is no information in the Defence White Paper. One reads the Estimates and goes through the Estimates Committee's Reports and all the sub-committees—and it is hard work going through them—trying to find out where the money goes. Sometimes we have a lucky strike and we do find out where some of the money goes, and that mistakes and errors have been made, but I have no doubt that there are thousands of other mistakes which we have not been able to detect. This is not like running I.C.I. or Unilever, and they are big enough organisations. We are dealing with probably the biggest industrial organisatior in Great Britain—a huge complex organisation—but I am afraid that it is sometimes represented as a very simple organisation to the people of this country who get that idea from the publications of the Establishment. Huge resources are being devoted to maintaining the complete illusion of Great Britain being a great naval military power in teams of the nineteenth century. That is the illusion which we are trying to create, and to pay £2,000 million a year to maintain this illusion seems to me to be a waste of our resources and the

  1223
  practising of a frightful deception on the people of this country.
  7.50 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Taylor: Now that the steam generated in the debate over the last two hours has largely subsided, I ought not to refer to the outburst of verbal assaults and accusations earlier, nor to the arguments about which aircraft is the fastest and will fly the highest, or which deterrent is really a deterrent. Having listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), I have become more and more appreciative of the range of defence in general and of the responsibilities of the Royal Air Force in particular. One appreciates the intricacies into which the R.A.F. has to delve and the many places abroad in which it must be actively interested and the enormous task of any Minister responsible for these affairs and trying to produce the lowest cost compatible with the highest degree of efficiency.
  I readily concede that the debate has concentrated on the items costing most, the expensive aircraft costing hundreds of millions of £s and other items whose cost totals thousands of millions of £s. But we ought not completely to ignore the smaller items which, small in themselves, are nevertheless important in their own environment. I want to spent some time discussing married quarters for Service men abroad and to refer to the way in which the existing system is administered and to the advantages and disadvantages which emerge from families following their Service men husbands to overseas postings.
  There are two overriding requirements. The first is that the efficiency of the Service man is paramount and that everything should be done to make the Service man serving abroad effective and efficient. At the same time, everything should be done to produce the maximum comfort for his wife and family when they are away from their own country. That is the second consideration.
  Thousands of Service men live in married quarters throughout the world. Many distinct advantages emerge from this arrangement, the biggest being that
  1224
  family life continues in much the same way as civilian life at home. I am sure that hon. Members will accept that the efficiency of any workman depends largely on the degree of contentment in his home environment, and this applies to the Service man as to the civilian. If it were not for the possibility of securing married quarters abroad, great reluctance would be encountered among possible volunteers to go abroad, and all three Services would suffer accordingly. The prospect of married quarters abroad for the whole family is a great attraction to the Service man and helps to keep the family together in circumstances in which there might otherwise be separation, possibly permanent separation. There are many other important factors, such as the beneficial educational value to the wife and family of going abroad and meeting other people and seeing other lands and getting to know what goes on in other parts of the world where there are other people of other colours speaking other languages.
  On the other hand, the present system has a number of disadvantages. Service men volunteering to leave England are given unduly optimistic promises about how quickly married quarters will be available to them. When the promises are not kept, or appear not to have been kept, there is resentment. There is also sometimes unfair allocation of married quarters which, whether justified or not, leads to resentment and an unfortunate atmosphere. In some cases, especially when a change of plan involves hurried arrangements, married quarters are not available, or not of a reasonable standard. Another consideration is that when Service men and civilians live together in a mixed community such as Malta, Gibraltar or Aden, it is often difficult to devise a completely fair system of allocation of quarters between the two, and Service men often feel that they are unfairly treated and have only what the civilians leave after having had their pick.
  Other complaints which could be avoided include the complaint that even when married quarters abroad are allocated, it is often many weeks before the wife and family at home receive the necessary papers and permits to allow them to proceed abroad. This is an administrative matter which could

  1225
  be improved enormously. Any such delay is important and everything possible should be done to cut it out.
  Let us consider the financial implications of married quarters abroad. They are expensive and I understand that the cost is 150 per cent. higher than for a single man. This means that a married man and his wife cost more in accommodation than two single men. This differs from the view of the Inland Revenue which regards double harness as being cheaper than single harness. Accommodation abroad can be much more expensive than in England. Hiring is always expensive and building may be even more expensive. Estimates of the number of years for which the accommodation is needed have to be made and are often proved wrong. Money can be lost in this way. There are other financial factors hitting the country's financial resources.
  Moreover, the Service man is hit in many ways and an additional financial burden ails on the man who has children at home in England. There has been mention of the possibility of further allowances for children or further free tickets to allow them to see their parents, but I understand that the present situation is that they are allowed a free pass to visit their parents once a year, but that if the parents want to see their children more often, they have to pay the cost themselves. We all know how expensive air fares are for one or more children—it can be many hundreds of £s.
  Married quarters often lack essential amenities. Some which I visited in Aden as a member of a Parliamentary delegation were excellent, but we discovered that some were wholly dependent on air conditioning so that the windows were not made to open and when the air conditioning went wrong, the buildings were much worse than if air conditioning had not been installed. We found others in which there was air conditioning in only one room—no doubt in the interests of economy—and this led to the family living in one room of the flat and even sleeping there. One finds other disadvantages, although I admit that expenditure cannot be unlimited.
  1226
  What can be done about this problem? I have spoken to many Service men and found that the consensus of opinion seems to be that a far happier state of affairs would exist if tours of duty overseas were made for one year and were unaccompanied. This is a radical change, but it seems to be acceptable to many Service men. Many of the disadvantages of the present system would be ended and the Government and the Service men would have money. Such a scheme would have to be coupled with a major extension of the construction of married quarters at home, so that the Service man's family could live in its own house in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland until the Service man returned from his tour abroad.
  I agree that this principle would lead to some difficulty in that there would have to be a careful calculation of the number of Service man-hours needed abroad against the number needed at home, but there are already many single men in the Air Force who would provide the elasticity needed for the scheme. It should not be overlooked that building married quarters at home would make them a national asset, which cannot be said about much of this expenditure in other parts of the world in these unsettled days. Millions of pounds have been sunk in countries which, at almost any moment, we may be politely, or not so politely, asked to leave, thereby losing vast assets.
  I venture to put forward these thoughts as specific suggestions which would be acceptable equally to married Service men and to the Government, and which would certainly be beneficial in many respects and could not fail to lead to better relations and greater efficiency.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have been criticising Defence Estimates, and particularly the Air Estimates, for many years. I began criticising them when they were much smaller than they are today, when there was a Labour Government. I have continued to adopt this attitude year after year, and this year I am very pleased to find so much support for my views, especially in the terms of the Motion placed upon the Order Paper by the Opposition, stating that £20,000 million has been spent with

  1227
  very little result in respect of the improvement of our defences.
  I have seen some strange changes during the years in which I have made these criticisms. In the last 12 years we have had a Conservative Government, and each year there has been a tendency for these Estimates to increase. There was a time when I thought that my little efforts were beginning to have some effect on the Government. For example, I remember the very interesting speech made by the present Minister of Defence when he left the Government and spoke from the third bench below the Gangway. He then put the argument which I have been using in these debates—usually to tiny audiences—namely, that we' could not afford this large expenditure upon armaments.
  That was the keynote of his speech. I remember saying to myself, after listening to it, "Good heavens; I have converted the Chancellor of the Exchequer." I did not expect to be able to say that. Now, however, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer is in the position of gamekeeper turned poacher. After some time in the political wilderness he has arrived back, rehabilitated, as the Minister of Defence, and he now presents us with a bill which looks as if it will grow year after year. This time next year, Sir James, you will unfortunately not be with us, but I have no doubt that you will read the reports of our debates in HANSARD with meticulous attention. Then we may see another great change. Still from below the Gangway, I may be criticising the expenditure of a Labour Government. I criticise whichever Government are in power. Then I may once more have the support of the present Minister of Defence. He may well say, "The Labour Government are spending too much on defence." I shall be glad if he provides me with some good arguments.
  I have listened with a great deal of interest to the right hon. Gentleman speaking in these debates, and I have come to the conclusion that he has a split personality. He does not seem happy in his present position. He was much happier when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Hon. Members will remember the Scottish story of the split personality of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. We
  1228
  now have a Minister of Defence who has a split personality, and who has in the back of his mind a great question mark about defence expenditure. We have Dr. Jekyll Thorneycroft and Mr. Peter Hyde.
  I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not here, because I believe that sooner or later the economic arguments that he posed at the time of the political crisis when he resigned will again become valid. Any Government—Socialist or Conservative—will have to curb their defence expenditure, purely on the assumption that we cannot afford this gigantic sum if we are to maintain the British economy and standard of life.
  The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member keeps on referring to defence. This debate is only on the Air Estimates.
  Mr. Hughes: That was my general preamble, Sir James—just like the Preamble to a Bill. I am now going to direct my arguments to the Air Estimates with devastating and damaging effect.
  We are being asked to agree to an expenditure of £500 million for the Royal Air Force, and the word that has gone through all these Estimate debates is the word "deterrent". We have heard it over and over again in the last two days, and we shall hear it again on Thursday, when we debate the Army Estimates. It has dominated our debates. It is the basic word, because it is the basic principle of Government policy. But is the basic assumption correct? Are we justified in voting £500 million on the assumption that we need an Air Force to deter Russia from attacking us?
  That is the fundamental assumption that I want to challenge, because I do not believe that the Soviet Union wants to attack us; I do not believe that the Soviet Union can possibly have any material self-interest in attacking the Western world. I believe that when the Soviet Government have to defend their own Air Estimates they adopt the same principle, namely, that they need the deterrent to deter the West.
  We must realise that the cost of the Air Estimates and of the deterrent to ourselves and to the people of the Soviet Union is very heavy, and that it acts as a brake on both economies. If we must have a deterrent in order to avoid war, why should not we pool it, so that

  1229
  neither the Soviet Union nor ourselves would spend so much, but we would all be deterred from embarking upon this adventure, which might mean the end of civilisation?
  I have studied Soviet policy and the Soviet Press for many years, and I have discovered that what the Soviet Government are interested in at present is the building up of a large chemical industry, which they are doing with the support of this country. I cannot see that it is very likely that the Soviet Air Force will attack this country with the object of destroying our chemical and other factories, the products of which Russia is hoping to use in the development of her economy.
  I cannot understand a policy which says that we must trade with the Soviet Union; that we must send our cattle and the products of our factories and all kinds of things to the Soviet Union, and at the same time says that we have to deter each other from blowing each other to bits. I challenge the basic assumption that if tomorrow we abolish the Royal Air Force, the immediate result would be that the Soviet Union would want to occupy this country. I do not believe a word of it. I believe that both on our side and on the Russian side we have to break through all these fundamental delusions.
  I had hoped that this year we should have a reduction in the Air Estimates, and I will tell the Minister why. I carefully studied the speeches made by the Prime Minister and two that I found most interesting were those which the right hon. Gentleman delivered in Moscow on the occasion of the signing of the Test Ban Treaty last August. He made two speeches, one at the formal ceremony and the other in the form of a television talk to the people of the Soviet Union. It must have been very interesting for the people of the Soviet Union to be able to hear and to see on television our then Foreign Secretary. They do not often have the sight of a real live English lord on their television screens.
  I read those two speeches and I could not find in them a word with which I disagreed. What surprises me about both the present Prime Minister and our previous one is that when they go to Moscow they make wonderful
  1230
  speeches with which I can cordially agree. I was with our former Prime Minister when he was in Moscow and there he was inspired, and so was the present Prime Minister. He delivered speeches which are quite incompatible with any rise in the arms Estimates. If the speeches which the right hon. Gentleman made on T.V. and at the Test Ban Treaty ceremony were an honest and accurate presentation of British policy, there is absolutely no reason why we should be increasing the Estimates. We have to keep these things in mind when understanding the policy of this country. At the signing of the Treaty he said:
  " Although this Treaty in itself is not in itself an act of disarmament, the Treaty does put a brake on the arms race in the nuclear field, the next round of which would have involved a fantastic waste in material resources and human talent."
  That sounds something like a peroration to the sort of speech which I used to deliver to this House ten or twelve years ago. The Prime Minister referred to "a brake on the arms race". People in this country said, "Ah, we are going to have a change. We are not to have these fantastic defence Estimates year after year. We are not to have increases in the Estimates for the Navy, the Army, the Air Force." But what is the result? When the Estimates are presented this year—six months after we were told there was to be a brake put on the arms race —we find ourselves presented with the highest peace-time arms Estimates in the history of this country. I cannot understand it. If the Prime Minister was right in holding out the possibility of a new era in international relationships, it should have been reflected in this year's Estimates.
  The Minister may argue that it is too soon. But there is no sign that in the future the arms Estimates will grow less as time goes on. We heard the right hon. Gentleman talk about what the Air Estimates and policy was likely to be in the 1970s aid so we have to come to the conclusion that we are not saving any money as a result of the expenditure on Polaris.
  I am not going to wander into the Holy Loch. I mention Polaris only in passing. But one of the ideas which has entered into the heads of innocent people was that when we transferred from Skybolt

  1231
  to Polaris there would be a bigger expenditure on the Navy and a smaller expenditure on the Air Force. There does not seem to be any sign of this at all. The expenditure on the Navy Estimates is going up, and so is the expenditure on the Air Estimates. I see not a brake on the Estimates but the adaptation of a policy involving an independent nuclear deterrent which will mean an acceleration of the arms race.
  I cannot reconcile these huge Estimates with the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister in Moscow. He said that if our Governments and peoples set their minds on it, the Treaty would mark a break through for which the world had been longing. It would be a conscious start in demolishing the walls of suspicion and mistrust which had baulked our peacemaking; a start in building new relations of confidence and goodwill. Is there any sign at all in the policy of the Services that there has been a break through, or is there any sign that the good will sentiments of the Prime Minister will be expressed in a reduction in the sums of money which we are spending on aircraft, on submarines and on the Army?
  The T.V. speech of the Prime Minister must have been an interesing one, because it seems that he went to Moscow and spoke on the television in order to rehearse a speech to be made during the British General Election. He said that the Treaty would help the arms race. He got more enthusiastic as he went along. First he referred to a brake on the arms race and then he talked about a halt in the arms race. If he had stayed in Moscow another fortnight he might have been talking about the abolition of the arms race altogether. He said it put a brake on the arms race. But these Estimates are a spur and not a brake. He said that there was a brake on the arms race at a time when it was very dangerous and very expensive. We all agree that the arms race is very dangerous and very expensive.
  I want to finish this statement of the Prime Minister's policy with a final quotation:
  "When there is so much to be done in the organisation of peace, what results could we not obtain if the money which we spend on
  1232
  even half our weapons could be devoted to housing, education, medicine, food production and the like. If we could only achieve that then all of us would have life more abundantly."
  Excellent principles; excellent sentiments. If they had been applied to the Estimates we would have saved £250 million this year on the Air Estimates. Goodness knows, we need at least £250 million to be spent on these other objectives housing, education, science and other things.
  I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) making a very interesting speech in which he attacked the aircraft industry. He said in scorn, "Nationalise it? We don't want to nationalise the aircraft industry but to investigate it." I disagree with my hon. Friend on this point. I want to investigate it, of course, and I believe that if we investigated it we should come to the conclusion that we should have to nationalise it. I do not see that this nation is entitled to spend the very large sums which we have been spending year after year and which come before Estimates Committee after Estimates Committee and to be inconsistent with our ideas of what a sane national economy should be.
  Even if a Conservative Government were to be returned at the next election they would have to investigate the relationship between the aircraft industry and the Air Ministry because it has become very near to a national scandal. We should nationalise the industry. After all, the R.A.F. is a nationalised Service. That being so, I do not see why we should not nationalise the industry which supplies it.
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. I hope the hon. Member will not pursue this matter too much. These Estimates are rather difficult to understand, but expenditure on research, development and production of aircraft for the Service is under Civil Aviation and other Votes.
  Mr. Hughes: You will realise, Sir James, that no one wishes more to work in harmony with the Chair—especially with you—than myself. I suggest that there is locked up in the products of this industry an enormous amount of labour, of organisation, of scientific brains, raw material and a great deal

  1233
  of other things which could be more profitably devoted to our national life in other ways.
  Take, for instance, the number of men employed in the Royal Air Force. I believe about 143,000 men and women are directly affected by the Votes in these Estimates. They are very intelligent men and women who have to devote a large amount of training to scientific and technical education. Those men and women would be far better employed in other spheres of national life than in the Royal Air Force. Many of them are mathematicians. As you know, Sir James, we are short of mathematics teachers and science teachers. In the whole of our educational system in Scotland we are short of the intellectual brainpower of young men and women whom we need to educate the people. They are taken away and immobilised in what I consider a superfluous and useless industry.
  In our local secondary academy we have regular visits from the R.A.F. security people. Their object is to attract into the young students who otherwise might go into the teaching profession. I object to that because I believe in first things first. If we are to develop all these plans for university education. technical and secondary education and all the other activities which go on in a university, college or technical school, we shall have to keep our education brains rather than to allow them to be attracted to the R.A.F. To use a phrase of the Prime Minister, industry in this country needs to be modernised.
  Mr. Bence: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend, who knows factories and industry better than I do, says "Hear, hear" to that. We need a complete revolution in our industrial life as a result of the steps we are taking towards automation and technological development of industry. In the R.A.F. there are men working on aeroplane engines and on extremely difficult mechanisms which go to put an aeroplane into the air. Those people would be better employed devoting their lives and activities to building up industry in this country than by wasting their time hanging around airfields and hangars of the Air Force for an operation which is not likely to come off.
  Mr. Bence: I was speaking to the manager of a manufacturing company and he told me that he was more afraid of Japanese competition than of Russian bombers.
  Mr. Hughes: I know that you, Sir James, are looking angry about the idea that I might wander into Japan. I note the point made by my hon. Friend, but I shall not wander off to the other side of the world. "One step enough for me".
  We have been told that the V-bombers are wonderfully effective weapons which can go very quickly across the oceans and the land to bomb cities of the Soviet Union. I do not know if the Civil Lord has been in the Soviet Union or not, but I warn him that in the Soviet Union there is a new generation of people who are at least as much abreast of technical developments in aircraft in this country as anyone who lives in this country. I have seen a lot of the Soviet Union in the last 30 years. I have seen its young people develop from peasants who did not understand wheels or bicycles into first-class scientists and technicians. I have been very impressed with them.
  Mr. Roy Mason: Cosmonauts.
  Mr. Hughes: I believe I was the first in this country to welcome Valentina Tereshkova here as she came off the Russian plane. I have had the opportunity of talking to Major Gagarin and Major Titov. They are extremely intelligent, not only in space science but also in pclitics—which is more than I can say for the Secretary of State for Air.
  I mention these young space people because somebody mentioned space in this debate. They are not just individuals. They represent a generation. If it comes to an arms race and if we are to have the independent deterrent based on the assumption that alone we must gear our manpower or womanpower and our industry to compete with this new Russian generation, we are labouring under a great illusion.
  The Minister never finishes the story about these bombers and how they get into the air. He seems to finish with them when they get into the air. What happens to them afterwards? Do they

  1235
  return? As soon as the bomber goes into the air, inevitably a bomb can be expected, probably coming from a rocket. So we are at the stage where both sides have reached what I will call the saturation suicide point. I do not believe that with our industry, with its technical background, and even with all the young people we have in the R.A.F., it is sensible to think in terms of a nuclear deterrent and competing with the Russians in that way.
  When the Minister says that it gives us security, I am reminded of the argument of Captain Liddell Hart that the danger of accident in the nuclear field is greater than the danger and the possibility of a Russian attack on this country. I do not know whether the Minister has seen a film which is being shown at one of the London cinemas at the moment—Dr. somebody.
  Mr. H. Fraser: "Dr. Strangelove".
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Minister has obviously seen the film. It is a film in which we are shown all the apparatus of the deterrent working. We see the Chiefs of Staff. We see the aeroplanes being ordered to go and bomb Russia. We even see the results of a nuclear cloud of dust. Inevitably a couple of them go mad. There may be a streak of humour running through it, but I came away terrified that this might be a possibility. Even if there is only one chance in a hundred of it not happening in this way, it is something to be avoided. I want to see the Estimates cut ruthlessly and deliberately as a matter of policy, because I believe that they mean not security to this country but greater danger.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley said that Britain, with all this talk of an attack upon the Soviet Union, had no civil defence. I cannot discuss civil defence on the Air Estimates. What has appalled me in all these defence debates is that defence of the civil population has been regarded as something very incidental indeed. I do not believe that this country is safer as a result of this vast expenditure.
  The Minister knows a little about Ireland. He has very good connections with Ireland. I believe that, in the event of a nuclear explosion, Ireland would be perhaps a little safer than
  1236
  this country, because it is not a target. Indeed, I have been told that very wealthy and successful business people in West Germany have been buying up a good deal of land on the west coast of Ireland, because they believe that it would be safer there than in this country or in Germany. That is very likely to be so, because the most dangerous parts of the world at present are the centres which have nuclear weapons. I am as near danger as any part of the world, because I live near the Holy Loch. I put this point of view to a Russian. He said, "I am in more danger than you. I am in Moscow". The dangerous areas are the target areas. I have no doubt that the Holy Loch is a target area for a rocket. I have no doubt that targets exist all over the Soviet Union. The most dangerous parts of the world at present are in the territory of the people who have been spending so much on armaments.
  I welcome the statement the Foreign Secretary has made in Geneva. I do not know whether he was acting unilaterally. He suggested that we should burn the bombers. I wonder if that will last until after the General Election. I noticed that just before the last General Election the previous Prime Minister went to Moscow. The country was then asked to vote for the man of peace. Now we have seen the same pilgrimage to Moscow, and the present Prime Minister is also being held up as the man of peace.
  These figures contradict that. They show that we are devoting an enormous amount of our national wealth, labour power, brains, and scientific and technical achievement to doing something which is barren from the point of view of raising the standard of life in this country. Therefore, I am against this huge expenditure. I do not believe that it can be rationally defended. I do not believe that it is sound national policy.
  What about areas outside this country? We have a base in Cyprus from which the R.A.F. operates. The other day I asked the Minister of Defence how much we had spent on Cyprus since we took it over as a base. He gave the figure as £200 million. We could have had a dozen universities for £200 million. What is the purpose of the base in Cyprus? The answer is

  1237
  that it is part of the so-called nuclear deterrent policy.
  I recall discussing the Cyprus base in the House. The day we decided to go from Suez to Cyprus the right hon. Gentle- man the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) said that we had to go away from Suez because that base was in hostile territory. He was right. Had we stayed there we would have been forced to retire ultimately because of the insurgence of Egyptian nationalism.
  I remember Captain Waterhouse, who was then the spokesman for the Suez Group on the benches opposite—I am not sure whether the present Secretary of State for Air was a member of that group—saying that we were moving nearer to a possible danger spot, that we were going into Cyprus and thus going nearer to the potential enemy, that we were living in the nuclear age and that one hydrogen bomb on Cyprus would be the end.
  Despite that, we went to Cyprus. That was calamity for the people of Cyprus and that move is partly responsible for our being in trouble in Cyprus now. We are there, apparently, because it is a naval base or a potential base for dealing with trouble in the Middle East. We are there because it is part of our target policy, which in turn is based on the assumption that we will have war with the Soviet Union.
  Randolph Churchill lets the cat out of the bag when he goes about the world. He often lets many cats out of the bag, although he certainly is a man of courage. I recall that after visiting Cyprus on one occasion Mr. Churchill wrote an article in the Evening Standard in which he said that the only reason the base was there was that we needed airfields there to enable us to bomb oil-fields at Baku. Do the Government really believe that the Soviet Union is not aware of this? Do they believe that the Russians do not have any rockets trained on Cyprus?
  We are in this terrible mess in Cyprus today simply because we persist in keeping our base there and because our bombers and R.A.F. garrison are there. It was a bad day for Cyprus when we went there, when the Turkish police were used against the Greek population and when we made the young generation of Cypriots used to the gun and violence.
  1238
  These are probably the last Navy Estimates to be introduced by a Conservative Government.
  Mr. Mason: Navy Estimates? My hon. Friend is almost in the Holy Loch.
  Mr. Hughes: I should have said Air Estimates, but these arguments would apply to the Navy Estimates, and I regret that I was not fortunate enough to be called to speak in the debate on them.
  I suggest that when the time comes, as I hope it will, for a Labour Government to be in office, that Government will have the determination, vision and decision to say that this enormous expenditure on armaments must be curbed. I hope that the then Minister of Aviation, in presenting his Estimates, will not disappoint me.
  8.43 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Mason: I should like to begin by expressing a personal point of view. I am not sorry that the debate on the Air Estimates is being wound up unusually early on this occasion. I me an no disrespect to my hon. friends or hon. Gentlemen opposite when I say that every minute has seemed like an hour. Had we gone on until midnight the debate would have seemed to have lasted for another week. I hope that my voice lasts out during the period I wish to speak.
  In opening the debate, the Secretary of State may have been making what was termed an historic speech in that it was the last speech that a Secretary of State for Air, as such entitled, will make. I suggest that it was historic for another reason; that he took such a long time to say so little. Throughout the debate one hon. Member after another has complained bitterly about the lack of information in the Air Estimates as well as about tare lack of information imparted from the Dispatch Box in that opening speech.
  The Secretary of State referred to the rescue missions undertaken by the R.A.F., and with the value and safety of Transport Command, to which I shall refer later. He also spoke of future additions to the Air Force, particularly Transport Command. He said that in future years —not necessarily in the next

  1239
  twelve months—we shall have coming the HS748, the VC10, the HS618, and so on, but made no mention—indeed, I do not see how he could—of the additions in the last year. During the whole of the last 12 months we have introduced into Transport Command one Argosy and one squadron of Wessex helicopters —a disgraceful and pitifully small contribution. It would have been most embarrassing for the Secretary of State just to have mentioned that.
  I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not present at the moment, but because of what was said from the Treasury Bench this afternoon I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State: is there or is there not a plan to use the V-bomber force independently? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to reply—I will give way to him now if he will do so. Is there or is there not a plan to use the V-bomber force independently?
  Mr. Ridsdale: Of course there are plans.
  Mr. Mason: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Perhaps he will now tell the Committee what alternative plans exist. If the V-bomber force is now committed to SACEUR, is targeted within the N.A.T.O. Alliance, will the hon. Gentleman explain what alternative plans exist to use the V-bomber force independently of SACEUR—to pull it out of the N.A.T.O. Alliance—and to whm it is to be directed against? This makes nonsense of the independent British nuclear deterrent.
  In any case, our V-bomber force cannot get off the ground until it has been alerted by the B.M.E.W.S.—the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System, recently linked up by Fylingdales and sponsored mainly by the Americans. Our V-bomber force could not get off on its strategic rôle until first alerted by a mainly American alert system.
  It is not my intention, however, to go into the grand nuclear strategy—my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) deployed that argument at great length. I have always considered that the Air Estimates should be used for a discussion far wider than that solely of the use of the V-bombers
  1240
  or the nuclear force, and many people who serve in many theatres of operation in the Royal Air Force would be disappointed if, occasionally, we did not give them praise when it was due, or air their grievances when that was necessary.
  I first referred to mercy flights two years ago. I urged the Secretary of State for Air to devote a little more space in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Air Estimates to errands of mercy and air-sea operations. Last year, that was done—there were ten paragraphs, covering more than a full page —but in this year's Statement on Defence there is no mention at all of errands of mercy, and only one paragraph—paragraph 188—deals with search and rescue operations.
  I deplore this tendency to underwrite the activities and value of mercy and rescue organisation. In 1962, 250 lives were saved, 100 patients were flown to hospital, and 60 climbers were rescued by Royal Air Force mountain rescue teams. Last year, according to paragraph 188, 206 people were rescued and, in all, there were 405 search and rescue operations. This is no mean achievement, and some recognition of it has been granted by way of a George Medal and an Air Force Medal to two helicopter winch operators, and I noticed that last September the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators awarded the Brackley Memorial Trophy to No. 22 Squadron.
  I mention all this because, as all who are interested in Royal Air Force matters know, the R.A.F. search and rescue organisation is equipped, manned and deployed for one purpose only and that is to give assistance to British military aircraft in distress. All the rest, the rescue of swimmers and yachtsmen and the help to mariners and mountaineers, is a secondary function of the organisation. These activities, however, are important and we have come to depend on the organisation in its mercy rôle to a much greater degree. Incidentally, these activities give the aircrews and the organisation a great deal of practical experience.
  I sense a danger here, however. When there is a transfer of functions and a gradual re-equipment and redeployment of the search and rescue organisation,

  1241
  the secondary rôle may be gradually disregarded. I should like an assurance from the Under-Secretary that this will not be the case. This is an aspect which should be more importantly recognised. There is an urgent need in the country for an emergency rescue service with a nationally recognised telephone number and a sea and air rescue unit operating on a coast-to-coast link-up. The Royal Air Force has been playing an increasingly dominant part in this type of service, as the figures show. I hope that this will be borne in mind and that this secondary rôle of search and rescue will not be disregarded or reduced in importance in future.
  I should like to draw the Committee's attention to paragraph 179 of the Statement on Defence which refers to surveys carried out by the photographic reconnaissance force of Bomber Command. Valiants and Canberras have conducted air surveys of British Honduras, the Solomon Islands, Santa Cruz and the New Hebrides. They have also surveyed parts of New Guinea, Papua, Uganda and Rhodesia. For what purpose? Was this a joint operation with the countries involved, and how was the Royal Air Force called in for this purpose? Bearing in mind the photographic surveys by the R.A.F. in various theatres, particularly in their military rôle, and that the Force has been called in to such a large number of countries for what might be termed a peaceful rôle, it would appear that most of the world by now has been photographed by the R.A.F.
  Aerial survey photography is the most rapid and effective means of providing data for map-making. These maps are essential for military and air navigation purposes, but they are also essential for civil purposes. Are the photographs taken by the R.A.F. in aerial survey, after the conclusion of the photographic missions, especially in the type of country mentioned in paragraph 179, made available to the countries concerned? This kind of survey, producing detailed photographs, can be of great assistance to under-developed countries in planning their communications, their towns and their irrigation schemes and in helping them to exploit agriculture, forestry and other natural resources. I hope that the Under-Secretary will agree
  1242
  to inform hon. Members of the occasions when the R.A.F. has offered a special service to developing countries and of the extent to which the results of missions are made freely available for peaceful purposes.
  I notice that there is no mention of the rôle of the Observer Corps, apart from the fact that the Royal Air Force is employing 78 observers, which is exactly the, same as the number employed last year according to the Estimates. I also notice that the Explanatory Memorandum to the 1962–63 Estimates stated that
  "The programme of new building to provide protected accommodation for the Royal Observer Corps posts and Group Headquarters is making good progress."
  No mention of this was made last year, nor is it mentioned in this year's Statement on Defence. Why? The Minister might say that his Department has not been responsible for buildings since 1st April, 1963, but there was no mention of these projects even in last year's Estimates when it was still responsible.
  What is important is that the Air Ministry has been building 1,500 radiation detection posts which were to be manned by the Royal Observer Corps. Are they completed? If so, why is there no report in the Air Estimates? Are the Group headquarters finished? If so, why is there no mention of this? Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will inform us whether we have now managed to get sufficient Royal Observer Corp personnel to man the 1,500 detection posts on a round-the-clock watch. There seems to be a curious unexplained silence about all this. Will he tell us whether all the underground detection posts have been completed, and, if so, whether we now have sufficient trained part-time Royal Observer Corps men to man them.
  Thinking about Transport Command, we have all been rather shocked during the past three or four days at the three major air disasters in civil aviation. These accidents prompted me to look into the safety of Transport Command. A cursory glance is sufficient to reveal how safe Royal Air Force Transport Command really is. I have made a comparison with civil flying. On nonscheduled flights, 400 people were killed in 1962. This was a quite disastrous

  1243
  year, and the number fell to 150 in 1963, a notable improvement. On scheduled services in civil flying, 765 people were killed in 28 accidents in 1962, and 678 were killed in 27 accidents in 1963. This is not a fair comparison because, as all who are interested in air matters know, the comparison should be based on the millions of passenger-miles per accident. This approach shows that the scheduled services, which, of course, operate many millions of passenger-miles more than the non-scheduled services, are much safer than the non-scheduled services.
  It is not easy to find out the Royal Air Force accident figures, but the Minister told us yesterday, in reply to a Question from me, that, in the past ten years, in all transport squadron operations there has been only one accident and this involved the loss of three crew and 12 passengers. This proves the safety of Transport Command. There are the regular services to El-Adem, Cyprus, Aden, Gan and Singapore, regular trips to the Middle East and the Far East transporting Service personnel, their wives and families, the 113 Service operations during the past 12 months and, indeed, the operations in Cyprus and in East Africa during which, the Secretary of State told us, 6,500 men were transported all without loss. It is a very praiseworthy achievement indeed. Now, recruitment. In the 1963 Memorandum on the Estimates, we were told that
  "Recruitment of pilots and air electronics officers was slightly below the desired rate…there is a continuing need for professionally qualified engineers…In the Education branch it is not easy to recruit scientists and technologists…there is a need for more full career entrants who are graduates or have professional qualifications…There is a temporary deficiency in certain trades, notably wireless and teleprinter operators, nursing attendants, police and some unskilled assistant trades."
  In last year's Estimates debate, great play was made of all this and it was said that there must be some inefficiency in the Service somewhere if all these various technical people were lacking in recruitment. In this year's Statement on Defence, we are told once more that there is
  "a small deficiency of air electronic officers"—
  1244
  contrary to what the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, it is "officers" in the plural—
  "Ground branches which require professional qualifications still have recruiting difficulty…Requirements for adults in ground trades will rise substantially later in 1964 when entrants of high quality will again be needed."
  In my opinion, this suggests that it is still proving very difficult to recruit skilled manpower for the sophisticated grades in the Royal Air Force—that is, the tradesmen, the scientists and the technologists—and that these are basic and long-standing deficiencies which are bound adversely to affect operational efficiency.
  In paragraph 218 of the Statement on Defence mention is made of the Royal Air Force College at Cranwell. There has been some well informed criticism of the college, and I was so impressed with the points made that I thought the Minister should be confronted with the argument. This is not delivered in a nasty vein or one of sarcasm. It is designed to help. As everyone recognises, Cranwell has been of great value and assistance to the Royal Air Force which has depended a great deal on it in the past. The job which it is performing at the moment—that is, providing the R.A.F. with a new professional basis on which the new Regular Service is being built—is also being recognised.
  However, one questions whether Cranwell is training the right young men, at the right time in their careers, and in the right way. They pass an entrance examination and enter Cranwell at 17 years of age. They are now selected officer material. The first question which is posed is: can we be satisfied that at this age of 17 we have chosen officer material of the right calibre, that these 17-year-old students are alive to their future responsibilities, that they are capable of advanced technical training in addition to receiving all their flying training, and that they will settle down to Service life?
  Secondly, the course lasts three years. They are taught leadership, the rudiments of man management and parade ground routine—what we used to call "square bashing". They receive an academic Service education. They are encouraged to enter sport. Incidental to all this, they are taught to fly. This is

  1245
  the questionable part. The critics of Cranwell are saying that this is not sufficient because on graduating and joining a squadron a man finds that on the flying side he lags behind the young officer who failed Cranwell but who has had a more concentrated flying programme and is better prepared for the operational units. Strong criticisms, therefore, are being made not of the quality of teaching of Cranwell but of the low concentration of flying achieved.
  To sum up, men appear to be entering too young to know whether Royal Air Force life will be satisfying to them, especially as they lead a sheltered life at Cranwell for three years before entering operational units, and it is questionable whether one can judge officer material at that age. Also, because of the syllabus, there is too little flying and, hence, they are at a disadvantage when faced with an intensive flying effort encountered in the operational units.
  It is suggested that this system should be reversed—that is, only after three years, during which these potential officers will have lived in the force and will have gone through intensive flying courses, should they then take the Cranwell entrance examination. They will then know the force better. They will know whether they are likely to make it a career and their calibre will be better judged at 20 or 21 years of age. Instead of being a college training potential officers, Cranwell would in fact be a regular officers college and would turn out fully professional flying officers.
  It appears to me that this is what the R.A.F. requires—P.F.O.s, professional flying officers, ready for the transition from flying V-bombers to flying TSR2s, men who are exceptionally fit, highly intelligent and who require the finest training possible.
  It is essential to notice the trend. During World War II, it cost the Royal Air Force £9,000 to produce a bomber pilot. In 1954 this had increased to £25,000 and in 1957 to £45,000. In 1961, the figure for a trainee to wing standard was £60,000. Today, to train a pilot for a V-bomber cost £100,000 and it costs nearly £¼ million to train a Vulcan crew.
  Flying training has, therefore, never been more vital and costly. One shudders
  1246
  to think of the cost of the TSR2 and of training the crew and the type of superhuman being who is expected to fly these manned missiles. Few will come up to the required standards and much money will be lost on partial training before the flaws in their make-up reveal themselves. At present, only 15 per cent. of those who volunteer for aircrew are able to satisfy the stringent standards selection and up to 50 per cent. of those accepted are expected to fail en route to their wings. In other words, out of 1,000 applicants, only 75 usually reach an operational unit.
  That is another reason for looking at Cranwell and, indeed, the reason why there may be a case for reappraisal of aircrew training, because it will prove increasingly difficult for us to produce fully professional flying crews. The humans—that is, the pilots—required with brains, skill and training will indeed be difficult to produce to match and control at Mach 2 and 3 speeds the sophisticated electronic power packs in aircraft of the future.
  The hon Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) said that he would like to find out from the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether we intend to find a rôle in space. To go back to the 1962 Memorandum accompanying the Air Estimates, it was stated in paragraph 18 that
  "The Royal Air Force is also giving careful study to the military use of space."
  Again, as with the Royal Observer Corps, there has been no further mention of this in the 1963 or 1964 Estimates. "The military use of space" could mean anything. In 1962, the Memorandum went on to say:
  "Study is being concentrated in the first place on possible applications in the field of communication is and reconnaissance."
  Two years have elapsed and nothing seems to have been done.
  Eighteen months ago, the Minister of Aviation, who had just left the office of Secretary of State for Air, addressed the Society of British Aircraft Constructors on 5th September, 1962. During the course of his address, he said:
  "When I was at the Air Ministry, I expressed the belief that the future was more likely to lie in the longer run with some kind of manned craft which could take off from the ground, pass through the atmosphere into space, manoeuvre in space, return and be used

  1247
  again. The Ministry of Aviation are already studying the feasibility and implications of such a vehicle or craft. I cannot forecast what the conclusions of this study will be or what judgment the Government as a whole may pass upon them, but industry should bear this possibility in mind."
  It was not a question of crews or reconnaissance, but more specifically, said the Minister, spacecraft.
  Again in 1961, on 19th July, there was a statement in the House by the Secretary of State for Air, now Minister of Aviation, when he stated that we were to join the United States Air Force and develop jointly a MIDAS satellite system—a Missile Defence Alarm System —and that a ground receiving station was to be built at Kirkbride, in Cumberland. Why has there been no mention of this in last year's or this year's Air Estimates? Have we not a right to know whether this receiving station for the MIDAS satellites has been completed? Have we not a right to know whether it is operated in conjunction with recent launchings of the MIDAS satellite? We were committed to spend about £3 million on the project for the station at Kirkbride. Have we been financially involved to a greater extent than this?
  I ask because of what was said by the then Secretary of State on 12th March, 1962. He said:
  "We are co-operating in the MIDAS project, we have a few R.A.F. officers working with the United States Air Force on space matters and we have a small staff in the Air Ministry who are working whole-time on these matters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c. 927.]
  The reason why I question this is that if one has followed the MIDAS project and taken note of what has been revealed to the United States Congress, one knows that in 1962 the American Congress was informed that half of the 450 million dollars spent on the project was wasted—and we were partially involved. Therefore, it is only right to ask the Under-Secretary what our intentions are regarding the use of space, what projects are being jointly sponsored now by the Royal Air Force and the United States Air Force, how much these projects are costing us, and to what extent we have been involved in the initial waste of money on the MIDAS
  1248
  project announced to the American Congress in 1962.
  The Air Estimates Memorandum reveals little that we did not previously know, and in his speech the Secretary of State followed the example of the Estimates and revealed very little to the Committee. It was a very shallow, hollow speech, a shadow compared with what his predecessor used to glorify in when opening the Air Estimates debate.
  I am now leaving the Under-Secretary two and three quarter hours in which to wind up the debate, and I hope that he will use some of that time to give the Committee some information and some replies to the questions posed to him today.
  9.12 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Ridsdale): The hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has very kindly paid some sincere and well deserved compliments to Transport Command. I wonder whether he wishes that on the flight which I believe he will be making next week he was travelling by Transport Command and not by civil airlines.
  Mr. Mason: I wish I were.
  Mr. Ridsdale: Before dealing with the more interesting points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—and if I have not time tonight, perhaps I may write to them—
  Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman has two and three quarter hours, which should suffice.
  Mr. Ridsdale: I am sure that the Committee will wish me to acknowledge the magnificent service given last year by the personnel of the Royal Air Force from Cyprus through East Africa, Malaysia and many other parts of the world as well, a service which has transported our troops speedily—as was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden)—efficiently and safely on many operational rôles, but a service which still plays a vital rôle for our country as a guardian of the peace.
  Since last year I have had the advantage of having visited nearly all our Royal Air Force bases overseas. During these tours I found how much the

  1249
  visits made by hon. Members from both sides to the Royal Air Force during last year were appreciated. I know that in a busy life organisation is necessary to take time off to visit our Royal Air Force stations at home and abroad and to keep up to date with modern practices and conditions. I should like to thank all those who have taken the trouble and pains to visit the Royal Air Force and whose speeches have reflected their up-to-date information. I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) will pay another visit to Bomber Command soon, and perhaps he will take his hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) with him.
  The total size of the Air Estimates is £504 million. Allowing for the change in the value of money, this is one-third less than the Estimates for 1939–40, when the establishment of personnel numbered 150,000. However, we should not forget those years when we failed to deter Hitler—1934–35, for example, when establishment of personnel totalled 30,000 and the size of the Estimates just over £17½ million—or, at present values, about £50 million.
  The total number of Air Force personnel is expected to amount to 136,100, including women and boys, on 1st April this year. This represents a considerable fall in numbers since last year, when the strength, excluding the local enlisted forces, stood at 143,800. This trend will continue, so that by April, 1965, we expect the strength to be about 132,400. The reduction is due to various changes in our needs, notably the disbanding of the Thor squadrons as well as to work study and man management.
  I referred to this in the Air Estimates last year, and in my visits to Air Force stations at home and abroad I invariably hear of economies which have been made by some new work study or new idea in the use of manpower. For example, at Akrotiri the complexity and volume of aircraft servicing gave rise to large bids for additional technical manpower to enable the station to meet its flying tasks. The problem was, however, solved by setting up a special centre with flying and technical wing representatives to co-ordinate and control the work of both wings. In this way, the station was able to increase the amount of flying
  1250
  and to reduce the number of additional servicing personnel. I was very impressed with the organisation of that station.
  The introduction of direct supply of equipment from the United Kingdom to Air Force units in the Mediterranean has led to the closure of a maintenance unit at Nicosia and the saving of 300 posts, while, neater at home, at Valley, which I visited last Friday, I learned how good organisation had made considerable savings in technical servicing of the new Gnat trainer.
  The pressure of finance and the necessity to keep the front line intact have necessitated the most efficient and ruthless use of available resources. In the last year alone, 5,000 Service posts have been pruned and 14 stations closed down. Nevertheless, with personnel costs of all kinds, including civilians, in the coming financial year amounting to no less than 48 per cent. of the Air Estimates it will be realised that there must be constant pressure to see that organisation is right.
  Pay has increased three to four times since 1939. Technical costs are up even more and are still rising. For example, the cost of a Lightning, a modern fighter, is about £500,000 as compared with £15,000 for a Spitfire—over 30 times as much. A Vulcan bomber costs £1 million compared with £40,000 for a Lancaster— over 25 times as much. These high costs both of men and machines exert a constant pressure to see that value for money is obtained at all levels.
  However, both in manpower and machines, our aim is surely to get quality and not quantity. Indeed, it was this principle more than any other which laid the foundation of victory over the Luftwaffe in 1939. The Luftwaffe then out-numbered the Royal Air Force by at least 4 to 1. But quality is vital not only in machines but in men as well. Ever since Lord Trenchard was Chief of the Air staff the Air Force has been proud of its apprentices. I announced a new scheme last October to put technical apprentices on a new basis. We have found that the existing standard of entrants attracted to the Air Force training colleges has brought us to the point where we can up-grade the courses and train the boys to the necessary standard

  1251
  in a shorter time. Technical advance and the development of equipment of ever increasing complexity has created the need for more highly trained youth entrants than we now have, and we hope that the new scheme will ensure this.
  The hon. Member for Barnsley talked about a shortage of technicians. The trades mainly affected include nursing attendants, drivers, stewards, safety equipment workers and unskilled assistants. The numbers short in any one trade are not serious and are spread over many stations. The trades I have mentioned do not have any direct effect on the fighting capacity of the Service. It should be borne in mind that these deficiencies are not in any way due to a fall in recruitment but reflect an imbalance within the total force, made up of surpluses in some trades and deficiencies in others.
  The hon. Member also referred to cadets. I was much impressed by the quality of the cadets when I went to Cranwell to take the passing out parade last summer. The hon. Gentleman has made the same point about the Cranwell training and on this we have decided that the present syllabus too demanding.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: This refinement of getting "Rolls-Royce" pilots, men of super quality, could be carried too far. Professor Appleton pointed out that we could reduce the number of scientists available by making the hoop so small that nobody could get through it. Is the hon. Gentleman sure that this refinement has not been carried too far? During the war, we produced a small number of very highly efficient guns, but we were taking them to the point of efficiency at which we were reducing the possibility of getting enough.
  Mr. Ridsdale: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are getting the pilots we want and that we have no need to lower quality. When one appreciates the complexity of modern aircraft, one realises that the pilots we are getting in the Royal Air Force today are the cream of some of the youth of the country.
  I was saying that we have decided that the present syllabus at Cranwell is too demanding and we are recasting it. The new syllabus will contain more
  1252
  flying and generally concentrate more on professional subjects. Hon. Members will be interested to learn that advanced flying training will be done at Cranwell. We shall find room for this within the present three-year course by reducing the academic content and by cutting down drill. I must say that when I took the passing-out parade at Cranwell this year, the drill was as good as when I was at Sandhurst.
  We shall take cadets at the same ages as now. If we made the selection later, we would miss the recruiting market. The age of 21, say, is late to try to find the best quality entrants. Moreover, to delay selection for Cranwell until after operational service would be wasteful of flying training. The practice of other countries in cadet selection varies, but it is not easy to decide what to do. We think that with the new syllabus Cranwell will be able to attract and train the high-grade officers we need. It may interest the Committee to know that half our technical officers started their careers as airmen and so did 16 per cent. of the officers in the general duties branch and 30 per cent. of all officers in the Royal Air Force. Every airman has an air marshal's aiguillette in his tool kit.
  I should now like to reply to the interesting speech about housing by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester. Moss Side (Mr. F. Taylor). I have been talking about the quality of cadets and the value of quality in machines, but morale is important as well and there is no item in morale more important to the Service man, as to the civilian, than his home. It is our policy that wherever possible married personnel should be accompanied by their families. We think that it is better for the welfare of families that wives should be with their husbands. It is certainly better for Service morale. Moreover, unaccompanied tours mean shorter tours and this is detrimental to the efficiency of the Service.
  However, at certain stations, such as Gan, it is not possible to have families, and personnel there serve one-year unaccompanied tours. Some personnel at Bahrain also serve one-year unaccompanied tours because medical and educational facilities there are insufficient to support all the families of married entitled personnel. Men who do have

  1253
  their families with them in Bahrain serve a two-year term.
  We have now decided to introduce a similar scheme in Aden where the increasing population is badly taxing the school and hospital facilities. Personnel in posts where continuity is essential will serve two-year tours as at present and will, if married, be eligible to have their families with them. All other married men will serve one-year unaccompanied tours. This scheme will he introduced shortly.
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement by the Secretary of State for War during the defence debate on accommodation in this country for families of personnel on unaccompanied tours. He said that hirings would be obtained for families of men separated as a result of compulsory unaccompanied service in Aden and Bahrein for a year or more. This scheme will also apply to the Royal Air Force. Single personnel will serve two-year tours as at present.
  I should now like to deal with some of the other issues which have been raised in the debate. We have had some heated discussions and at one moment I thought that we would need the Search and Rescue Organisation of the R.A.F. about which the hon. Member for Barnsley has spoken. I thought that the hon. Member for Dudley would need it at one time. I will deal with his speech shortly. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Barnsley and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park for their generous tribute to the Royal Air Force Search and Rescue Organisation. As was said, the courage and skill shown by the members of this organisation can be paralleled throughout the Royal Air Force in work which does not so immediately come to the public's attention.
  The Royal Air Force search and rescue organisation is closely linked with other rescue and life saving organisations and other Services, as well as the Royal National Life-Boat Institution, the various police forces and fire brigades, and the rescue co-ordinating centres of neighbouring countries. To the work of all these organisations we should like to pay tribute in our turn. The hon. Member also drew attention to the very high percentage—80 per cent. —of all the work of the search and
  1254
  rescue organisation which is devoted to assistance to members of the general public and others in danger and difficulty, compared with the much smaller percentage in pursuit of the primary rôle of the organisation, which is the assistance of British military aircraft.
  As things are at present, there is enough co-relation between the needs of the rescue organisation for military aircraft and the needs of a more general rescue organisation for both to be met from the resources provided for the one. Many authorities, both official and voluntary, have responsibilities in this matter. It would be quite wrong for the Royal Air Force to attempt any kind of take-over bid. Equally, we accept the importance of the Royal Air Force contribution, and there is no danger of its being suddenly withdrawn.
  Reference has been made to the charges which the Air Ministry has raised following rescue work by the Royal Air Force search and fescue organisation. There is no question of any charge for saving human life in some unforeseen emergency. Many of the rescues which we have been discussing come into this category. But certain help given by the search and rescue organisation cannot properly be given at the expense of the Air Votes. This is particularly the case when the need for help might have been foreseen and arrangements made through commercial channels.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West expressed the hope that there would be a close relationship between serving officers and the scientists and technicians in charge of new aircraft developments in industry. We have a large number of serving officers in the headquarters of the outstations of the Ministry of Aviation, who are fulfilling this rôle. In all aircraft projects of any size Royal Air Force officers are established in project teams on the spot. They work closely with their civilian colleagues as a team on these new developments.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park raised the question of Service educational allowances. It is fair to make the point that remuneration and conditions in the Services are not truly comparable with those in the Foreign Service. Secondly, the Services provide educational facilities for children overseas as well as

  1255
  educational allowances, but in most places suitable facilities are not available for Foreign Service officers, and the regulations governing their education are therefore more restricted. But the repercussions of the generous increases recommended by Plowden must be seriously considered by the Service Departments.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park also raised the question of a local overseas allowance, particularly in relation to personnel serving in Berlin. The Committee will be pleased to know that as a result of a recent review it has been decided that personnel serving in Berlin will in future be entitled to a local overseas allowance.
  Mr. Mulley: Can the hon. Gentleman say at what rate—or is that still to be determined? Will it be the same rate as in other parts of Europe?
  Mr. Ridsdale: That is not decided, but as soon as we know what the rates are we shall see that they are communicated to the House.
  I now turn to the question of the deterrent, which in these Air Estimates debates always has a slightly explosive effect. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park asked several questions about it. The total expenditure on the V-force has been about £1,100 million since the V-bombers first went into development in about 1950. This figure covers not only research, development and production of the aircraft and their weapons and the related airfields and installations, but also the running costs, including pay, allowances, fuel, spares and so on, since the first squadron was introduced about eight or nine years ago. The position as at now is that the vast bulk of the capital expenditure on the V-bombers has been completed and virtually the only cost which will have to be met from now on will be the running costs of the force and this will be fairly constant until the V-bombers are eventually replaced by the Polaris submarine.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman give the approximate cost of a V-bomber?
  Mr. Ridsdale: if the hon. Gentleman had not been talking to his hon. Friend, he would have heard when in my speech I gave the cost of a Vulcan as approximately £1 million.
  1256
  The point I was making was that the cost of the V-bombers following it out now, or the cost of the maintenance of the force, will average less than 2 per cent. of the total defence budget over this period.
  Mr. Wigg: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to reconcile what he is now saying—which, if I understand him aright, is that the V-bomber force will cost nothing except its ordinary running expenses—with what we have been told from the benches opposite only today, that the V-bomber force is to be redesigned and reconstructed in order to carry out its new rôle? Which is the truth, that propaganda story or this one?
  Mr. Ridsdale: The average is over ten years and the cost of using a V-bomber in its low-flying rôle is not a high conversion cost. The hon. Member for Dudley should not take that point.
  Mr. Wigg: Again let us go back to McNamara. He said that the B52 would cost £l·6 million to enable an extension of the aircraft life to give convertibility to carry Hound Dog. Now we are told by some act of God, or some alchemy which suits the Conservative Central Office, we are to do the same, if not better, for nothing. I do not believe it.
  Mr. Ridsdale: I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that the V-bomber is a much superior plane for conversion than the American plane and it does not cost nearly so much.
  Mr. Wigg: What is the cost?
  Mr. Ridsdale: I have not figures of the cost. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is difficult to give some of these costs to the public.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: Is the cost included in the 2 per cent.?
  Mr. Ridsdale: The hon. Member for Dudley spent a large part of his speech belittling the effectiveness of the V-bomber force. Perhaps the most telling rejoinder that I can make is to quote the Supreme Allied Commander Europe speaking recently of the assignment of the V-bomber force. He said:
  "I am very pleased and gratified to have this very important and very powerful addition to the capabilities of the Allied Command Europe. They fulfil a most important rôle in the deterrence of Allied Command Europe and

  1257
  I am sure that they would perform brilliantly in the event that they were required to perform their war-time mission."
  Mr. Wigg rose—
  Mr. Ridsdale: If the hon. Member for Dudley still has doubts, I suggest that he visit Bomber Command—
  Mr. Wigg: Would the hon. Member pardon me?
  Mr. Ridsdale: I wish to make one other remark before I give way to the hon. Gentleman. I think it a shame for him to bring the language of the hustings to a serious debate, and particularly the disgraceful way in which he attacked my right hon. Friend this afternoon.
  Mr. Wigg: If there was ever a case of the pot calling the kettle black, this is it. Why did I not go to Bomber Command? I will tell the hon. Gentleman. I was invited to go to Bomber Command and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) wanted to go, but as soon as the invitation was made and it was known that it included him the invitation was withdrawn by the Ministry of Aviation. My hon. Friend is a Member of this House and is entitled to the same privileges as other hon. Members. If he is not entitled to go, I do not want to go.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Before the Minister answers, might I ask why I was not allowed to go?
  Mr. Ridsdale: I am sorry. I did not hear the hon. Member. Perhaps he will repeat his question.
  Mr. Hughes: I had completely forgotten this, but I think it would have added to the morale of the Royal Air Force if my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley and I had gone on a mission. Why was I not allowed to go?
  Mr. Ridsdale: That was a matter for the Ministry of Aviation—not whether he should go to Bomber Command, but to a Ministry of Aviation establishment at the time when the hon. Member wanted to be accompanied by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire.
  Mr. Wigg: Not accompanied; he was not asked.
  Mr. Ridsdale: The hon. Member for Barnsley mentioned the photo survey. All R.A.F. photo reconnaissance
  1258
  squadrons are equipped to carry out aerial surveys and this work forms an important part of their training in high level reconnaissance work. Because of operational commitments overseas, the bulk of these tasks tends to fall on United Kingdom based squadrons under the command of Bomber Command reconnaissance squadrons. These squadrons have a permanent Royal Engineer Survey Liaison staff with them to maintain close contact with the staff of the Director of Military Survey.
  During the last four years the Director of Military Survey has been provided with over 800,000 square miles of photography for map-making. The cover flown is made available to the governments concerned and the undertaking of these tasks depends of course on getting permission to overfly and photograph Details for making maps are extracted by complicated photogrammetric equipment. Although the process is slow, the map is produced much more quickly than by ground survey. Efforts are made to improve the techniques of the squadrons and later this year a newly-developed survey camera will be coming into service. Thus the aerial survey capability of the Royal Air Force is being used for civil as well as for military purposes and is making a very worthwhile contribution to the progress of developing countries.
  The hon. Member for Barnsley raised a question about the Royal Observer Corps. It has continued to build up its strength during the past year and the total membership of the corps has increased by nearly 400 to 16,700. All but two of the protected group headquarters ale complete and in use. The remainder should be finished by the end of the year. The construction of underground po3ts is in its closing stages. With the transfer of responsibility for works functions to the Ministry of Public Building and Works last year, that Department in future will build and maintain tie protected accommodation.
  In his opening speech the Secretary of State referred to the operations in overseas theatres. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) asked me some questions about operations in Borneo. Before I deal with those, I feel I must underline to the Committee the total cost of these operations, the cost

  1259
  of the R.A.F. overseas for the layman who does not inform himself often and does not assess the cost correctly. What are they?
  Mr. Mulley: I wonder if any layman, or even any expert, looking at the form of the Defence Estimates, can possibly form an opinion. That kind of remark is a gratuitous insult both to the Committee and to public opinion outside?
  Mr. Ridsdale: This is very hard. The hon. Gentleman has asked me for more information. I give him more information, and he then accuses me of insulting the Committee and the public.
  Mr. Mulley: The Under-Secretary was answering his hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). I shall judge whether he is discharging his duty by whether he has answered all the questions I have asked when he completes his speech.
  Mr. Ridsdale: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park, in his usual way in the debate on the Air Estimates, poses me 21 questions. He does his best to throw them before the Committee. I have done my best to work them into my speech to make it possibly more interesting for the Committee than if I just reeled of answer after answer to the hon. Gentleman.
  I was trying to give more information about our operations overseas. Before doing so, I feel I must underline to the Committee the total cost of these operations. An analysis of the cost of running the Royal Air Force shows that £190 million, or not far off 40 per cent., is spent each year on the overseas commands and on the Transport Command effort needed to support them. Part of the costs include the recent operations in Malaysia, the successful moves in Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika, the reinforcement of Cyprus, the deployment in Zanzibar and Swaziland, as well as the operations in the Persian Gulf and the Aden Protectorate.
  To answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud about—Borneo—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"I—my hon. Friend wrote to me and apologised for not coming, as did the hon. Member for Dudley, though I am glad that he has
  1260
  returned. It is important that we say a few words about those of our airmen who are in Borneo, a tropical country where operations put great strain on the airmen fighting in such conditions. From the start of operations in Malaysia in December, 1962, the Far Eastern Air Force has provided a regular supply service between Singapore, Labuan and Brunei using Hastings and Beverleys. The total airlift between Singapore and Borneo from December, 1962, up to 23rd February, 1964, was 24,387 passengers and 1,866 tons of freight. A tactical transport force of Belvedere and Whirlwind helicopters and Pioneer aircraft is deployed in Borneo to give air support to the troops operating there.
  We are providing air support to meet the Army's needs. We now have Javelins as well as Hunters in Kuching and Labuan, which are there to protect Malaysia's air space and deal with intruders. Fortunately, the Royal Air Force gained experience in the problems of jungle warfare during the Malayan emergency. This experience was quickly exploited in the Borneo operations. Airfields of entry were established at Kuching and Labuan, and Valettas and Pioneers and Belvedere and Whirlwind helicopters were sent into the jungle to give air support to the troops. Jungle strips existed in some parts of the country but many required re-equipping and the R.A.F. Airfield Construction Branch undertook this task, along with the building of new strips and the constructing of dropping zones for helicopter and supply dropping aircraft.
  Aircraft drop food and ammunition at low altitude using the "free-fall" technique. Other more bulky and fragile stores are dropped by supply parachute. Helicopters carry combat equipped soldiers in the main from one zone of operations to another at the request of the brigade commander who has a brigade air support organisation commanded by an R.A.F. officer. The Belvederes carry heavy loads of ammunition and fuel in under-slung nets to the forward dropping zones and air strips. The Belvedere can also carry up to 19 fully equipped troops over short distances or up to 10 troops over much longer distances.

  1261
  Were it not for the support provided by the R.A.F's short-range transport forces, operations of this sort would be almost useless and irregular forces could penetrate the border at will. With common communications channels, short-range transport aircraft and troops on the ground are in contact with each other and with base. A fine spirit of mutual confidence has grown up between the air and ground officers and men. Thus, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, I am glad to say that the R.A.F. has been able to meet in Borneo all the Army's requests for mobility and forward supply.
  These operations, plus air operations along the Thai-Malayan border, in the Middle East, on the border between the Aden Federation and the Yemen, in East Africa, Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika, in the Persian Gulf, Cyprus and in training exercises such as Triplex West, when 5,000 men were moved to and from Libya, all add up to make the £190 million being spent by the R.A.F. in support of our interests overseas.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park accused me in the defence debate of complacency in praising the work of the Services in economising and because I praised the contribution of British Forces. From the visits which I have made I am sure that we are getting considerable value for money, not only on what is spent on the R.A.F. at home but overseas as well. Indeed, the Service has done all we have asked of it and often a great deal more.
  In addition to these conventional operations, the R.A.F. has its rôle in support of our treaty obligations in S.E.A.T.O., C.E.N.T.O., and N.A.T.O. and, through Bomber Command, provides us with a formidable strike force for several years to come. Air power over the last year has given us flexibility and the means of making the most economical use of our resources, not only in N.A.T.O. but also in Africa and Asia. Considering the increasing costs not only of manpower but also of equipment, I am convinced that the R.A.F. in the last year has given us security and insurance at a most reasonable premium.
  9.55 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Some of the facts brought out by the Under-Secretary of
  1262
  State require underlining in some respects and a good deal of elucidation in others. A number of my Scottish hon. Friends now in the Committee had an uncanny instinct that the Under-Secretary was going to say the things he said. I have been making a rough calculation as a result of the figures he gave of the cost of the V-bombers, and I gather that each is equivalent to the cost of building 400 houses. If a V-bomber cots as much as 400 houses, the Royal Air Force is mis-applying national resources. The life of a V-bomber is only four or five years—it has been said that the usefulness of this aircraft will expire in 1970—but had the same amount been invested in houses we would have had an asset lasting for at least 40 years.
  The sum of £190 million would have built a very considerable town, and I do not know how many universities. It is the appalling capital cost and the very quick rate of wastage that the Committee should think about. This £190 million means less for civil aviation, something essential for the development of our economy. These V-bombers will be obsolete by 1970, but had the £190 million been invested in civil aviation we would have had a prosperous civil aviation industry, able to export aircraft to all parts of the world. I hope that process will be soon be started.
  We all agree that the helicopters on the West Coast of Scotland provide a very useful national service we approve of it, and think that it could be developed. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) knows that such helicopter service on the Isle of Arran, or on Rhum, would add to our tourist industry, but this vast sum is at present being misspent. Were it devoted to the expansion of our civil aviation it would absorb exactly the kind of labour that now largely goes, into the Royal Air Force.
  In my area, we are greatly concerned about the development of civil aviation and the development of Prestwick. When we wanted a tunnel under the road at Prestwick, the former Minister of Defence, now a managing director of Schweppes—he is defending us on another front—came to Scotland and an inquiry was held. We believe that a very great mistake was made when Prestwick Airport wa; not developed in the same

  1263
  way, or given the same facilities for a tunnel, as was London Airport. We see enormous sums of money wasted—
  Mr. John Rankin: Does my hon. Friend realise that London Airport was given not just one tunnel, but eight tunnels—
  The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. We cannot go into details about civil airports. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that he wishes to reduce the Vote, and that that money should go to civil aviation, but he cannot go into details.
  Mr. Rankin: I apologise, Sir Robert. I was merely seeking to correct my hon. Friend who, most unusually, had made a mistake.
  Mr. Hughes: I am more concerned about offending you, Sir Robert, than about offending my hon. Friends. I want hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies to realise the importance of the point I am making. I am referring now to the fact that the Royal Air Force—
  It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report progress.
  Ordered,
  That this day the Business of Supply may be taken after Ten o'clock and may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour during a period of Two hours after Ten o'clock, though opposed.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
  Supply again considered in Committee.
  Mr. Hughes: A vista of opportunity opens out, because I can say that by voting this sum of money we are diverting from civil aviation aircraft needed for the development of the tourist trade in Scotland. We could have for this sum of money aircraft going from Prestwick to Edinburgh, to Aberdeen, to Perth and the far north of Scotland. I believe that when the citizens of Scotland realise the opportunities which are being lost in Scotland as a result of the wasting of this money on aircraft which are likely to be obsolete in a few years' time there will be a great revulsion of public opinion which will make people say that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire was not so wrong after all.
  10.2 p.m.
  Mr. Wigg: I rise briefly only to draw attention to two points. We are about to pass Vote A on which depends the numbers of the Royal Air Force and subsequently the spending of £250 million. To decide this matter there have never been during the course of the debate more than ten hon. Members sitting opposite on an issue which they say they regard as vital. I hope that the Under-Secretary who very agreeably replied to the debate in a mood much more in keeping with the great Service in which he has the honour to be a Minister, will recommend that mood to his right hon. Friend in the next defence debate when he speaks from this side of the Committee.
  I ask the hon. Gentleman to go back to what he quoted earlier from SACEUR and to what I quoted from the staff study of the Senate Committee in 1962 and will tell us what the difference SACEUR said that he was glad to have the V-bomber force. It was a force of great power. We do not deny that, but it is part of the multi-national force. It draws its power and its added power in association with part of the Strategic Air Command. We asked what power it has for independent action and we never had an answer from that side of the Committee or from the Minister and his right hon. Friend because there is no answer.
  This is a multi-national force now in an advanced stage of obsolescence. It has a nuclear capability. It is not a nuclear deterrent, except to the extent that it serves the purposes of the Conservative Central Office. This is the objective fact, this is what the debate is about and what we have established tonight, with the same certainty that we established last night that the Government's enthusiasm for Polaris started on the day that the Nassau Agreement was signed. We therefore have the deterrent brought into focus.
  I would say to the Secretary of State for Air that there is much joy about the return of a penitent sinner. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not again, during the short time of his service as a Minister, make the same mistake. If he is lucky, he will be returned to the House, though I rather doubt it. I think that Stafford and Stone will have their revenge. However, if, by some

  1265
  chance, after half a dozen recounts, he gets a majority of two and comes back to this side of the Committee, he will have to work his passage. He should never again listen to political incompetents like the Prime Minister who beguiled or riled him into making the absurd speech he made last Thursday.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will get his Vote A. I hope also that he will get his "cap". At the same time, I hope that he will have learned a lesson in good manners.
  10.5 p.m.
  Mr. Mulley: I do not wish to detain the Committee much longer, but, since this is the first Air Estimates debate since the amalgamation of the Services was put in train, we ought to comment on the fact that the Minister of Defence has not seen fit to spend very much time in the Chamber listening to the debate. As from 1st April he will be taking full responsibility for all the Services, it would have been more courteous to the Committee if he had been able to spend at least a little more time at the beginnng and at the end of the debate to listen to the speeches.
  Although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that we had an agreeable reply from the Under-Secretary of State, I must point out that I have had no replies to many questions which I asked, particularly regarding the cost of aircraft. All I got was an invitation, for which I am much obliged, to visit Bomber Command. I shall be happy to do so.
  Since further Estimates are to be discussed next week, I hope that we shall be given more hard information than we have had hitherto about the cost of the proposed new aircraft, airframes, engines and so on this year and what the total commitment is. We have had many references in the Estimates, the White Paper and speeches to development plans for this and that. What is the total commitment and what are the various sums involved in respect of aircraft?
  As my hon. Friend has said already, we are totally dissatisfied with the answers about the planning and targeting procedures for the independent, non N.A.T.O., use of the V-bomber force, not in co-operation with S.A.C. Presumably, there are no such plans. The Under-Secretary of State made a brief
  1266
  intervention, at one point and said that, of course, there were plans. This is an important matter because relationships with our allies may well turn on this kind of statement.
  Are we, despite having assigned our force to N A.T.O., telling all our allies that, our course, we are spending most of our time training, because it is no use just deciding to send off a squadron of aeroplanes without their being given all the necessary preliminary training, briefing and working over the routes which is necessary? Are we going through the process of continuously planning and training for an independent rôle? If we are not, as I understand we are not, then all the talk about the independent deterrent is just political baloney designed to delude the electorate. [Interruption.] The sooner the Government stop it and concern. themselves with the real defence of the nation, the sooner will the Under-Secretary of State's peroration be a little more accurate.
  Mr. Wigg: A few moments ago, we had one of the muttered interjections which constantly come from hon. Members opposite. They imagine that, by sitting on their bottoms on the benches and muttering, they will escape. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) muttered the word "pathetic". We should have it on the record that he has been present in the debate for exactly one minute.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a number of Officers, Airmen and Airwomen, not exceeding 140,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  TENANCY OF SHOPS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)). That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Stodart.]
  Question agreed to.
  Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

  WATER SUPPLIES (FLUORIDATION)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]
  10.11 p.m.
  Mr. John Rankin: I beg to draw the House's attention to the serious consequences which could ensue by the addition of sodium fluoride to our drinking water supplies. On 27th November, 1963, when I raised this subject by Question in the House, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland stated in his reply to me that he had sent to all local authorities copies of the Report on the five-year experiments conducted in Great Britain on this subject and a booklet prepared by the Ministry of Health. I am sure he was aware that two booklets had been prepared by the Ministry of Health. The first one was issued in 1962 and the second in 1963. The booklet issued in 1962 makes no reference to the topic of fluoridation, but concentrates on dental health education, particularly among children, as the method of combating dental decay. First, the need to remove the causes of bad teeth by regular denture drill, and to reduce and control the amount of sweet stuff eaten by young children.
  The Scottish Standing Committee on Dental Health Education was appointed by the Secretary of State in 1959 to promote awareness in dental matters in the public mind, and the right hon. Gentleman has commended the encouraging results achieved in a campaign by that committee which was carried out very recently in Dundee, Edinburgh, Peebles-shire and West Lothian.
  However, in his reply, the Under-Secretary of State may have been referring to the 1963 pamphlet, and there we have something of a sea change. In less than 12 months the Minister of Health saw a blinding light. As a result, his course was completely changed. Never was conversion so complete. Fluoridation became the order of the day. The Scottish Secretary of State, forgetting his Standing Committee on this matter, fell meekly into line with his big brother, while the right hon. Gentleman, playing the stooge to the manner born, sent out the English
  1268
  Department's pamphlets to the Scottish local health authorities. Now he is trying to encourage, if not to enforce, their policy.
  I wonder whether, in the course of his researches, the Secretary of State has studied the First Report of the Estimates Committee on the dental services issued no later than Session 1962–63 of this present Parliament. I was a member of the Sub-Committee which conducted the inquiry. All aspects of the dental services were considered, both those available under the provisions of the National Health Acts and those available under the provisions of the Education Acts. Oral evidence was heard on 22 occasions from witnesses representing the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, the Scottish Home and Health Department, the Treasury, the two dental estimates boards, the London County Council, several local authority associations, the executive councils associations, and the representatives of the dental profession, with written evidence submitted by Government Departments. Despite the fact that a representative of the British Dental Association said that
  "the whole picture of the dental health of school children is …a national scandal"—
  that will be found in Question 1460—there was not one mention of the word "fluoridation" in the whole of that Report, in the evidence or statements, oral or written, of these distinguished experts who appeared before us. The emphasis all the time was on dental health education to remedy what was called "a national scandal".
  The Report showed that 350,000 children in Scotland had been inspected and 124,000 had been treated, which leaves 220,000 who could not be traced concerning treatment. The Medical Officer of Health for Edinburgh, Dr. Seiler, observed, however, that a greater number of mothers than one would think took their children to a private dentist. But the inquiry revealed another scandal—the shortage of dentists and also the lack of the college accommodation necessary to overcome this shortage. It may well be that fluoridation is the Government's escape route from their responsibilities in this matter.
  I turn to ask the question, what is this thing called fluoridation? It is the

  1269
  employment of public drinking water supplies as a vehicle for introducing a chemical called sodium fluoride into the bodies of consumers in the hope that it will have a beneficial effect upon the teeth of children up to the age of 10 years with no injurious effects to anyone.
  It must be noted, however, that sodium fluoride is a cumulative poison. It is a waste product of the aluminium and certain other industries in which, due to its highly poisonous and corrosive nature, its disposal has become a major problem. It has long been used in America as a rat poison, for which it fetched about 1d. per lb. Since it has become useful for fluoridation, its price has risen to 10d. per lb. In my view, this provides a clue to the real inspiration behind the campaign to get it into our water supplies.
  Vested commercial interests are sponsoring the British Dental Association campaign for fluoridation. In a supplement to the British Dental Journal of 3rd September, 1963, we are told that:
  "The Council have agreed that a publicity campaign should be launched in the name of the Association on the subject of the fluoridation of water supplies; this has become possible through the generosity of three firms of toothpaste manufacturers who will remain anonymous. If the co-operation of the proprietors of certain newspapers can be secured, it is hoped that a campaign may be conducted by means of advertisements in the Press and in magazines. The donations have also made it possible to proceed with the circularisation of letters and pamphlets to all local councillors, and the distribution of posters for display in waiting rooms, clinics, out-patient departments, factory notice boards, canteens and interviewing rooms in factories."
  This to be done using various journals, including the British Dental Journal. In my view, the financing of such propaganda by anonymous commercial interests is a new and highly reprehensible development in British public life which should be sternly condemned and strenuously resisted.
  The hon. Gentleman in his reply to me also referred to the five-year experiments. The only one in Scotland was carried out at Kilmarnock. After a careful assessment of the results of this long experiment, the town council abandoned the scheme. It cost the council £22,383 in all. For the sodium fluoride which was added to the water supplies
  1270
  consumed by the people of Kilmarnock they paid£6,273, a huge sum to pay for rat poison.
  Treasurer Wallace, in addressing the Council, said:
  "At seven years of age before fluoridation the average child had seven had teeth, whereas after five years of fluoridation six bad teeth. Does any member here consider that achievement of fluoridation, outstanding, convincing or worth while."
  The council said. "No".
  Ayrshire County Council has rejected the idea of fluoridation very decisively, so have twelve other local authorities in Scotland, while Ayr Burgh, the non-fluoridated partner in the Kilmarnock experiment has shown no inclination to assume the opposite rôle.
  We are reminded that to our benefit we chlorinate our drinking water. We do so because we cannot keep birds off the surface and shores of our storage lochs, nor animals from the surrounding hills; and chlorination does us no harm. Therefore, fluoridation, we are told, will have a similar beneficial effect because chlorine and fluorine are very close together; belonging to the same group of elements. So do bromine and iodine. All these halogens have their use. But because some people need a bromide to steady their nerves, it does not follow that we should put it into our drinking water and make everyone else swallow it. If some happen to need Epsom Salts, we do not compel everyone to take them with their cup of tea or drink of lemonade. But that is precisely what the disciples of fluoridation want to do.
  Because it may be good for children up to about 10 years of age in preventing dental decay, then everybody else must take it, including those who have no teeth at all. As the Prime Minister said in the House this afternoon, we do not want controls for all; but that is exactly what the hon. Gentleman and his Government are seeking to do.
  In the British Medical Journal of last Saturday, 29th February, Dr. Hugh Sinclair, of Oxford, launches a powerful attack against the fluoridation of water supplies in which he says that:
  "water containing 0.05 parts per million of fluoride inhibited significantly the growth of two clones of cells."

  1271
  He also criticises those who wish Parliament:
  "to order general fluoridation in the same way that calcium was put back into the white bread in 1953."
  Dr. Sinclair points out, however, that:
  "the addition of calcium to white bread is an important prophylactic measure that does not force anyone to consume it if they do not wish to do so".
  He also reminds us that by law:
  "no calcium is allowed to be added to whole-meal bread. The addition of a medicament to a public water supply is an entirely different principle".
  It has been said that those who object to its use might use bone fluoride filters. But, asks Dr. Sinclair:
  "Might not possible helpful substances against dental caries or coronary heart disease. present in hard water, thereby be removed?"
  No proponent of fluoridation has yet even tried to face up to that problem, though they may have thought about it, nor has any one of them provided us with sufficient experimental information about the chronic toxicity to man of fluoride under different circumstances. For example, it may be decreased by the absence of calcium, aluminium or magnesium ions. On the other hand, it may be increased by malnutrition caused by lack of vitamins C and D. It is to help those suffering from malnutrition that a leading medical officer of health said to me that we must fluoridate water.
  When the British Dental Association tried to throw some light on the matter it ended up by committing, in the words of Dr. Sinclair,
  "…the elementary error of confusing acute and chronic toxicities".
  The Ministry of Health is in no better position. It poses the question, "Is fluoride a poison?" and answers. "Not at the level used in fluoridation" and goes on to tell us that it would be necessary to drink at one time two and a half bathfulls of water at a concentration of one part per millium before any harmful effects due to fluoride would be experienced.
  The gentleman who nearly spoiled the Flood by drinking up the water did not face a greater task. The Ministry is talking about acute toxicity. Dr. Sinclair points out that this is irrelevant unless the Ministry is assuming that a
  1272
  person will drink deep only once and never again of the Ministry's doctored water.
  The Chairman of the Dental Health Committee of the B.D.A. came to the rescue, however, by pointing out that when water contained one part per million fluoride it would be necessary to drink two and a half bathfuls per day to ingest a toxic amount. Why the difference? The answer is simple. Our two authorities are talking of different toxicities. These be our guides in the attempt to enlighten the public.
  I pay my tribute to the magnificent work of the medical profession yet we cannot ignore the fact that the exposure of the drug thalidomide, sold under a host of different trade names, did not arise from general practitioners. No medical journal would accept the article exposing it. Its author was successfully sued for libel in a German court but the fight went on and the German manufacturers were forced to give up selling it in Germany although not in the United States and Britain.
  It was nearly six months later, in the summer of 1962, before it was stopped in this country and in America and we know the terrible penalty that we paid for the use of that drug. Note, too, how long it has taken the medical profession to establish the close relationship that exists between cigarette smoking and lung cancer—nearly a century.
  Therefore, when some doctors recommend that fluoridation should continue let us remember their attitudes to thalidomide and to nicotine. Like these two drugs, fluoride is a poison. Norway, Sweden, France, Switzerland and Denmark have had to ban fluoridation of water and after five years of experiment Kilmarnock has done the same. The children in Quarriers Homes, at Bridge of Weir, who do not suffer from fluoridation, have one quarter the dental decay found in the rest of Scotland. The case for adding sodium fluoride to drinking water has not been proved. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to remember two points.
  First, fluoridation, if proved to be necessary for any child, can be given by pills in measured doses under medical supervision. Secondly, dental decay is due to errors in diet and not to lack of

  1273
  fluoridation in drinking water. I trust, therefore, that the Secretary of State will proceed no further on the perilous course on which he is now embarked.
  10.30 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. A. Stodart): I should like to begin by saying how glad I am to have the opportunity to reply to this debate, because it arises out of a Question which I answered on my baptism at this distinguished Dispatch Box. I should also like to express the support which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland gives to the policy of fluoridation—and I should like there to be no misunderstanding about this—ot the public's water supply which is necessary to bring the level of fluoridation up to one part fluoride per million of water.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) has said that the case for fluoridation has not been proved. I believe that all the evidence lies in its favour, and I shall endeavour to tell him why. We know from studies which have been carried out in Great Britain and extensively in the United States, where questions of public health are taken very seriously indeed, that where the public water supplies reach the level of fluoridation to which I have referred the teeth of children are quite remarkably improved. There is very strong ground for believing that if one's teeth are good when one is young they are likely to stay good as one gets older. There is no question but that fluoridation does what we claim it does—it improves the quality of children's teeth. In Scotland this is of vital importance, as the hon. Member has agreed, because the teeth of many of our children at present are remarkably bad.
  It is often said by the opponents of the policy that fluoridation may do harm to some other part of the body. There is no evidence of this. In the studies to which I have referred, both in America and in our own country—and surely this goes without saying—particular care was taken to watch for any evidence at all of ill health which might result to children or adults from the effect of this minute quantity—for minute quantity it is—of fluoride. No such evidence appeared and we have the authority of the Standing Medical Committees of the Health Service Councils for both Scotland and Eng-
  1274
  land and Wales to the effect that nothing has come to light to support the view that fluoridation causes any hazard to general health in the concentration of one part per million.
  I am often told that calcium fluoride is all right—"it is natural"—whereas sodium fluoride, which is what is added to the water, is dangerous. This is not so, because the only difference is that calcium fluoride dissolves much less easily and far more of it has to be handled to achieve the same concentration.
  It is also frequently said that fluoride taken in excess is harmful and cumulative. There is no evidence to support the latter view and taking it in excess has no bearing on its presence in water in minute quantities. All hon. Members will agree that those harmless substances iron and vitamin D—if taken in normal doses—can be extremely harmful to man if they are taken in gross excess. The same can be said about chlorine.
  The hon. Member referred to the Kilmarnock experiment when the local authority carried out a five-year experiment. When the five years were up, the great benefit to the Kilmarnock children's teeth had been amply demonstrated by the figures. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Kilmarnock Medical Officer of Health reported in 1962 that the average number of decayed teeth in six-year old children, who by then had had fluoridated water all their lives, fell by a much greater amount than that shown in the report on the U.K. studies as a whole.
  The town council of Kilmarnock changed its policy, and it dropped fluoridation. Personally, I regret that decision. The Secretary of State has publicly regretted it. But what does that decision pro re except that this is a free country and that every local authority in Great Britain is free to decide whether to have its water supplies fluoridated?
  May I say a word about the water supplies of Scotland's largest—hon. Members will forgive me if I am sufficiently prejudiced not to say greatest—city, the City of Glasgow. That water comes from Loch Katrine and, if I may say so, it is splendid water. It has some fluoride in it but, alas, not quite enough

  1275
  to have the one part per million in its natural state.
  The Corporation of the City of Glasgow has as yet made no decision about fluoridation, but the Corporation is deeply concerned over the health of its children's teeth. This was proved, if any proof were needed, by the leading part which the Corporation, together with Bailie John Davis, the Convenor of its Health and Welfare Committee, took during the very successful recent dental health campaign. That campaign was run by 14 local authorities in the West of Scotland, with the support of my Department and the Scottish Information Office.
  If the Corporation eventually decides, as I hope it will, to fluoridate its water supplies, that will in no way affect the taste of Glasgow's water. The quality of the water, as water, will not be affected. What will happen, will happen quite unobtrusively. The fluoridation of the Glasgow water will do a power of good to the teeth of Glasgow's school children in all the years to come.
  The hon. Member said that dental decay is the result of a wrong diet and not lack of fluoride. Surely both are contributory. It is true that what is so bad for children's teeth is the number of sweets and biscuits which they eat, particularly when they eat them between meals, but we have found no way of stopping children from this bad habit, apart from the dental health education which Scottish local authorities have been conducting with great vigour. Education by itself, however, cannot do the whole job, and that is why we have to supplement it by fluoridation.
  The hon. Member made the further point that fluoridation does not provide for each child precisely the amount of
  1276
  fluoride which the condition of its teeth at any one time might require. He must know, if he faces this problem honestly, that he is asking here for something which it would be impossible to provide.
  Some people advocate that fluoride should be administered in tablets or in toothpaste so that individual mothers could then decide whether they wished to provide it. But I am sure that parents would agree that this method would offer no guarantee of the regular, daily intake of the very small quantity of fluoride which is required for the good of the child's teeth.
  What is more, I should like to dwell for a moment on what the taking of fluoride tablets would entail. Dissolved in a glass of water they would taste horrible. It is true that we could put a tablet in a glass of fruit juice or, as it grew older, a child could swallow a tablet, but for its success fluoridation depends absolutely and entirely on a fixed amount being taken day by day, day in and day out, from birth onwards. The washing of hands before meals is something which many parents find it very difficult to discipline their children to do. To get them to take their fluoride tablets would be ten times harder.
  To sum up, of course this is no party matter. I respect the sincerity of those who oppose fluoridation, but I believe that they are wrong and that in not very many years' time we shall take the policy of fluoridation, as we take compulsory education, for granted. It will be true of the one as of the other that we may not all like it but that we all need it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Office Buildings (Garages)
  Office Buildings (Garages)
  Site Value Rating Survey
  Site Value Rating Survey
  Building Land, Saddleworth
  Building Land, Saddleworth
  Multi-occupied Premises (Fire Precautions)
  Multi-occupied Premises (Fire Precautions)
  Edwards Committee (Report)
  Edwards Committee (Report)
  Manchester (New Town)
  Manchester (New Town)
  Rating Interim Relief (Lichfield and Tamworth)
  Rating Interim Relief (Lichfield and Tamworth)
  Sewerage Works, Richmond
  Sewerage Works, Richmond
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
  Rates, Greater London
  Rates, Greater London
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
HOUSING
  Rehousing (New Dwellings)
  Rehousing (New Dwellings)
  Building Costs
  Building Costs
  Flats (Dampness)
  Flats (Dampness)
  House Purchase (Local Authority Loans)
  House Purchase (Local Authority Loans)
  Slum Clearance (North-West)
  Slum Clearance (North-West)
  Houses, Clapham
  Houses, Clapham
WELSH AFFAIRS
  Welsh Office (Survey and Development Division)
  Welsh Office (Survey and Development Division)
SCIENCE
  Scientific Manpower (Report)
  Scientific Manpower (Report)
UNIVERSITIES
  Post-graduate Students (Extended Employment)
  Post-graduate Students (Extended Employment)
  Scottish Graduates (Scientific Subjects)
  Scottish Graduates (Scientific Subjects)
  Extra-mural Work
  Extra-mural Work
  Audio-Visual Aids
  Audio-Visual Aids
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Dollar Securities
  Dollar Securities
  Civil Servants (Members of Parliament)
  Civil Servants (Members of Parliament)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Palace of Westminster (First-aid Boxes)
  Palace of Westminster (First-aid Boxes)
  Hampton Court
  Hampton Court
  Chiswick House
  Chiswick House
  New Houses (Average Prices)
  New Houses (Average Prices)
OVERSEAS INFORMATION SERVICES
  Low Priced Book Scheme
  Low Priced Book Scheme
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  North East
  North East
  Pipes, Tubes and Fittings
  Pipes, Tubes and Fittings
  Communist Countries
  Communist Countries
  Trawler Contract (South Africa)
  Trawler Contract (South Africa)
  Transport Equipment (Sweden)
  Transport Equipment (Sweden)
TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
  Business Studies
  Business Studies
  Machinery Imports
  Machinery Imports
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Colvilles Limited
  Colvilles Limited
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  SOUTH VIETNAM
  SOUTH VIETNAM
  LORD PROVOST OF GLASGOW (PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING)
  LORD PROVOST OF GLASGOW (PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING)
  SHIPPING (EXPORTS TO CUBA)
  SHIPPING (EXPORTS TO CUBA)
  NATIONAL HEALTH EXECUTIVE COUNCILS
  NATIONAL HEALTH EXECUTIVE COUNCILS
  SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
  SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA
ROYAL NAVY
  Ferranti Limited
  Ferranti Limited
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Ferranti Limited
  Ferranti Limited
  Aldergrove Airport
  Aldergrove Airport
MALTA
  Discussions
  Discussions
HONG KONG
  Passports
  Passports
EDUCATION
  Teachers (Travelling Expenses)
  Teachers (Travelling Expenses)
  School Building, Carlisle
  School Building, Carlisle
  Further Education and Youth Service
  Further Education and Youth Service
  Further Education for Agriculture (Advisory Council)
  Further Education for Agriculture (Advisory Council)
  EUROPEAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE
  EUROPEAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Flammable Nightwear (Regulations)
  Flammable Nightwear (Regulations)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Births, Colne Valley
  Births, Colne Valley
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Disabled Parents
  Disabled Parents
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Cigarette Advertising
  Cigarette Advertising
  East and West Ridings of Yorkshire
  East and West Ridings of Yorkshire
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Edinburgh
  Edinburgh
SCOTLAND
  Local Authorities (Expenditure and Grants)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure and Grants)
  Housing
  Housing
ROADS
  Accidents, Saddleworth (A.62 and A.670)
  Accidents, Saddleworth (A.62 and A.670)
  A.489, Montgomeryshire (Accidents)
  A.489, Montgomeryshire (Accidents)
SHIPPING
  Hatch Covers
  Hatch Covers
RAILWAYS
  Privately-owned Equipment
  Privately-owned Equipment
TRANSPORT
  Road Fund Licence
  Road Fund Licence
BRITISH ARMY
  Ferranti Limited
  Ferranti Limited

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

DESALINATION OF SALT WATER BY NUCLEAR ENERGY
2.35 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have taken note of the announcement of the President of the United States of America on February 6 of co-operation between Israel and the United States of America in researches into ways of turning salt water into fresh by means of nuclear energy and of their willingness to pool intellectual resources working on this problem with all countries of the world; and what contribution to this study Her Majesty's Government intend to offer.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH): My Lords, the answer to the first part
2
of the Question is, "Yes". Her Majesty's Government took note of the President's announcement; and an expert from the British Water Research Association recently paid a visit to Israel and is fully conversant with what is being done there. President Johnson referred to the International Atomic Energy Agency as a focal point in the programme for pooling experience and knowledge. The United Kingdom has been represented by two leading experts on a panel convened by the Agency and will continue to contribute the benefits of our very considerable knowledge and experience.
Of the various methods of desalination, distillation processes are the only ones so far capable in the right circumstances of economic application. They are used in a number of installations built by British firms, which are recognised throughout the world as the leading manufacturers, and have been responsible for the bulk of the installations at present in operation overseas, which are oil-fired, usually in conjunction with an electrical generating plant.
The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research have set up a Committee to consider what further help can be provided to support research in British industry in order to keep the United Kingdom in the forefront of desalinating technology. There is, in principle, no difficulty in using nuclear energy as the source of heat, and in some circumstances there could be advantage in combining a distillation plant with a nuclear power station

3
These problems are under study by the Atomic Energy Authority.
LORD REA: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that during the debate on the Manchester Corporation water Bill the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, suggested that such desalination processes might take effect? I supported this, and added that we might also expect some improvement in getting moisture from the air. Further, is the noble Earl aware that the Minister for Science, in Volume 237, column 348 of Hansard, referred to both of these schemes as wild-cat schemes; and have the Government subsequently changed their opinion?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, my Parliamentary memory is very short.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, are the Government aware that turning salt water into fresh water not only could save our rivers and lakes from depletion, but would confer far more benefit on the people of this country than most of the expensive projects now in fashion?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, unfortunately, in so far as this country is concerned this is an expensive project, and there is no chance at present of water in this country being supplied by this method at under about 9s. per 1,000 gallons. In other parts of the world it is another matter, but in this country we use only about 5 per cent. of our rain water, as opposed to 95 per cent. used in Israel. I do not think that the use of this method is likely to be widespread in this country for some years.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, can the Minister state to what extent there has been a study of underground storage of water? Is it not far better to store water underground rather than to take up valuable land which may be used for agriculture or for amenity and recreational purposes? An enormous tonnage of coal and minerals has been taken from underneath the ground. Why not store water underground in these places instead of on the surface where it can evaporate in hot weather?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are not at present discussing the question of storage, but only of desalting.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, might I ask how much it is estimated that these further researches for the use of nuclear power in connection with the operation are likely to cost? Do we have a firm assurance from the Atomic Energy Authority that nuclear power is now available and efficient with regard to this matter, or are we to get more disappointments like Dounreay?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think the answer to that question is, "No". I think that is all I can say at the moment. The answer to the noble Lord's next Question may be somewhat illuminating.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, did I hear the noble Earl aright? Did he say that we used only 5 per cent. of our rain water for drinking purposes or for water supply purposes? If so, it would look as though there is 95 per cent. to spare if we are to be intelligent in the use of our water resources.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for having made that observation.

GRANT FOR DESALINATION STUDIES
2.39 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a decision has been come to on the question of an earmarked grant for the appointment of a special scientist in the United States of America to keep in touch with American research and development into the possibilities of the economic conversion of salt water into fresh.]
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am pleased to tell my noble friend that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research have recently offered an earmarked grant of up to £34,325 over three years to the Water Research Association for studies in desalination. This will enable the Association both to keep a closer watch on work in the

5
United States of America and elsewhere by staff visits overseas, and also to commission a study of the economic factors as they affect this country.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will accept thanks for that decision, which I am sure is greatly in the national interest?
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend how far further co-operation is going to be undertaken with Commonwealth countries which are heavily affected by these problems—for instance, Pakistan?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, so far international co-operation is effected through the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is to have meetings shortly in Vienna.

WATER SUPPLIES, DRAINAGE AND POLLUTION
2.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: 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 to arrange for interdepartmental consultation forthwith between the Waterways Board and the Housing, Agriculture and Health Departments so as to adjust future policy regarding water supply, drainage and pollution and to put to common use the mass of maps and graphs, accumulated by the Surface Water Inland Survey Division; and not to wait for Water Resources Board appointments.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, the Waterways Board know that all Departments are available to them for consultation about policy, without the making of any special arrangements. As to the exchange and use of information, much of that held by the Surface Water Survey of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is published and, apart from that, there has also been a full exchange of information of mutual interest between the Survey and the
6
Waterways Board's predecessors. This practice continues with the Board.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that Answer. The Interim Report of the Waterways Board said that three times they were anxious to consult and could not find the people there to consult. This does not seem to tally with what the noble Lord has just said.
LORD HASTINGS: What I said is perfectly true. The Waterways Board are free to consult with the Department at any time. The Water Resources Board, which has been troubling the noble Earl in the past, has not yet, of course, been set up. It will no doubt consult as soon as it is.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, is there not a great difference between saying that the information from the Departments is available at any time and summoning a conference, quarterly or periodically, between the Departments which are equally concerned with the whole problem of water? It is no use saying that the information is available when we all know the quite natural jealousy that exists between Departments as to their territories. As water supply planning is the concern not only of the Housing Minister but of other Departments (Agriculture, Health and Transport are equally involved), quantity is not the only factor to be considered; the question of purity is also most important. For instance, is the noble Lord not aware that, as is stated in the Report, the Water Board's revenue from the sale of water amounts to £595,000, but many such sales take place to factories situated on the banks of canals, which do not all want pure water. They may require water, for example, for cooling purposes. My question is this: ought not more attention to be paid to the uncleaned water in a great many canals which I hope will eventually come into the water system of the whole country?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the noble Earl is covering a wide field. The quality of water, will be one of the prime concerns of the Water Resources Board and the new river authorities when they are set up. I would merely say—as, indeed, the noble Earl said—

7
that in regard to waterways and canals it is not so much a question of the public water supply for drinking, but a question involving water for industry and agriculture. As for the rest of the noble Earl's statement, I said that the Departments are available for consultation. I did not say merely that the information was available; I said that the information is already fully exchanged.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, in view of the nature of the noble Earl's questions, may I ask if the Minister would be kind enough to ask his Department, or his Minister, whether instructions could be given to the people concerned that when a request for consultation is made, consultation will be allowed forthwith? Apparently, it is not clear from the Answer.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I will put that point forward, but I have no reason to believe that consultation is not allowed.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider the urgency of this matter of full consultation? As the noble Lord may know, the new Waterways Board will inevitably require a further Act of Parliament to sort out all the ancient legislation involved, and until such an Act is passed, the great hopes we have seem to be quite impossible ones. Until these consultations reach the point where legislation can be formulated, we are completely stuck.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I will take up the matter with my right honourable friend.

FLAMMABLE NIGHTWEAR
2.47 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the progress of the consultations between the Home Office and the parties concerned in the campaign against flammable nightwear; when these consultations will be concluded
8
and whether the results will be published.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, consultations with organisations concerned with consumer safety and with the trade associations concerned with the manufacture and distribution of nightwear have shown general support for the Government's proposal to deal with this problem by means of regulations under the Consumer Protection Act, 1961.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has decided to make regulations prohibiting the sale of children's nightdresses which do not comply with the low flammability requirements of British Standard 3121. Draft regulations will be prepared and circulated to the interested organisations for comment, and the regulations will then be laid before Parliament.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that there will be widespread support for these actions? Is he also aware that in one large town in Cornwall a mother tried six different shops to buy a non-flammable nightdress for her child? She could not obtain one, she bought a flammable one, and her child was burnt to death. While not condoning the carelessness of this mother for not using a fireguard, may I ask whether the Home Office will look into this non-availability question?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, it is possible that in certain areas retailers are not stocking non-flammable nightdresses, largely, I think, because the public in certain areas have not been very willing to buy them, possibly because of the increased cost. Now that it has been announced that regulations will be made forbidding the sale of these flammable children's nightdresses, I think one may assume that retailers will not place any further orders for the flammable ones, and of course when the regulations come into force they will be forbidden.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, arising out of that last answer, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government are having consultations with the Government in Hong Kong, because I am quite

9
sure the noble Lord will agree that a very large percentage of Hong Kong's cotton textiles axe imported into this country and are used to a great degree in children's wear? Can the Government give us an undertaking that there will be full consultations, and that help and assistance will be given to Hong Kong so that they can continue their present trade and comply with the regulations?
LORD DERWENT: I think, my Lords, that all I can say in answer to that question is that regulations will be made forbidding the sale of flammable nigh-dresses, and the importers of Hong Kong goods will undoubtedly notify their suppliers.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord two questions arising out of what he has said? May I ask him, first of all, whether, after these regulations have been passed, it will be compulsory to have a sewn-in label giving washing instructions attached to all the children's nightdresses which may be sold? The second question I should like to ask the noble Lord is this. Would he feel able to press once more on his right honourable friend the Home Secretary this question of publicity? Is he aware that since our debate I have talked with many people in industry and outside, and I think everyone, without exception, feels that this is a matter for education in addition to what the Government may do? Finally, may I ask the noble Lord whether, as on television we have instructions and help concerning road safety, there is the slightest reason why we should not have it on this particular matter, where also the very young and the very old are concerned?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, I think there is no doubt that these garments will have to be marked in some way as regards the washing of them. It presents a few difficulties because there is not only the washing at home, but the commercial washing of these garments to be considered. However, consultations are going on. I think there is not the slightest doubt that regulations, in the terms which I think the noble Baroness wants, will be made when the consultations have finished. Any publicity that anyone
10
can give is going to help. There is a good deal of publicity in the papers at the moment, and the Consumer Council itself has been carrying out a great deal of publicity, both publicly and privately—by private letters to retailers, and so on. As regards the point about television, I will look into that. Our advisers on what is or is not good on television have not yet been consulted about this, but I will bear the point in mind.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I thank the noble Lord. I do not wish to steal the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, but I know he will agree with me on this particular matter. May I ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that nowadays—and, I would say, unfortunately—if you want to get something over to the general populace, which includes ourselves, it is necessary day after day to put it over on television? Money is required for this and, whatever the Consumer Council may or may not do, it has not got money. Therefore, would the noble Lord press his right honourable friend very strongly on this point?
LORD DERWENT: Yes, my Lords. I will certainly take it up with my right honourable friend.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain why, when children's lives are in danger in this way, the Government are taking so long to get these regulations through?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, it is not quite as easy as that because if to-morrow we were to ban all flammable nightdresses there would be none at all; or very few of any kind available to be bought in the shops. This is a question of the manufacturing being altered, and there is not at this moment a sufficiently large supply of chemicals to treat materials, such as cotton, which are in themselves flammable. Production has to be increased before the regulations can come into force. We are not taking long about making the regulations, and the noble Lord will realise that the trade must be consulted as to the form of the regulations in order to make them workable.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, surely the noble Lord will agree with me that these points have been known for months.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, they have been known for many years, but that is not quite the point.

FISHERIES CONFERENCE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Dundee will be making a statement on the Fisheries Conference.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I understand that this is not a reply to a Private Notice Question in the other place, but to a Starred Question. Would it not be possible for the statement to be made earlier?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I understand that it is a statement in the other place.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: A statement, yes. But it is not in reply to a Private Notice Question.

WHITE FISH INDUSTRY (GRANTS FOR FISHING VESSELS AND ENGINES) (AMENDMENT) SCHEME 1964.
2.56 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, I beg to move that the White Fish Industry (Grants for Fishing Vessels and Engines) (Amendment) Scheme, 1964, which was laid before your Lordships' House on February 4, be approved. The main purpose of this Amendment to the Grants Scheme which was approved by Parliament in 1962 is to bring in freezer-trawlers, but the opportunity has been taken to increase the grant ceiling for other fishing trawlers and to make it quite clear that the White Fish Authority has to approve any application for grant before the work is commenced.
Your Lordships may remember that the present scheme for grants, introduced in 1962, extended the provision to distant-water vessels. It was, however, then agreed with the industry and the
12
White Fish Authority that there should be some limited replacement of the older distant-water vessels by modern conventional types of trawlers on a scrap-and-build basis. In the meantime the Government agreed to help experiments to see what newer types of vessel could be introduced. The freezer-trawler is one type of vessel that has been so helped. The Government think that the time has now come for the introduction of rather more freezers than would have been possible under the experimental scheme. Freezer-trawlers could, of course, be given grant assistance under the existing scheme but the maximum amount of grant payable is only £50,000, whereas these vessels may cost something like £500,000. This would mean that the rate of grant would be out of all proportion to the rate of grant on other trawlers. This scheme therefore provides grant for freezer-trawlers at the normal rate of 25 per cent., but with a ceiling of £110,000, which is about 25 per cent. of the more costly of these vessels.
I would emphasise to the House that these trawlers cannot be the whole answer to the industry's problem, but the Government think that it would be desirable to encourage a replacement of some older vessels by freezer-trawlers in order to have more experience of the economics of their operation, and particularly of the economics of the market of frozen fish. I am sure your Lordships will welcome this attempt to carry the modernisation of the fleet a stage further by the inclusion of freezer-trawlers, and I hope that your Lordships will give your approval to this Scheme.
Moved, That the White Fish Industry (Grants for Fishing Vessels and Engines) (Amendment) Scheme 1964 be approved.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
LORD WISE: My Lords, this particular Scheme has already been passed by the Special Orders Committee as one that can be passed by the House without special attention. For that reason I do not propose to be very lengthy in what I have to say in regard to it. The matter was fully dealt with in another place. A Prayer was tabled for annulment of the Order, but was not moved after the explanations given by the Minister. During the last few years we have had many Orders in regard to

13
White Fish, and this Order, as I understand it, is simply an interim measure which may last for six months. After that time, as a result of various suggestions which have been made and of various recommendations of a certain committee, the Government may decide to bring in some permanent measure in regard to this particular branch of the fishing industry.
It is important, I think, that we should have a properly and fully equipped fishing industry for this country, and the introduction of freezer-trawlers, which this Order envisages, may help to this end. There is just one point I wish to make—and I think it is a material one. In our last debate on these Orders we started to talk about the building of trawlers in foreign shipyards. I hope that these freezer-trawlers can be built and equipped in our own shipyards, rather than in shipyards overseas. In that connection, I wonder whether the Minister could inform your Lordships how many trawlers have been built overseas in the last year or in the last period, and how many grants have been made to the owners of trawlers which have been built overseas. I mention this because I understand that in my own area the provision of fishing vessels is very slow, and that orders are not being received. So much so, that the shipyards themselves are seeking new means of obtaining orders in other directions.
I am wondering also what the position is in regard to Scotland. I cannot speak for Scotland, and I hope that one of the Scottish Peers present may have something to say in regard to the Scottish aspect of this particular Order. I understand that the Scottish Trawler Owners' Association have disagreed with the Order, and I am wondering if the Minister can tell your Lordships whether any fresh agreement has been arrived at in regard to the Scottish end of this industry.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am grateful for the general commendation given to this Order by the noble Lord. To the best of my belief—and I am pretty sure I am right in assuring him of this—up to the present, no grant-aid has been given to any type of trawler built abroad. But I would remind him that, under our agreement,
14
we have to abide by the rules of GATT, and it would be difficult for us to give an absolute, rigid undertaking to exclude all foreign-built trawlers from grant-aid; but no such aid has yet been given.
Then, the noble Lord asked about the Scottish trawler owners' attitude to this scheme. He is quite right in saying that they did not agree to the terms of the scheme, mainly, I understand, because they were more interested in subsidies than in actual grants towards building the ships; but, in view of the interests concerned, we decided to present the Scheme to Parliament notwithstanding.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRADE UNION (AMALGAMATIONS, ETC.) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
ELECTIONS (WELSH FORMS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (HOSPITAL BOARDS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL
3.6 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, from time to time in recent years citizenship has been debated in your Lordships' House in the context of the arrangements to be made as one country and another has achieved independence within the Commonwealth. During these debates two things have become clear: first, that citizenship is an important matter, both in general and, still more, to the individual, so that your Lordships have, if I may say so, rightly taken a close interest in the subject; secondly,

15
that the subject is a technical one through which laymen have to pick their way very carefully.
For both these reasons, my Lords, I think it is right that before explaining the provisions of this Bill I should attempt to explain in some detail the background to it. If, in so doing, I go over ground which is familiar to those of your Lordships who have mastered the subject, I must ask them to forgive me.
Under the scheme which was agreed, soon after the war, by the then members of the Commonwealth, and which, so far as this country is concerned, is embodied in the British Nationality Act, 1948, each country within the Commonwealth has its own citizenship—the United Kingdom and Colonies for this purpose being treated as a single unit. Each country, by its own law, determines who shall be its citizens, and on the strength of possessing the citizenship of any Commonwealth country a person possesses the additional status of British subject or Commonwealth citizen. These two terms are, in our law, interchangeable, while in other countries it is usual to use one term or the other. Thus, a person born in this country, or whose father was born here, is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and on the strength of possessing that citizenship he is also a British subject or a Commonwealth citizen. Similarly, a person possessing Indian or Australian citizenship, or that of any other Commonwealth country, is in the same way a British subject or Commonwealth citizen in our law.
It is into this framework that the arrangements made as each new country has achieved independence within the Commonwealth have had to be fitted—arrangements contained partly in the law of the newly independent country and partly in the Independence Act passed here at Westminster. Provisions for acquiring the newly created citizenship are, of course, contained in that country's law; while the United Kingdom's legislation adds the country to the list of countries whose citizens possess the status of British subject or Commonwealth citizen.
At the same time, the United Kingdom legislation withdraws citizenship of the
16
United Kingdom and Colonies from persons acquiring the new citizenship who have no close connection with this country or with a remaining Colony. Such a connection is defined in a standard formula included in the various Independence Acts, and has the effect that a person is exempted from loss of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he, his father or his father's father had been born in this country or in what was still a Colony, or had been naturalised or registered there. Thus it has come about that, under the normal pattern of independence arrangements, a person who automatically acquired the newly created citizenship but who also possessed the specified connection with this country automatically became a dual citizen on Independence Day. I hope your Lordships have been able to follow me so far.
Some, however, of the countries which recently attained independence have included in their laws a prohibition on the possession of dual citizenship. I should here emphasise that the law of this country contains no such prohibition, since in our experience few difficulties arise in practice from the possession of two or more citizenships at one and the same time, and that where difficulties may arise these can be overcome without imposing any sort of compulsory prohibition. Nevertheless, a number of countries take a different view, and your Lordships will appreciate that this was not a matter in which the United Kingdom Government could dictate its view to other Commonwealth countries upon their achieving independence.
Thus it has come about that, under the law of certain Commonwealth countries, those of its new citizens who are permitted under our law to retain their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies are required to renounce that citizenship on pain of forfeiture of the new citizenship; and those who do not automatically acquire the new citizenship, but may acquire it on application, are required, as a condition of obtaining the local citizenship, to give up their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
Your Lordships will not need me to dwell on the personal problems and anxieties that may arise for individuals. Many people living in one of these

17
new countries have wanted—and still want—to play
a full part in its life, and they have therefore wanted to take out the new citizenship; yet they are naturally reluctant to sever the bond of citizenship which they have with this country. It is true that under the existing provisions of the British Nationality Acts people who give up their United Kingdom citizenship can regain it after five years' residence in this country, or, in special circumstances, after a shorter period. But many of those concerned feel that any sort of qualifying period is an undue imposition, and that the requirements bear particularly harshly on those who might wish not to return to this country but to move elsewhere in years to come.
This situation first arose in a substantial form in Tanganyika, just over two years ago, and later in Uganda also. But it was in connection with Kenya, as Independence Day drew near, that anxiety was most strongly expressed—both by the British settlers themselves and, on their behalf, by their friends in this country, including some of your Lordships. These anxieties were voiced in this House in the debate on Kenya last July, which took place on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Colyton. A number of your Lordships spoke in that debate, but perhaps, I might mention in particular my noble friends Lord Salisbury and Lord Colyton himself, both of whom followed up their speeches by writing to us on the subject. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking my noble friends for the assistance they have given us in finding what I believe to be a satisfactory solution to this problem of dual citizenship.
My Lords, it was against this background that Her Majesty's Government gave further consideration to the problem caused by this opposition to dual citizenship on the part of some of the newly independent countries of the Commonwealth. As a result, they decided that the matter called for legislation, and the substance of the present Bill was foreshadowed during the debates on what is now the Kenya Independence Act. It is evident from what was then said that the intention to introduce the present Bill was generally welcomed, and I have no doubt that this afternoon the
18
House will endorse that welcome by giving this Bill a Second Reading.
I will now briefly turn to the provisions of the Bill, the principal one being contained in Clause 1. Under this clause, a person who has renounced his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, whether before or after the Bill comes into force, will be entitled to resume that citizenship on application if he fulfils the conditions set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1). Under paragraph (a) an applicant must satisfy the Secretary of State that at the time of his renunciation of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies he possessed or was about to acquire the citizenship of a Commonwealth country, and, further, that, but for the renunciation, he could not have retained or obtained the other citizenship or, alternatively, that he had reasonable cause for thinking that he could not have done so.
Paragraph (b) provides that a person must have a "qualifying connection" with the United Kingdom or with what is still a Colony at the date of the application, or, if the applicant is a married woman not qualified in her own right, that her husband should have such a connection. The definition of a qualifying connection is contained in subsections (2) and (3). If a person does not possess such a qualifying connection but is able to fulfil the requirements of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) the grant of registration will be at the Home Secretary's discretion. The only other comment which I think I need make about the clause is to point out that under subsection (6) the Home Secretary will be able to delegate his powers of registration to British High Commissioners, which will mean that much time and trouble will be saved in dealing with applications.
That, my Lords, briefly, is the effect of Clause 1. It will, I feel sure, fully meet the anxieties of British people living elsewhere in the Commonwealth to which I referred earlier. Under the clause, a person who has already, or may in the future automatically acquire, the citizenship of the Commonwealth country, or who voluntarily acquires that citizenship, will be able, if he has in the process been obliged to renounce his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, regain that status whether or not he is

19
living in the United Kingdom and whether or not he can comply with the ordinary requirements which citizens of other Commonwealth countries must fulfil before they can become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
I now turn to Clause 2, which does not deal with resumption of citizenship but makes two seemingly small but nevertheless important amendments to the law relating to renunciation of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. At present, under Section 19 of the British Nationality Act, 1948, a person may renounce citizenship only if he already possesses some other citizenship or nationality. The object of including this restriction was the very laudable one of seeking to avoid a situation in which a person, perhaps unwittingly, could render himself stateless. Experience has shown, however, that hard cases can arise as a result of this restriction, because the laws of a few countries—and I am thinking here of foreign countries rather than of countries within the Commonwealth—require that a person must first have renounced his former citizenship before acquiring the new one.
In particular, a certain number of British women have suffered hardship in this way through not being able to acquire their husband's foreign nationality. Accordingly subsection (1) of Clause 2 allows a person to make a declaration of renunciation if he satisfies the Home Secretary that he is about to acquire the citizenship of another country. If, for some reason, he does not in fact acquire the other citizenship within six months, the declaration is automatically void and the person is deemed never to have lost his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. By this means we shall still avoid the risk that a person may become stateless as a result of making a declaration of renunciation. Subsection (2) is a purely procedural amendment. Under this subsection, powers can be delegated to British High Commissioners, and this will simplify procedure. Clause 3 calls for no particular comment.
My Lords, may I say, finally, that the nationality law of this country is not, and never has been, something static and unchanging. Rather has it been
20
constantly adjusted to take account of changing circumstances and of new situations. I commend the present Bill to your Lordships as being the latest adjustment that experience has shown to be necessary. The Bill may be a short one, but I have no doubt that for many individuals it will mean a great deal; and for this reason alone I am sure that your Lordships will receive it warmly.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am quite sure that we are all grateful to my noble relative for the clear way he explained the purpose and content of this Bill. In particular, we are very grateful for his clear explanation of the background of the law relating to citizenship in this country and in the Commonwealth. I find from my experience that this is the most difficult of all forms of law dealing with the Commonwealth and Commonwealth relationships. I was able to follow the noble Lord's explanation myself—although I do not pretend to be a particularly brilliant Member of your Lordships' House—and I was so delighted at this that I felt other noble Lords must share my pleasure in having been able to do so.
I am sure that your Lordships will welcome very warmly a Bill that benefits the Commonwealth and, in particular, the different races in the Commonwealth. It will be very useful to new Commonwealth countries, at least to those which prohibit dual citizenship, because it will encourage United Kingdom citizens in these countries to accept the new nationality by removing the fear that by doing so it will become difficult, if not impossible, for them to recover their British nationality later on, if they so desire. These new countries desperately need the support of Englishmen in many different capacities in Government service and in other spheres, and this support is much more likely to be forthcoming if people are not deterred by fears about their future if they renounce British citizenship.
As my noble relative pointed out, in our debate on the Kenya Independence Bill, many noble Lords on both sides of the House expressed anxiety about the British in Kenya who would acquire nationality of this kind under their legislation and consequently lose their British

21
nationality. This Bill makes it easier for them to recover their British nationality later on, if they want to leave Kenya and come back to this country or go anywhere else, by removing the five-year residential qualification. It is particularly important that this new right should be available in African countries with large minorities of British settlers. We want very much to assist these courageous men who have made their homes in Africa and stay on in spite of the risks to which they are exposed as a result of the conditions of life in Africa, and it is certainly right that we should do as much as we possibly can.
So I welcome this Bill. I do not want to criticise it at all, because I think that it is right, but I should like to ask one or two questions, of which I gave my noble relative notice a few days ago. The first is this: can he say how many of the new Commonwealth countries have already passed legislation prohibiting dual citizenship? Is this the case in only Kenya and Tanganyika or have other new Commonwealth countries passed similar legislation? Is it possible to say how many British citizens are in these countries who may be penalised by this law of citizenship, or who will be affected by the provisions in Clause 1 of this Bill? I wonder whether it is possible to give any sort of estimate of the number of persons affected?
Finally, I wonder whether my noble relative could say if there are any British dependencies that are considering a change in their law of citizenship, such as Kenya and Tanganyika have already made, when they become independent, which would have the effect of prohibiting dual nationality? I am thinking particularly of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, is to speak and he may also have those countries in mind. These are both British territories which are due to become independent before the end of the current year and I cannot help thinking that this Bill would be particularly important to British residents in Northern Rhodesia, in view of the large number in the Copper Belt, if the Northern Rhodesian Government is contemplating a change in its law of citizenship of the kind that has already taken place in neighbouring countries.
22
This Bill has already passed another place, if I may say so without any disrespect to another place, without anything like so thorough a background information being provided by the Minister as the background information we have had. I hope that the Bill will have as easy a passage through its later stages in your Lordships' House as it has had through another place.
3.25 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I am encouraged by the confession of the noble Earl who has just spoken that he found nationality legislation extremely difficult. It has always seemed to me to be the most complicated of all legislation with which any Legislature has to deal and tends, necessarily perhaps, to be imprecise. I would join the noble Earl in being grateful to the Minister for his full explanation of this complicated subject. I merely want, if I may, to make one or two observations, which I hope may be useful in considering this particular Bill.
I entirely agree with the Minister that nationality is something far more than just what most people think it is, something relating to travel and passports. It is for a great many people concerned with, opportunities for education and work. I had a letter from a civil servant who had previously been working in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and has now returned to this country. A passage in it says:
"Fortunately, I kept my British citizenship and am therefore able to seek work here."
For him, as for many others, the question of nationality is the very practical one of livelihood and opportunity for the future. It is also related to social security, civil rights and liberties, and personal status.
It seems to me that there should be two principles applied by us in this country to this matter. The first is that no British citizen should be compelled to renounce his rights as a British citizen permanently and irrevocably on account of discrimination against him in a country to which he has gone in good faith to live and work—and if I use the term "British citizen", instead of "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies", I hope that your Lordships will forgive me. The second principle is that no one who has a proper claim to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or British

23
citizen, should be deprived of that right because of any failure here in this country to ensure that legislation is available on the Statute Book to safeguard that right.
I was encouraged to hear from the Minister that he regards this as an interim measure, to be added to and improved as experience shows it to be necessary. Indeed, that was the purpose of the 1958 Act, which was intended, and I think succeeded in some degree, to overcome some of the deficiencies in the original legislation of 1948. This Bill carries this process a step further, but I am not sure whether it carries it far enough in accordance with the needs of the subject. For instance, I should like to ask the Minister whether there is any discrepancy between the Explanatory Memorandum, on the one hand, and Clause 1 of the Bill, on the other, because the Explanatory Memorandum says:
"Registration is as of right in the case of a person with specified connections with the United Kingdom and Colonies, a protectorate or a protected state;"
whereas Clause 1 says:
"… the Secretary of State may so register any person who would be entitled thereto if he had such a connection."
I therefore assume that the Secretary of State has discretion as to whether he registers, and although he would interpret it as closely as possible to recognise the right which a person may claim under this clause, we must remember—and I know that your Lordships will know this from your own experience—that in fact legislation of this kind is administered, not by courts of law, or very seldom, I imagine, by courts of law, but by civil servants and High Commissioners, operating at some distance from this country and dealing with individual cases as they arise and having recourse, not so much to any debate that there might have been in connection with this legislation, but to the actual wording of the legislation itself. Where there is a case in doubt, with the passage of time they will interpret that naturally and, I think, inevitably more and more narrowly, particularly as there is always pressure on them, so as not to give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant. I do not say this in any way critically. I think it is probably the right way to interpret legislation of this sort. But,
24
for this reason, it is most important that the Bill itself should contain the instructions which are going to be carried out by those who are to administer it—in this case, the High Commissioners' offices in various parts of the world—and that these instructions should be as clear and precise as possible.
I would give merely one example of what I have in mind, and it is this. I had the responsibility, as Minister in another place, of introducing there the 1958 Act. In doing so, I made a speech which gave the Government's interpretation of the meaning of that Act, and contained, I hope (though I fear not), as clear an explanation of the background as the Minister has given this afternoon. It later happened that a case was brought to me, as High Commissioner, of an individual who had applied for a British passport and recognition of his status as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies under this particular piece of legislation, and who had had his application turned down by the officer administering it in my office. The matter was then referred to me. I could claim to deal with it only in accordance with the interpretation that I thought should be placed on the legislation; that is to say, not by reference to the legislation itself but by reference to my speech on Second Reading in another place which explained what the Government intended. Had it not been that the Minister had changed his occupation, and happened to be administering this piece of legislation on that occasion, I am certain that this application would not have been accepted.
What I am really trying to say to your Lordships, and to the Government, in relation to the Bill before us is that this is a most complicated subject, and it will have to be administered by people who will increasingly interpret its provisions more narrowly as time goes on and as the spirit and intention with which it was introduced begin to fade. For this reason it is important that the drafting of the legislation should be clear and precise, so that the intention of Parliament is fully revealed to those who have to administer it. All this may seem quite simple in the minds of your Lordships, but from the administrative point of view I think it is important.

25
I should therefore like to ask the Minister whether there is this discrepancy: whether a person who has the qualifications, in accordance with Clause 1 of this Bill, has in fact the right to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or whether it is at the discretion of the Secretary of State, in accordance with Clause 1, and therefore of the High Commissioner and, to some extent—we must be realistic about this—of those officials who will be administering the scheme in accordance with this legislation in offices in various parts of the world. If it is as of right, then my point is met. But if it is at the discretion of the Secretary of State, and that discretion is, as it is under the 1948 and the 1958 Acts, a fairly wide one, then I fear that there may be occasions when the administration will not be fully in accordance with the spirit, although, of course, it will be within the letter, of the Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament.
I should like to ask one other question, and it is this. I assume that under previous legislation, under the 1948 Act, the position of Tanganyika as a mandated territory, as a Trusteeship territory, has been taken into account, and that there is no gap in Clause 1(2) of this Bill, so that the original purpose of this particular piece of legislation—that is, to deal with the problems of Tanganyika—has not been omitted. I am certain that any qualms I may have are due more to misunderstanding the legislation rather than to any possibility of a failure on the part of the draftsmen in that respect.
There is one other point I would make, and I do so with great deference because I am almost certain to be wrong in doing it. We find great confusion over this conception of a Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, a British subject, a citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia and so on. We have in recent months and years tended more and more to apply the word "British" to the United Kingdom to explain and define the status and nationality of this country. I think the time may be coming—although it may not yet be right to do it—when we shall have to simplify this particular terminology in our naturalisation law by omitting or altering this
26
overall umbrella formula of "British subject "or" Commonwealth citizen", and to come back to what is the proper term for people who belong to this country, which is "British citizens".
I am sure your Lordships join with the noble Earl who spoke last, and with the Minister, in paying tribute to those Members of your Lordships' House who were really responsible for seeing the problems which would arise in the newly independent countries of Eastern Africa, which may apply equally to countries in Central Africa when they become independent, and I think apply to one, at any rate, of the Asian Commonwealth countries of Malaysia. In those circumstances, it is of vital importance to these people, our own people, that their interests should be safeguarded and looked after. In so far as this Bill does that, it is to be heartily welcomed; and if there are any deficiencies or defects in it, I hope your Lordships will not be slow in putting them right when the time comes.

WEST EUROPEAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE
3.37 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, it may be convenient if I now repeat a statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in answer to a Question on the West European Fisheries Conference.
The European Fisheries Conference, which has met in three sessions under my right honourable friend's Chairmanship since the 3rd of December, 1963, concluded its work yesterday. At its final session a majority of Delegations adopted ad referendum the final text of a Fisheries Convention, together with a Protocol of Provisional Application and certain ancillary agreements. The Conference also passed resolutions on Fisheries Policing, on Conservation, and on Access to Markets.
Arrangements are being made for copies of the Final Act of the Conference, to which the texts of the relevant documents are annexed, to be placed in the Library of the House.

27
The Fisheries Convention enables signatory States to regulate fisheries within a twelve-mile zone from the baselines from which their territorial seas are measured. Fishing is to be reserved to the fishermen of the coastal State within the inner six miles, subject to a short phase-out period for foreign fishermen who have traditionally fished the three-to-six-mile zone. During the Conference our Delegation agreed with the other countries principally interested the duration of this phase-out period so far as the United Kingdom is concerned. It will be until the 31st of December, 1965, except where straight baselines or new bay closing lines are drawn, where it will be until the 31st of December, 1966.
Within the outer six miles fishing is reserved to fishermen of the coastal State and to those States which have habitually fished in the area between the 1st of January, 1953, and the 31st of December, 1962. Such foreign fishermen will be restricted to stocks and grounds which they already fish and subject to regulation and policing by the coastal State. The Convention will be open, on conditions to be agreed, for accession by other countries which were not represented at the Conference. It was agreed that any straight baselines and new bay closing lines should be drawn in accordance with the rules of general International Law, and in particular of the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea, 1958. A copy of a map indicating our broad intentions in this matter is being placed in the Library of the House.
The Convention is open for signature between the 9th of March and the 10th of April, and thirteen Delegations indicated that they would recommend their Governments to sign it. I am sorry that the Delegations of Norway and Iceland, and the Danish Delegation, in respect of the Faroes and Greenland, were unable to accept the Convention. The Convention will, of course, remain open for accession by these and other States. The position of Denmark in relation to the Faroe Islands raises urgent and special questions on which a statement will be made by my right honourable friend within the next few days.
So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, legislation will be necessary to
28
give effect to our acceptance of the Convention and will be introduced as soon as possible. The signature of the Protocol of Provisional Application will enable early effect to be given to the new regime of fishery limits without waiting for ratification of the Convention by all signatories.
3.42 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am very grateful for this statement, and I am sure that everyone in the House would wish to congratulate the noble Earl on the success which he has obtained, not only in having been able to secure substantial agreement in three meetings but also on having arrived at what looks like (and I must say "looks like", because I am no authority on this matter) a very favourable agreement. It is a pity that the agreement was not unanimous, but there may be special conditions applying to Norway and Iceland, and we shall be hearing in a few days about the Faroe Islands. I do not know whether the noble Earl can tell us whether there are special difficulties here, and whether there is any hope of meeting them, so that we can achieve complete unanimity.
The noble Earl told us that thirteen countries have accepted the Convention. Can he say who they are and whether they are all countries who are interested in this particular question? Were they all represented at the Conference? He did not mention them in his statement. The Convention provides that existing rights which fishermen have enjoyed in the outer six miles for ten years up to December 31, 1962, are to continue. Are there many of them, and is there a registration or information as to exactly who these fishermen are? I see that they will be regulated, but I would hope that they can be identified without any difficulty. Finally, we are to have legislation on the subject. Will this agreement become effective before the legislation is passed, or must we wait until the legislation actually goes through Parliament?
LORD REA: My Lords, may I also welcome the statement from the Minister and congratulate both him and the Government upon having come within sight, apparently, of a settlement of this serious problem, which, as your Lordships well know, has been a problem not only for decades and generations, but

29
even for centuries. It is unfortunate that the three dissident nations who are not signing are presumably those who most concern us. All we can say is that we very much hope that the tension which existed a few years ago between ourselves and Iceland will not arise again, and that we shall come to some amicable agreement with these three countries. There is one further point, and that is about the phasing-out period. If these, as I call them, dissident countries do not come into the Convention for some time, will they also have to be phased out by December, 1965, or will they be given some pro rata extension in which to make their own rearrangements?
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive a brief intervention on my part, but this is quite a moment in my life. It represents at least a partial, and I would even go so far as to say a substantial, victory in a battle which I personally have been fighting for precisely 40 years against successive Governments of every political complexion, all of whom have been equal in their obstinacy, obduracy and stupidity. At long last our inshore fishermen will get a measure of protection in the only form which can really be of any use to them.
It is not the end of the story. This agreement, good as it is in many ways, will not solve the major problem of the over-fishing of the North Sea over a long period to come. This has taken place twice in this century; and, had it not been for the intervention of two World Wars, I do not think any fish would be being caught in the North Sea to-day. The agreement does not get down to the basic problem, which can only be settled internationally and which will take time. But it goes a long way to protect the inshore fishermen.
I want to say only two things, having already said that, so far as it goes, this agreement is good. First of all, I ask for an assurance from Her Majesty's Government that, in the exercise of the control which they will possess over the outer six-mile limit under the agreement, they will bear in mind always the paramount importance of the conservation of stocks and, above all, of the spawning grounds, particularly in the Minch and the Moray Firth. That is of tremendous importance to our inshore fishermen.
30
Finally, I am going to do something that I can never remember having done before in 40 years of public life—I want to thank and congratulate the Government. Whatever the future vicissitudes of politics may be, the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be remembered permanently, and with gratitude, by the inshore fishermen of this country, because he has done something that they well deserve—and none too soon.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, if I may take the questions in their reverse order, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Boothby should enjoy all the credit for this achievement—
LORD BOOTHBY: I deserve it!
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: —on condition that my noble friend will also accept the blame for any defects which may subsequently become apparent and any criticism arising from them.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, countries which do not come into the agreement will not, of course, enjoy any benefits under it so far as we are concerned, but we shall be very glad to discuss with them bilaterally on questions of mutual interest, and to make any suitable arrangements on which we can agree.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked the names of the thirteen countries who signed the Convention. There were sixteen countries who attended this Convention, and they all signed it except Norway and Iceland, and also Switzerland, because Switzerland, having no coast, thought it was rather pointless to come in. Denmark signed it in respect of her domestic waters, but could not do so in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland. I do not know whether the noble Lord wants the names of the sixteen countries, which will take a moment to read out. They were: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Iceland (who did not agree), Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway (who did not agree), Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord also asked about the policing of the outer six-mile limit. I understand that no difficulty is anticipated in deciding which vessels or which

31
countries have habitually fished these areas in the last ten years. Of course, they will be subject to the control and policing regulations. I should also like to say to my noble friend Lord Boothby, in connection with that, that we have very much in mind the necessity for protecting stocks and the spawning grounds, particularly in the areas which he mentioned.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, could he explain why Luxembourg and Austria signed, and Switzerland did not, because I do not think their coast line is very different.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, my Lords, I think if the noble Lord will look at the texts which are being put in the Library he may be able to form some theory about that.

BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL
3.50 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I now resume the Second Reading debate on the British Nationality Bill. I should like to start by thanking both noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for the welcome which they have given to this Bill, for which I am grateful. I think that all that remains for me to do is to answer the questions that have been put to me. I am grateful in particular to my noble relative for having given me warning of some of the questions which he was likely to put. If I may deal with those questions first, I think his first was: are there any other Commonwealth countries besides Kenya, Tanganyika and Uganda which prohibit dual citizenship? There are. Other Commonwealth countries whose laws contain a complete prohibition of dual citizenship are Ceylon, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, and Trinidad and Tobago. The laws of Ghana and Malaysia provide that a person may in certain circumstances be required to renounce his other citizenship.
The second question which my noble relative asked was: can we estimate the number of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies living in the various Commonwealth countries where dual
32
citizenship is prohibited? It is estimated that the numbers of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies of British origin living in Kenya, Tanganyika and Uganda are 60,000, 15,000 and 8,000 respectively. Estimates for the other countries are not readily available, I am afraid. It is, of course, not possible to say how many of these people already possess, or may wish to acquire, citizenship of the country in which they are living and thus be obliged to renounce their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
The last but one question my noble relative asked was: are any dependent territories which will achieve independence in the future likely to prohibit dual citizenship? Citizenship is one of the matters discussed when a territory is about to achieve independence, and it is not possible to say in advance of such discussions whether the law of a particular territory will prohibit dual citizenship; but if it does, the provisions of this Bill will automatically apply to persons who are, as a result, obliged to renounce their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
There was one more question, I think, relating to Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland and possibly Southern Rhodesia. Southern Rhodesia is no problem, because it has its own citizenship law which does not require United Kingdom citizens to renounce their citizenship if they possess it in addition to that of Southern Rhodesia. Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland do not yet possess separate citizenships. When they do, the provisions of this Bill will come into play if their laws should follow the example of Kenya and Tanganyika in prohibiting dual citizenship. The Bill is so drafted that it will apply to the situation created by any Commonwealth country which requires United Kingdom citizens to renounce their citizenship, whether such requirement derives from past or future law.
The two questions asked by my noble friend Lord Alport were, first, whether there was some discrepancy between the Explanatory Memorandum and Clause 1. There is no discrepancy. Clause 1 says that the applicant will be entitled to registration if he satisfies the Secretary of State that he fulfils both conditions (a) and (b). As soon as he does so, registration will be automatic. If he

33
fulfils condition (a) and not condition (b), registration will be at the discretion of the Secretary of State. That is where the Secretary of State's discretion comes in.
The other question my noble friend asked was whether this Bill was all right as regards citizens of Tanganyika? Tanganyika has ceased to be a mandated or trustee territory, as my noble friend knows. It is simply an independent country of the Commonwealth, like Kenya or Australia, and is covered by a uniform provision applying to all such countries, on exactly the same footing as all the other Commonwealth countries.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FIREWORKS BILL
3.56 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this is a very modest Bill in length and, in spite of its Title, unlikely to cause any "fireworks" in your Lordships' House. But it is, none the less, important in practice for the sake of our export trade. It is a Private Member's Bill introduced in another place by my honourable friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead. The trouble has arisen from the Fireworks Act, 1951, which in Clause 5 says that no fireworks shall be consigned from the factory in which they were made unless each firework bears conspicuously the name of the occupier of the factory and the address of the factory. There are many buyers in foreign countries who are not very happy to receive fireworks exported from this country marked in this way with the name of the British factory and its address, and the extra labour involved in re-labelling each firework which may be exported to a foreign country puts us out of competition with other countries who are prepared to supply fireworks unmarked.
Therefore, the only object of this Bill is to provide that, where fireworks are being exported, there is no need for Clause 5 of the 1951 Act to apply, and that they may be exported unmarked.
34
This Bill has a comparatively small effect, and it may seem to your Lordships somewhat like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but unfortunately this is the only way in which this particular object can be achieved. Finally, I should merely like to stress that nothing in this Bill will in any way affect the safety provisions that exist both for the manufacture of fireworks and for their transport in this country and abroad. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
3.59 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER: My Lords, I should like to raise just one point. It may really be inappropriate to do so on this particular Bill, but we were earlier this afternoon dealing with the question of safety of children in regard to nightdresses. Over the last few years in my diocese in Manchester there have been a very considerable number of accidents to children through fireworks. It would seem, although I have not the figures, that the number of such accidents is increasing considerably, possibly due to the fact that we live in a more affluent society and fireworks are more easily procurable. I have seen pictures of hospital cases of children who have been injured by fireworks; they are really terrible to look at, and every year a large number of children in this country receive accidents in this way.
It is not often that one gets an opportunity of making some protest about this and I should like to do so on this particular occasion, although I should not like anyone to think that I was in any sense a killjoy. Fireworks may be very amusing things, but they could surely be let off under appropriate, adequate adult supervision, and I think it is wrong that we should allow fireworks to be distributed, as they are at present in this country, more or less indiscriminately to children, leading to a great deal of distress and pain. I should like to know whether Her Majesty's Government have any plan for looking into this and seeing whether what I say is correct—that these accidents are increasing—and, if so, in what way they could be decreased.
4.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDLESLEIGH: My Lords, may I express a good deal of doubt about the merits of this Bill? The provision with regard to marking the manufacturer's name on the fireworks was designed in the interests of the public. As the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, said when he introduced the Bill in 1951, if fireworks are marked, it will be easier to trace the makers or the importer, as the case may be, if any of them are found to be dangerous; and, as a result, if dangerous fireworks are found, the appropriate steps can be taken against the manufacturer concerned. Are we not depriving the purchaser of these fireworks, who may be a Commonwealth citizen or a foreigner, of that degree of protection which we think necessary for our people? Can I be assured that fireworks intended for export will not, as a result of this Bill if it is enacted, be made with a lack of the proper safety precautions which Her Majesty's inspectors require for fireworks for use in this country? I regard that as a very important point. God forbid that we should be more careless of the lives and safety of children, for example, in Malta, where fireworks are used a great deal, than we are of children in this country! I should like to press for consideration particularly of the point that I have made: that unsafe fireworks might be made with impunity under the provisions of this Bill.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I be allowed to say one word in answer to the right reverend Prelate? May I say, with the greatest of respect to him, that this Bill has nothing to do with fireworks for use in this country, but as he referred to regulations for fireworks in this country I will take the opportunity of writing to him in a day or two to pursue that subject further.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER: My Lords, I am much obliged.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I would only say to the noble Earl, Lord Iddlesleigh, that nothing in this Bill in any way affects the stringent regulations of the Home Office on the manufacture of fireworks. I think I am right in saying that there are very stringent
36
regulations by the Home Office to see that fireworks which emerge from British factories are as safe as they can be. Moreover, there are further stringent regulations made by the Ministry of Transport, covering the transport of fireworks, so we should certainly not be transporting dangerous fireworks to people overseas. The only object of the Bill is to enable fireworks to be sold overseas without each one being labelled. Of course, the box going abroad would be labelled, and therefore the supplier would be known.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING BILL
4.5 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:
Provision for industrial training courses etc. by the B.B.C. or the I.T.A.
". Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Television Acts 1954 and 1963 or any other enactment an industrial training board may make grants or loans to the British Broadcasting Corporation or the Independent Television Authority to enable them to provide courses or other facilities for the training of persons employed or intending to be employed in the industry for which that industrial training board is established under the provisions of section 1 of this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bowden, who, I regret, is not able to be with us this afternoon, I beg to move the first Amendment on the Marshalled List. On Second Reading the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, said that this Bill relates to men, women, boys and girls employed in industry and commerce throughout the country. The noble Lord, Lord Bowden, in his very notable maiden speech, drew attention to the estimates made by Professor Stone of Cambridge that by 1970 we should need approximately 1½ million more skilled men than we have to-day and, I thought perhaps more significantly in view of the fears of redundancy in industry throughout the country, that 1,400,000 unskilled jobs would disappear.
He drew attention to the fact—and I do not think there would be any dispute about it on any side of the House or on either side of industry—that if we are to achieve the major breakthroughs in industry which we all wish to see, and if we are to avoid large-scale and permanent unemployment, we must devise some system by which persons may obtain industrial training, whether it be in a factory or in an office, and this should be a continuing process. The noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, when he introduced this Bill, admitted that the previous arrangements for industrial training have largely failed, and now we have the Bill containing the Government's proposals. I believe, like my noble friend Lord Champion, that there is much in this Bill which will make it possible to achieve considerable industrial training.
But I wonder whether the figures that were given by the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, really showed the full picture. I believe that there will be a continuing demand by men and women, particularly as we have the growth of education—and I am sure there is a strong desire for young people to continue their education—that we should endeavour to provide a flexible and an interesting way of giving training and further education. Even if we take the figures of Professor Stone, it is obvious that the Government and the local authorities would hardly be able to provide colleges or schools sufficient for these numbers. It would be extremely difficult to find the number of teachers required. Certainly the capital cost for buildings and facilities would be beyond our present means, particularly when we consider the demands that Robbins and Newsom will make upon the Exchequer.
As my noble friend said on Second Reading, we have this medium of television and radio. Television is relatively new, particularly in the field of education; but it is an undoubted fact, and I think it has been fully accepted within the schools, that sound radio has played a very important part in education, and also in adult education. Television is a new medium. It is far more powerful than sound. What we seek in this Amendment is to make it
38
possible—it is purely permissive—for the new industrial boards to have the opportunity to use this new medium of television for industrial training, and by industrial training we have in- mind not only the factory training and the use of equipment but also commercial training and the use of foreign languages.
As I understand it, there will be nothing between the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, and ourselves in this matter. In fact, he said in his winding-up speech on Second Reading that he hoped the boards would take note of the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Bowden. Nor do I believe that there is anything between us in regard to the use of television, whether it be the British Broadcasting Corporation or the Independent Television Authority. Here we have a modern method of teaching, and I think the Government themselves would wish it to be used.
But I think there are two difficulties in this matter. First, industrial training, whether it be for the factory or for commerce, will for us be relatively new. If it is to succeed, a considerable amount of research will have to be undertaken, not only by the boards but also by the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. As I understand it, the B.B.C. are already fully stretched in regard to their finances, and it will be difficult for them to put aside fairly considerable sums of money which will be required initially for research into this matter. In the case of the I.T.A., it might well be that they have a more flexible position because of the income they receive, but they may well be in a similar position later on. Therefore, having taken this step forward and having made considerable sums available to these industrial boards, we feel that if the boards wish to use this medium—and, of course, if the B.B.C. and I.T.A. themselves are prepared to co-operate and to develop these services—the boards should be in a position to make grants or loans to either body for research into the use of this medium.
But having achieved that, there is such a wide field for exploitation in television, particularly if available in the mornings, that in the mere putting forward and the compiling of programmes we should

39
again be in the same position as in regard to research. The B.B.C. would not, within their own budget, be able to provide the large sums that would be necessary to make use of this medium; and no doubt the same could be said of I.T.A. Therefore, we have drafted this Amendment which would make it permissible for boards to enter into agreements with the two corporations, so that they can provide courses and other facilities for the training of persons within industry.
If it were only this narrow issue that was concerned, I do not think there would be any difference between us and the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham. But on research into this matter we found that it was not sufficient just to amend the Bill to give the boards permissive powers to make grants. As I understand it, under the Television Acts and by their Charter, in the case of the B.B.C., these corporations are not allowed to receive sums of money in order to deal with programme content. I would submit that in this particular case there is considerable ground for breaking this principle. It is largely a question of one side of the State organisation for an important purpose contributing funds to another public corporation who can provide the service.
It may be said—and one must anticipate it—that in doing this we should be breaking a considerable principle for sound and television. But if we are to use this medium (and I think that on all sides of the House we recognise the power and strength of television for the good of the country) then we should find some way in which we can harness that power for the national good. It would seem to me that if we are to do that sooner or later this particular principle will have to be broken.
I should not subscribe—in fact, I would strongly resist it—to the idea of private capital or private funds being paid for programme content, either for the B.B.C. or I.T.A.; but I would suggest that this is rather different—indeed, quite different. Here is a case where, the State having decided that a particular service should be provided by, and not imposed upon, the corporations—because, of course, they would enter
40
into it willingly and voluntarily—the funds necessary for that service ought to be provided. I hope that the Government will first of all accept the principle behind the Amendment. I do not suggest that the Amendment is word-perfect or will fully meet the case, but I believe that there is an overwhelming case for developing television for the national good, particularly when one takes into account the tremendous pressures for industrial training, not only in fitting people for new jobs, but also in trying to deal with great problems of redundancy which both Parties foresee following automation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM): My Lords, I think your Lordships will have listened with interest and some sympathy to what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said. I am sure we are all sorry that Lord Bowden is not able to be with us this afternoon, because he spoke most effectively on this subject during the Second Reading of this Bill. Your Lordships may recall that I said during the debate on Second Reading that there was nothing in the Bill to prevent the use of television, correspondence courses or teaching machines in pursuance of the boards' objectives, and in the general sense that is true. A board will be free, if it chooses, to provide correspondence courses or other aids for those employed in the industry or to make payments to other organisations which will provide them on its behalf. The only limitations the Bill imposes are that courses must be provided for persons employed in the industry; and that they must meet the board's standards.
I cannot continue to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in his argument, because in his Amendment he is seeking, as I hope I shall explain in a moment, to breach certain principles, which I could not advise your Lordships to accept without considerable thought and care. The particular proposal contained in the Amendment explained by the noble Lord was that the training boards should be able to sponsor B.B.C. or I.T.A. programmes

41
which, in spite of what I have said, would not in principle be permitted as the Bill now stands. It is because there are two important reasons why this is so that I would advise your Lordships not to accept the Amendment that the noble Lord has put forward.
The first reason arises out of the regulation that the B.B.C. and I.T.A. are acting under certain principles which were laid down in the past, because when Parliament passed the Independent Television Act, the Government thought it right—this was agreed, I think, wholeheartedly by the Opposition at the time—to provide that the programme contractors should not be permitted to receive payments for programmes which they broadcast. One of the main purposes of this provision was to avoid what are known as sponsored programmes, that is, programmes controlled by organisations other than the broadcasting authorities, particularly under the Independent Television Act where we had advertisers in mind. A somewhat similar provision is included in the B.B.C.'s licence.
The noble Lord argued that an exception to this principle should be made in the case of the new industrial training boards. This would be a much greater step than perhaps the noble Lord contemplated when he first thought of this Amendment. There is nothing to prevent the B.B.C. or the I.T.V. from putting on a programme to teach a particular skill or to instruct in a particular subject: quite the contrary. Both organisations put out a number of educational or instructional programmes and would be perfectly at liberty to develop this side of their activities. What neither television authority can do is to receive instructions and cash payments for the programmes which it broadcasts. I suggest that this is a principle not to be lightly discarded. It is an important and possibly vital principle of broadcasting policy, even though it involves a marginal limitation of the powers of a training board.
The second reason, which is also important, why boards would not be able to make payments to television authorities is that in the normal way television programmes go out to all who are prepared to turn on their set. The noble Lord, Lord Bowden, made the point that the Americans were very
42
impressed with the number of people who listened to educational programmes in preference to "soap opera". This means that any B.B.C. or I.T.V. programme for which a board paid would be likely to be received by large numbers not within the scope of the board; the board would therefore inevitably be spending money for purposes which it was not entitled to do. And even the new clause, as drafted by the noble Lord, would not give the board power to spend the money in this way.
I do not think the noble Lord need feel too discouraged. There are two reasons for saying this. First, the B.B.C. and I.T.V. have already shown considerable interest in educational broadcasting. The broadcasts form part of the general duty placed on the broadcasting authorities to provide programmes of education and information as well as programmes of entertainment. It will be up to the boards themselves, with these new important functions in their hands, to encourage broadcasting authorities to continue the good work which they are already doing and to persuade them to expand and do more.
Secondly, there will be nothing to stop the boards from developing the use of closed circuit television. This is an important development. Some interesting experiments in the use of this medium for teaching purposes are going on at the moment. At Kidbrooke Girls' Comprehensive School and at Warbling-ton Secondary Modern School, Havant, closed circuit television is used for giving lessons as part of the general curriculum. Mathematics is taught in this way at both schools, and at Kidbrooke geography, science, pottery and dressmaking as well. An interesting feature at both schools is an arrangement for two-way communication so that pupils can both ask and answer questions. This possibility of two-way communication would seem to make closed circuit television an appropriate means of adding these modern techniques of instruction to the curricula of the new training boards.
I would end by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that his general objectives will be achieved within the terms of the Bill as it now stands; although, for the reasons I have given, I am afraid it would not be possible for

43
me to accept the Amendment and his suggestion that the boards should be able to finance the two authorities for the purpose he has in mind.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, made a strong case against sponsored programmes, but I think he also indicated that the B.B.C. and I.T.A. are not able to radiate programmes for very limited audiences. I do not think this is correct.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: I am afraid the noble Lord entirely misunderstood me. What I said was that the training boards are allowed to provide money only for training people within their industry. If a particular programme were on B.B.C., the training boards would be providing money for training people outside the particular industries for which the boards were responsible.
LORD TAYLOR: That is a rather sad thought, because in Glasgow the ordinary commercial television service is used for post-graduate medical education one night a week late at night, with great success. Here we have an extremely limited audience being instructed by the Glasgow Post-Graduate Medical Federation over the ordinary commercial television service. I should have thought that this was a very good way of doing precisely what it is the aim of the Minister and my noble friends to do. I hope that this would not be precluded. If, for example, the boards were to set up a small unit to produce training films for radiation over the television service, I hope there would be no objection to this being done late at night in the same way that post-graduate education is given to doctors late at night.
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, the suggestion made by the noble Lord is a good one, but some of us would surely take strong exception to any form of sponsored programme—a programme which was paid for. Many films for training purposes are already being produced by various bodies. A body to which I am attached, connected with hospitals, produced one the other day. Unfortunately, the B.B.C. made an awful mess of it. But such films can be produced and there is nothing against them. Provided that no fees are
44
charged, I hope that the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. will be encouraged to put on films connected with industry and prepared by the B.B.C. or by the training boards or whoever it may be—and provided that the films are of good quality and useful to industry.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as I suspected, in principle there is nothing between us in this matter, and I fully acknowledge the considerable work which both the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. are doing in the field of education and other matters of general interest, and from which I am sure the country as a whole benefits. If we are to make a considerable break-through in the use of television and sound radio in the national interest, taking into account the tremendous demands that will be placed on education, I consider that the resources of the B.B.C. in particular are inadequate to provide the sums required for such a service to be provided on the proper scale and of the requisite quality. I recognise the difficulties of trying to get an Amendment into the narrow scope of the present Bill, but this is a matter Parliament will have to come back to—I hope after the next Election, when, perhaps, we shall make a great stride forward in having a university of the air. I beg leave to withdrawn the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Proposals for exercise of board's functions and for levies]:
4.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: My Lords, at the Committee stage an Amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, to require the Minister to appoint new members of a board not later than six months after the Minister had made an order declaring a board to be in default. The noble Lord said at the time—and I warmly agreed with him—that we all hope the Minister will never have to use such default powers. But the noble Lord was concerned that, since the Bill does make provision for a default order and a caretaker period in certain circumstances, it should not allow that caretaker period to continue indefinitely. I think that was the point of what the noble Lord had to say. In answer to him, I agreed with his suggestion that there should be as short a period as possible before the appointment of a new

45
board, and I offered to consider this point further. As a result of this consideration, my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour has decided that an Amendment to limit the caretaker period is desirable, and that six months is in fact the right period to fix as a maximum. This Amendment takes a rather different form from the Amendment which the noble Lord tabled at the Committee stage, but I think it does what he wanted to do.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 15, leave out from ("board") to end of line 16 and insert ("during such period, not exceeding six months, as may elapse before new members are appointed").—(Viscount Blakenham.)
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, has pretty fairly and fully set out the history of this Amendment during the Committee stage. He has fully met the undertaking that he gave during that stage, and I should like to place on record my appreciation of that consideration and the outcome of it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM moved, after Clause 13, to insert the following new clause:
Power of industrial training board with respect to training for employment overseas
.—(1) If the Minister so requests, an industrial training board may exercise such functions in connection with the training for employment in any activity of industry or commerce carried on outside Great Britain of persons temporarily in Great Britain as are exercisable by it under subsections (1) and (4) of section 2 of this Act in connection with the training of persons employed or intending to be employed in the industry for which the board is established.
(2) An industrial training board may delegate any power exercisable by it by virtue of this section to a committee (which need not include members of the board) appointed for that purpose or to any committee appointed under section 3 of this Act.
(3) An industrial training board shall keep separate accounts—

(a) with respect to its functions under this section; and

(b) with respect to its other functions under this Act;

and no money raised by a levy imposed under this Act shall be carried to an account kept in pursuance of paragraph (a) of this subsection, and any expenses and liabilities incurred by the Board under this section shall be disregarded for the purposes of sections 4(1) and 9(3) of this Act.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the purpose of this new clause is to enable industrial training boards, at the request of my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour, to exercise their functions in respect of overseas trainees who are not employed or intending to be employed in industry in Britain and are therefore not covered by the provisions of Clause 2 of the Bill. This clause would not in any way affect a board's duty to provide or secure the provision of training facilities for those, whether British or overseas, who are employed by firms in its industry. Of course, the great majority of overseas trainees are in fact employed in the ordinary way while undergoing training in this country, and the provisions of the Bill therefore apply to them. Boards will be able to make grants for training overseas employees, just as they will for British trainees. To that extent, overseas trainees who are employed will benefit from this Bill just as much as British trainees.
This clause deals with trainees from abroad for whom the boards have no responsibility as the Bill stands. The sort of trainees we have in mind are those who receive maintenance allowances for example, under the Colombo Plan, other regional technical assistance schemes or under the Federation of British Industries' scholarship scheme. I hope your Lordships will agree that it is very desirable that the Government should be able to use the machinery of the boards where appropriate to secure training facilities for these people and similar groups of overseas students, particularly those from the developing countries. The effect of this clause will be to enable a board, at the request of the Minister, to exercise certain of its functions under Clause 2 in respect of the sort of people I have just mentioned. This means that a board would be able to secure training facilities, and approve courses, for trainees in this category. They would also be able to make grants or loans to firms providing training for them.
There are two important points about this new clause at which I would ask your Lordships to look. First, the power is to be exercised only at the request of the Minister. A board will not be required as a matter of course to make

47
special provision for training this category of overseas trainees; nor will it be able, on its own initiative, to propose a scheme of training for these people. The Minister, at the request no doubt of the Secretary for Technical Co-operation or the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development, would have to take the initiative in asking a board to make special arrangements of the kind that I have mentioned. This is in contrast to other provisions of the Bill which require a board to secure provision for training and to submit proposals to the Minister. That is the first point of difference.
The second point concerns finance. Where a board provides or secures training facilities for overseas persons who are not employed in the industry, the expense it incurs—including any grants it makes to employers—will not be met from the levy. These expenses will be accounted for separately and will be met by the Minister, who will in his turn be reimbursed under arrangements made with the Department of Technical Co-operation, the Board of Trade or whichever other Department may have requested the training.
My Lords, I think this is a useful Amendment. This country undertakes a great deal of training which is of great value to our friends in the developing countries, and frequently, also, to the host firm in this country. The boards will be in a good position to assist with schemes of training of this sort, and it would be a great pity if the Bill were worded in such a way as to prevent this from being done. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 13, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Blakenham.)
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am sure that, certainly on this side, we all welcome this new clause. The only fault I have to find with it is that I did not think of it myself. I think it is a very good clause, and I agree with the whole intention behind it. It is certainly desirable, in relation to the emerging countries, that we should be in a position to give this training for skilled manpower which they so urgently need—even more than we do in this country. I must admit that,
48
when I have looked at the students coming over here from some of these emerging and developing countries, it has seemed to me that they tended too often to be taking courses intended to make them lawyers, rather than scientists, technologists and skilled men in the technician grades. So we certainly accept this clause as being a very desirable and worthwhile one.
The point I had intended to ask has already been adequately covered by the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham; that is, the amount of the levy. Clearly, there is to be a separate account, and clearly, too, as I understand it, the Minister himself, or some Ministry, will pay the board for the work that it does in this connection. If that is so, we will certainly support this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

PLANT VARIETIES AND SEEDS BILL [H.L.]
4.38 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendments.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill [55] as first printed for the House of Commons]
In the Title, line 14, after ("potatoes") insert ("to authorise measures to prevent injurious cross-pollination").
Clause 5, page 6, line 8, after ("including") insert ("alterations,").
Clause 5, page 6, line 29, leave out from ("If") to ("in") in line 30 and insert (", where a name is registered under this section for a plant variety, any person uses that name, or a name so nearly resembling it as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion,").
Clause 10, page 12, line 10, at end insert—
(" (a) to provide for determining in which part of Great Britain any appeal is to be heard;").
Clause 24, page 26, line 42, after ("authority") insert (", and in accordance, with the terms,").
Clause 24, page 27, line 11, leave] out ("forfeited") and insert ("liable to forfeiture under the Customs and Excise Act 1952").
Transpose Clause 24 as amended to after Clause 32 as Part IIA of the Bill.
Clause 31, page 32, line 46, leave out from ("trees") to end of line 47.
After Clause 32, insert the following new clause:
Measures to prevent injurious cross-pollination affecting crops of seeds
(" .—(1) This section shall have effect for the purpose of maintaining the purity of seed of any types and varieties of plants of any species of the genus Album, Beta or Brassica.
(2) The Minister may by order bring this section into force in an area in any part of Great Britain in which persons are engaged in growing crops of seeds of any type or variety of plant mentioned in subsection (1) of this section if he is satisfied that in that area satisfactory arrangements (whether legally enforceable or not) have been made for locating such crops so as to isolate them from crops or plants which might cause injurious cross-pollination.
(3) An order under this section—

(a) shall be made after consultation with the persons responsible for the arrangements mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, and with persons representative of such other interests as appear to the Minister to be concerned. and

(b) shall be made by statutory instrument and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order so made.

(4) An order under this section—

(a) shall state which of the types and varieties of plants mentioned in subsection (1) of this section are protected by the order, and

(b) shall specify the kinds of crops and plants which are to be controlled in the area to which the order relates, and

(c) may relate to more than one area and, if so, may make different provision under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection in respect of the different areas to which it relates;

and in this section, in relation to an area to which an order under this section relates—

(i)"protected crop" means a crop of a type or variety of plant which is protected by the order in that area, being a crop grown for the purpose of producing seeds, and

(ii) "controlled crops or plants" means crops grown for any purpose, of the types or varieties of plants which are protected by the order in that area, and such additional kinds of crops or plants, whether grown or self-sown and whether of those or any other types of varieties, as may be specified in the order for the purposes of this definition in that area.

(5) If in an area where this section is in force controlled crops or plants are growing and, on an application made in accordance with Schedule ("Cross-pollination injuring protected crops") to this Act, the Minister is satisfied—
50

(a) that they are causing or may cause injurious cross-pollination in a protected crop which is being grown in the area, and

(b) in the case of controlled crops or plants which are not self-sown, that the person growing them did not give to the persons responsible for the arrangements mentioned in subsection (2) of this section such notice of his intention to grow those crops or plants to the flowering stage as would have enabled them to take any appropriate steps for altering the arrangements,

the Minister may serve a notice on the occupier of the land where the controlled crops or plants are growing requiring him to take such steps as may be specified in the notice for the purpose of preventing any of the controlled crops or plants from causing or continuing to cause injurious cross-pollination in the protected crop.
(6) if the person served with a notice under this section does not comply with any requirement in the notice, the Minister may enter and do what that person has failed to do or, if in the opinion of the Minister that would no longer serve the purpose for which the notice was served, may take such other action as appears to the Minister appropriate for that purpose; and where, when the default occurs, further obligations remain under the notice, the Minister may also take such action as appears to him appropriate to meet the purposes for which those further obligations were imposed.
The Minister may recover from the person on whom the notice was served a sum equal to the reasonable cost incurred by the Minister in taking any action under this subsection.
(7) Without prejudice to the power of proceeding under the last foregoing subsection, a person who unreasonably fails to comply with any requirement in a notice under this section shall be liable on summary conviction—

(a) in the case of a first offence under this subsection, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and

(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence under this subsection, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.

(8) A person duly authorised by the Minister may, on production if so required of his authority, at all reasonable hours enter on any land (but not into any dwelling-house) in an area where this section is in force for the purpose of ascertaining whether controlled crops or plants are growing on the land or of inspecting and taking samples of any controlled crops or plants growing on the land.
(9) A notice under this section or Schedule ("Cross-pollination injuring protected crops") to this Act may be served by leaving it at, or sending it by post addressed to, the last known address of the person on whom it is to be served, and if it is not practicable after reasonable inquiry to ascertain his name and address, the notice may be served by addressing it to him as "the occupier" of the land and affixing it or a copy of it to some conspicuous object on the land.
(10) A person who obstructs or impedes a person acting in the exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (6) or subsection

51
(8) of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
(11) In this section, and in the said Schedule—
"the occupier" means, in the case of unoccupied land, the person entitled to occupy the land;
"protected crop" and "controlled crops or plants" have the meanings respectively assigned by subsection (4) of this section.")
Clause 37, page 35, line 11, at end insert—
("(2) References in this Act to seeds are references to seeds for sowing.")
Clause 40, page 37, line 33, leave out ("Part II") and insert ("Parts II and IIA")
Schedule 1, page 38, line 41, after ("rights") insert (", or would under sections 5(6) of this Act have been actionable in proceedings by the holder of those rights,")
Schedule 4, page 45, line 37, leave out from ("proceedings") to ("in") in line 38.
After Schedule 6, insert the following new Schedule—
("CROSS-POLLINATION INJURING PROTECTED CROPS
1. An application under section (Measures to prevent injurious cross-pollination affecting crops of seeds) of this Act seeking the issue of a notice under that section shall be in writing.
2. Before deciding whether to issue a notice in accordance with the application the Minister shall serve a notice on the occupier of the land giving him particulars of the application, and of his right to make representations in accordance with the next following paragraph.
3. The Minister shall, if requested within such time as may he specified in the notice under paragraph 2 above, afford to the applicant, and to the occupier of the land, an opportunity of appearing before and making representations to a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose.
4. In deciding whether to issue a notice in accordance with the application, and in deciding the terms of any such notice, the Minister shall have regard—

(a) to the need to maintain, in the interests of the public, the purity of the seed in question,

(b) to the degree to which the injurious cross-pollination will or may diminish the value of the protected crop or disturb arrangements made for the purpose of maintaining the purity of the seed in question, and

(c) to the value, if any, of the controlled crops or plants and the inconvenience or disturbance involved in complying with a notice.")

LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I ought first to point out a small printing error in Amendment 13, on Schedule 4. It should read, "Page 45, line 37, leave out from ('proceedings') to the first
52
('in') in line 37." The word "in" occurs twice. Before going on to move approval of these Amendments, I think it may help your Lordships if I make a few general points concerning them, and say something in a little detail about the more significant changes. They are, for the most part, drafting changes, some of them consequent upon Amendments made in your Lordships' House, which I think have improved the Bill without altering its basic provisions.
The principal change is the insertion of a new clause, Clause 33, which deals with measures to prevent injurious cross-pollination of seed crops. It will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that this has required the amendment of the Long Title, and it has also been thought logical to rearrange the clauses slightly, so that we now have four instead of three Parts of the Bill. In particular, Clause 24 has been moved back in the Bill, so that it should precede the new Clause 33. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is an appropriate Amendment.
So far as the new clause itself is concerned, your Lordships will recall that when we discussed this subject at Committee stage, on an Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, I explained that, while recognising the genuine importance of the problem and its extent, I foresaw considerable difficulties of enforcement. I am happy to say that we have been able, following intensive discussions with the interests mainly concerned, to resolve most of these difficulties. The clause as it now stands has the support, not only of the seed trade and the National Farmers' Union, but also of the National Allotments and Gardens Society, all of whom recognise the importance of high quality seed with little or no varietal impurity, and are willing to encourage their members to co-operate in a good neighbour policy.
Your Lordships will observe that the clause is a complex one. It is not simply a matter of taking powers to issue Orders, with no means of enforcement. We have to go the whole way if the purpose of safeguarding valuable seed crops is to be fulfilled. But we have tried to keep interference down to a minimum. The clause will apply only to certain seed crops in the intensive seed-growing areas, and no Order will be made by the Minister unless merchants and growers in the

53
area have first made satisfactory arrangements among themselves for the necessary isolation of seed crops. The Minister has the power to intervene in cases where there may be a danger of injurious cross-pollination from other crops in the area; but he will do so only on application and after inspection and enquiry have shown that the danger exists and that private negotiation has failed to remove the cause. I am personally very happy that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, in Committee in this House was eventually met, though not by me.
My Lords, I do not think there is anything else of any great interest in any of the Amendments. If it is to the convenience of the House I should prefer to move them en bloc, but if any other noble Lord has anything to say I shall naturally be pleased to listen.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I rise only to say that my noble friend Lord Wise is unable to he present, but that he particularly welcomes the new clause referred to by the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald. So far as my noble friend Lord Wise is concerned, having studied these Amendments, he says that they ought to be acceptable to the House, and he would be quite prepared for them to be moved and accepted en bloc.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TESTING OF NEW DRUGS
4.44 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR LORD TAYLOR rose to ask Her Majesty's Government to consider the establishment, under the Medical Research Council or elsewhere, of a central agency to organise the clinical testing of new drugs. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. Because this is an Unstarred Question, I shall not have a chance to reply to it, and that means that I shall not be able to thank noble Lords
54
who are going to take part in the debate after they have done so. May I therefore do so in advance, and thank all noble Lords who will be taking part in this debate, and say how grateful I am for their help?—I cannot say "support", because I do not know what they are going to say.
LORD LINDGREN: That is bad organisation.
LORD TAYLOR: My noble friend suggests it is bad organisation. Perhaps my organisation is better than it seems.
My Lords, the successes of commercial and academic pharmacology during the past twenty years have been quite extraordinary and have changed the lives of many millions of people all over the world, but as a result of these successes medicine and the public are now facing a situation which is really without precedent. I think it is fair to say that medicine has never had a finer lot of drugs available for the cure and relief of disease. But there is another side to the penny. Not only is more good done by drugs than ever before, but also more harm. I think this is recognised by all serious students, certainly not least by Professor Alastair Macgregor, the Regius Professor of Materia Medica and Therapeutics in the University of Aberdeen, who recently gave a lecture in Glasgow called a Maurice Block lecture, which was reprinted in the Listener: and if any of your Lordships are interested in the technical side of this problem I strongly recommend this lecture, entitled Drugs and the Community.
Now I said that drugs have done harm, but I do not think we should overestimate this. I think we want to keep the matter in proportion. We are all aware of the tragedy of thalidomide; but two years ago there was a severe epidemic of German measles, and if your Lordships will look in this week's Lancet you will see that the first letter is from a pædiatrician who describes five ghastly cases of congenital defects, similar to but not identical with those of thalidomide babies, which had occurred during the year, following German measles in the mothers. This pædiatrician goes on to calculate that the total number of malformed babies—these particular babies went blind,

55
were mentally defective, and so on—from this cause in that year may well have been greater than the total crop from thalidomide. But that does not make the situation any better: it merely gives us a little picture of the risks and difficulties we run, and enables us to see that, while we cure many more people, some suffer as a result of our efforts.
In between the great number of good drugs and the dangerous ones, there is a vast penumbra of new drugs of marginal advantage—some useful, but not very much more useful, or perhaps no more useful, than their predecessors; and some, on balance, useless. In this country we are struggling towards a national method of dealing with the effects of all this pharmaceutical and pharmacological activity, and here I should like to pay a tribute, first, to my noble friend Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, who, on a series of committees, has done great work in this particular respect. In particular, one of his committees has been concerned with the classification of drugs for the benefit of doctors, and year by year his committee has classified new drugs, as they have come out, into five categories.
These categories are designated by letters. The trouble is that I can never remember which letter is which, but in fact they are as follows: "N" are the jolly good ones—"N" for "new" drugs of proved value. My noble friend will correct me if I am wrong, I know. Then, "S" drugs are those similar to standard pharmacopoeia preparations; and "P" are new drugs which look good but are not yet fully proved. So "P" is for "possibles", one might say. Then, "O" are new drugs of little or no value; and "H" are mixtures of "O" with other things: so you can say that the "O's" and the "H's" are really out. This has not prevented the successful, although usually temporary, sale of certain drugs in the "O" and "H" categories, but I think it is fair to say that when drugs have an "O" or an "H" after or before their names, this, in the long run, has meant a death blow to those products. Although I understand my noble friend has retired from this particular Committee, I think this work is going on—at least, I hope so,
56
because the value to the medical profession of this simple classification of new drugs has been very great.
My second tribute is to something the Ministry of Health have done to help. They have prepared a little journal called the Prescribers' Journal. This little book goes out to every doctor throughout the land in the National Health Service—and others can buy it—and it gives us absolutely unbiased information about the new drugs. It is first-class material, and has been going out since 1961. I value it immensely, as I am sure do most of my colleagues. I hope they all read it. Each month this journal takes three or four new drugs or conditions and gives us helpful advice about what is really useful. So my second tribute would be to the Prescribers' Journal and to the Ministry of Health for producing it.
The third tribute (and here, perhaps, not all my noble friends will agree) is to the pharmacological industry itself. Noble Lords will know of Professor Alastair Macgregor, the gentleman who gave the lecture at Glasgow, and who reminded us that, of all the valuable antibiotics now available to doctors, only two—penicillin and streptomycin—came out of a university, or noncommercial, laboratory. All the rest came out of commercial laboratories, and were the achievement of the commercial pharmacological industry. So I do not think we should belittle the industry, even if some of us may sometimes criticise its commercial methods.
There are at least five stages in the development of new drugs. First, there is the chemical elaboration or extraction of the new compounds. This is the pure laboratory work and may involve testing the compounds against germs in vitro in the laboratory. The second stage is to test the new drug on animals, first to ascertain its pharmacological activity (that is to say, what it does to the animal, whether it makes its stomach more or less acid, and so on) and, secondly, if the animal be infected with a disease, what effect the drug has; and, at the same time, whether the drug is poisonous to the animal and, if so, how much is required to produce a poisonous effect. It is worth while remembering that almost every substance can be poisonous if enough of it is taken. Even water

57
can be poisonous, if you take enough of it; and certainly common salt can quite easily be so. So there is an optimum amount of everything; and while "a little of what you fancy" may do you good, too much can prove fatal. That is the second phase: the testing of drugs on animals.
The third phase when a new drug is produced is to test it on ordinary human beings for toxicity, to see whether it is poisonous to them. This test is usually carried out on the laboratory staff. The fourth phase consists of the clinical trials to assess whether the drug has any use as a cure and, if so, whether it is superior to existing drugs. It is to this phase of the process that I am drawing particular attention this evening. In the course of this phase the doctors watch out for any further sign that the drug is toxic and dangerous; and, if it is, they will at once deal with this. The final phase is the assessment of all the information made available by the results of the chemical tests in the laboratories, the animal tests, the human tests, and the tests on patients which lead to the recommendations to the industry and the profession on the therapeutic value and safety of the new drug.
I do not know how many of your Lordships have read Robert Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy; but those who have will recall that he once said that "Marriage is a lottery with twenty blanks to one prize". Well, my Lords, pharmacological research is a lottery where the ratio is approximately 4,000 blanks to one prize. Probably 4,000 new drugs are synthesised for every one that emerges as really useful in medical practice. Of that 4,000, about 400 pass stage "B"; that is, the stage of the testing on laboratory animals. And of the 400 that have some apparent value and are ready for human experimentation, only one will prove worth while. So, behind each successful drug, there are 3,999 which have failed to make the grade. This is some measure of the labour, disappointment and heartbreak that goes on behind the scenes in the scientific pharmacological industry.
Of the five stages which I have described, only the last one—the assessment of all the experimental findings—is a committee job. To do this (I think I am correct in saying this; but no
58
doubt the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead and the noble Lord, Lord Newton, will correct me if I am wrong), there are at least two Committees currently engaged in this process. First of all, there is the Cohen Committee, or its successor—I do not know the name of the chairman of the successor committee, or its correct title. Secondly, there is the new Dunlop Committee on the Safety of Drugs. I think I am right in saying that this Committee issued its first report on the safety of a group of drugs only this week.
This Committee has sub-committees to review certain matters. First of all, it looks at drugs before they are used for clinical treatment; in other words, it assesses the toxicity as a result of the animal tests and tests on normal human beings before allowing the drug to be used on patients. My Lords, I have said "before allowing it to be used". But, of course, this is a voluntary committee, and therefore it is not absolutely mandatory on the drug industry to submit their drugs to the Committee. However I think they will increasingly do so—at least, I hope so. Secondly, it has a subcommittee for assessing the results of clinical trials; and, thirdly, it has a sub-committee for studying the reports of adverse reactions to drugs after they have been released. Some people felt that this should be a compulsory process; that all drugs should compulsorily go through this Dunlop Committee. But the Government have decided otherwise, and at the moment I am not going to criticise that particular decision. I am going to say that I think the weak link in the chain is the organisation for clinical testing, for the actual testing of a drug on patients. I propose to elaborate this matter a little to show why I think this is the weak link in the chain.
Your Lordships will recall the Hinchliffe Report of 1959. Paragraphs 261 to 266 deal with the question of clinical trials of drugs, and the Report says, among other things:
"The present arrangements for the organisation and interpretation of independent clinical trials and for the publication of results are inadequate."
That indicates the importance of early clinical trials, the testing of new drugs on patients as quickly as possible. That is obvious because, first of all, if they are any good, we want to get them

59
going as quickly as possible; and, secondly, if they get going, the manufacturers want to start making them and selling them as quickly as possible because they have spent a lot of money on research and development.
The Hinchliffe Report went on:
"Early clinical trial not only for those for which new therapeutic effects are claimed but also for minor improvements on existing drugs".
And
"Hospital authorities should encourage clinical trials."
Then they discussed how these should be organised and made two suggestions, on page 82. The first was that the trials should he done by or through the Medical Research Council, which in fact does do some clinical trials but not very many; and, secondly, that they should be done through various professional bodies—the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Surgeons, the College of General Practitioners and the British Medical Association. The Report did not come out firmly in favour of either of these methods and left it at that.
I think that I am right in saying that not much has happened about this particular problem. On January 23 of this year there was a symposium in London of the Association of Medical Advisers to the Pharmaceutical Industry, which repeated the plea that something should be done about this problem of clinical trials. They said that it was five years since the Hinchliffe Report was published, and asked why no move had been made to help them to make certain that clinical trials were done.
Why are clinical trials necessary, your Lordships may ask? Why cannot we just do them on animals? The answer is that they just do not work on animals. Sometimes animals give the wrong results, which may be even misleading and certainly can be quite unreliable when it comes to studying safety. For instance, one of the safest drugs is penicillin. Yet if penicillin had been tried only on guinea-pigs we should have reached the conclusion that it was an extremely dangerous drug because it happens to be toxic to guinea-pigs. Your Lordships are familiar with thalidomide. No amount of clinical testing on pregnant dogs, cats, rats, mice or hamsters would
60
show any adverse effect. It does not produce what are called teratological effects, which means changes in the embryo, in these animals. It produces such changes in the embryo only if fed to a pregnant rabbit or a pregnant human being.
This problem of drugs which affect the human embryo is virtually insoluble at the moment because we do not know whether a drug is liable to do this if it is administered during pregnancy. We have had some pretty stern warnings administered to the medical profession by those in authority about trying out new drugs early in pregnancy, and I think that we should be very careful about this. There is a drug called hydroxyurea, which is a simple sort of compound, but which turns out to be one of the most teratogenic of the lot. Yet hydroxyurea is a very simple compound, which is extremely harmless and which can he taken in enormous quantities. We just cannot tell, even with clinical testing, because it would be quite impossible to do clinical tests on pregnant human beings. We have just to be very careful indeed about what is used in the early months of pregnancy.
There was a spendid example of the fallacy of animal tests as compared with human tests in The Times on February 28. It is a description of how a doctor set out to find a short-acting barbiturate which would produce unconsciousness and then, when one stopped giving the drug, the patient would come round. He found such a drug. He tried it on a doctor and it worked perfectly. The article says:
"The sequel is best told in the author's own words. ' With high optimism, and the collaboration of the department of anæsthesia, the new barbiturate was given by slow infusion to a doctor volunteer until anæsthesia was achieved. We then sat back and waited for signs of anæsthesia to disappear.
'Two days later we were not really concerned except that the subject was not yet awake and was expected home for dinner. … We had discovered the most long-lasting barbiturate of all time—in man '."
It is just impossible to predict from animal experiments what can happen to a human being. There is no escape from the necessity of clinical trials.
Clinical trials present considerable organisational difficulties. It is easy enough with diseases that are fatal, because we can tell how long a patient

61
lives and can compare that with other patients who do not have the particular drug. But it is much more difficult for non-fatal conditions, where improvement is subjective, is in the feelings of the patients or in complaints, as of rheumatism, which are hard to measure. The answer has been found out. It is the use of matched controls—that is to say, the use of two lots of patients in every way similar, one group of whom receives, not the drug, but something that looks exactly like it, and the other group who receive the drug. Moreover, the testing must be by what is called the double blind technique; that is to say, neither the patients nor the doctors who are giving the drug must know which patients are getting which, otherwise the power of suggestion comes in and the whole test is valueless. So this double blind technique with controls series is essential, with the statistical assessment of results.
All this is technically easy enough, but it takes a lot of organising, and in a majority of cases the results are bound to be negative and therefore it is rather dreary work. Without this elaborate organisation, clinical trials are valueless. It is fair to say that, if a drug is worth testing at all, it is worth testing properly. There are three factors necessary. The first is the willingness of the patients to co-operate in the test. And let me say that the enormous majority of patients are willing to co-operate in these tests, if the thing is fully and properly explained to them. The second is a sufficient number of patients suffering from the appropriate complaint. The third is willingness on the part of the doctor.
Relatively few doctors are in fact willing to undertake these double blind, properly controlled, therapeutic trials because of the extra volume of work involved, because they have not the assistance and because of lack of time. Still fewer of them have enough patients to make the results worth having. So the drug firms have to set out and find doctors who are willing to do this. I am assured that the hunt becomes ever more difficult, though not apparently so difficult in Scotland as in England.
The first suggestion which I would make is that there should be a panel of doctors who are both competent and willing to carry out such tests. The size
62
of the panel, I think, will depend on there being some financial reward for the work done, because in some cases it may need the employment of extra secretarial or extra medical help. In the United States, I gather, it is usual to pay doctors to have these therapeutic trials, and the payment per trial, I am told, is of the order of 10,000 to 15,000 dollars—that is, £3,000 to £5,000. Here we should say it is quite wrong for the payment to be made from the drug firm to the doctor, and this would at once introduce an element of bias into the situation which might upset the results. That is one of the reasons why I feel there needs to be some impartial buffer body between the drug firms and the doctors. I suggest that such a body might be called a Therapeutic Trials Board, and comprise a board of scientific integrity.
I do not see why on earth the drug firms should not pay to have this work done for them, and pay reasonably and properly, rather than make small donations to hospitals, which I cannot regard as a proper return for doing this work; and they should pay either individually or by levy. I suggest that such a body should build up a register of a panel of doctors and institutions where these tests can be done, to receive the drugs for testing; that they should allocate them, pay for the test, and publish the results.
At the moment, the initial toxicity of the drug is assessed by the Dunlop Committee. That could continue perfectly well, and a drug would not normally go for clinical trial unless it had been to that Committee. Whether this should be done compulsorily or should be available as a voluntary service, I do not know. I personally would prefer to know that all drugs were properly tested in this way, but I can see objections to it, at any rate at first.
I am not sure—and the nature of my Question makes it clear that I am not—whether this organisation which I have suggested should be located under the Medical Research Council or under the Ministry of Health. The Medical Research Council has, I think, carried out the best clinical tests that have been done anywhere, but they have been very slow indeed about it. They have been most thorough, but slow. Here we want

63
something which will operate with businesslike efficiency, and would be a fair return to the pharmaceutical industry for financing the thing. But there was under the Medical Research Council for 21 years an organisation which operated with businesslike efficiency, and in fact still does under the Ministry of Health: I refer to the Public Health Laboratory Service. That grew up during the war, and a few years ago we participated in its transfer to its own board under the Ministry of Health. I should very much like to see the Therapeutic Trials Board under the Medical Research Council at first, and then perhaps being transferred to the Ministry of Health. I do not mind how it is done, so long as it is done.
There are certain technical problems. The first is the problem of secrecy. When a manufacturer has a new drug he does not want all his rivals to know about it, particularly until it has been tested. Once it has been tested and he knows it is good and he is starting to market it, then they are bound to know about it. There is a legitimate secrecy. So clearly the doings of such a board would have to be conducted discreetly vis-à-vis the different manuacturers. The second thing is the volume of drugs which would be produced and tested. My own guess is that if we had a really good organisation for carrying out these clinical tests, which everybody knew was absolutely and ruthlessly honest, then this would itself reduce the number of drugs submitted for tests. Although there may he 500 new preparations coming forward every year now, I think that relatively few absolutely useless products would be submitted, particularly if there were a fair fee; and certainly, if the procedure were compulsory, they would not be submitted at all.
I know that some of my noble friends think there is no problem here and that genuine advances can always get tested. Well, I think there may be something in that view; but I also feel there is something in the view that I have advanced. It is true that when one pharmaceutical firm strikes a winner, as it were, by finding some good new drug, its rivals start trying out minor variants by just altering the OH group here or the CO group there, trying to find something which just is not covered
64
by the patent, but is equally effective, or even slightly better. That is a game called in the trade "molecular roulette". There is no harm in it. It may not be very valuable, but they may strike something even more remarkable, so one must not discount "molecular roulette".
I myself am fairly satisfied (I know that if I am wrong I shall be told so in the course of this debate) that there is a real and substantial problem here, and I think we ought to be looking at it and doing something about it, particularly because I am sure that as this century goes on we are going to get more and more of these complicated new drugs coming forward for testing. The sooner we get a good machine for doing it quickly, the better. If we do not do this, we are going to waste great volumes of human effort by using drugs which have been improperly tested; we are going to add to human misery by using drugs which have been improperly tested and which may be less efficient than existing drugs; and, incidentally, we are going to reduce the efficiency of our own doctors and add to the nation's drugs bill. So I am not at all diffident in asking my Question, and I hope that we shall receive from the noble Lord, if not a complete answer, at least a helpful answer for the future.
5.18 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has covered the ground so fully that there is not a great deal for me to say, but I should like to follow him on one or two points, and add just a few words about them. First, I would say how much I agree with the things he said to start with. I am particularly pleased that he mentioned the Prescribers' Journal, because the editor is one of my colleagues at the medical institution where I work and an old friend of mine.
I should like to talk about the difficulty that the ordinary doctor has in carrying out clinical trials; because at one time, when I was younger and not so experienced as I am now, I undertook several of these trials for various pharmaceutical firms. With the normal staff one has working at a hospital one finds such trials quite impracticable. I found, in the first place, that it took a long time—several months. But had one wished, it could have taken even

65
longer. It depended on the number of patients available. An enormous amount of time was spent by the various members of my staff doing the extra work for me, and when it came to the end one was still not satisfied that the job had been done as well as one would have liked. So I am afraid that what I do now, if I am approached by one of the pharmaceutical industries to carry out a therapeutic trial, is to say that it is quite impossible, and I turn the offer down. That seems to me a great pity, because one would like to do what one can to help people who are manufacturing drugs which may further the end towards which one is working.
Therefore, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, suggested: that the money for these trials might come from the pharmaceutical industry itself. The industry wants the trials done, and it will be greatly to its advantage if they can be done properly. I would favour a different method from that adopted in the United States. I do not think I would pay the doctor who is in charge of the trial anything at all: the work would be part of the normal work he is doing at his hospital. But because he would need to engage extra staff for the work, money should be provided for that staff. Here again, I think it would not be possible for the hospital itself to undertake the bother of engaging the staff, and I believe that it would be a good thing if it were possible for the pharmaceutical industry to run some kind of a pool of staff, of trained and experienced people who could visit various hospitals where these trials were to be done. That, I think, would be one way—I do not say the only way —of solving a certain number of the big problems involved.
Then the second point comes up: what are we going to do to spread the knowledge we have? Because the point about these trials is that people should know whether these drugs are effective and safe—not only whether they are safe, but that they are also effective. That, I think, is where the new Dunlop Committee could do quite a lot. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said that they produced one little report on a group of drugs—a report which seemed to me to be very well done—
66
to explain, quite shortly, what are the dangers associated with the drugs in question. One of the troubles for the average doctor with these new drugs is that, as has been said often enough before, we have an enormous amount of advertisements sent to us. I am afraid that some people just tear them up before opening them. I at least used to look at the cover on taking it out of the envelope before tearing it up, but I can quite see that one might well miss some warnings that were given, unless they were in a form which enabled one to recognise immediately that they came from an authoritative body such as the Dunlop Committee. Such a document would be immediately recognisable on opening one's mail in the morning. One would say, "That is something I must read", whereas the others could go straight into the waste paper basket. That seems to me to be one way of getting the knowledge of these drugs spread rather more widely.
I do not want to go into details about various drugs. There has been some correspondence about various drugs at the present time, but I do not think it would serve any purpose if I were to repeat it to your Lordships. It merely goes to show that in dealing, as we are now, with strong, powerful and dangerous drugs, which have been made in increasing numbers and are being supplied to patients in increasing numbers, unless clinical trials are undertaken with care and skill, we must expect the occasional catastrophe to arise. That is why I should like most strongly to support this plea for the clinical trial. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has rightly said, trials cannot be done by laboratory work or animal work. You can do preliminary work on them, but if you are going to deal with patients the final need is to try the drug upon the human patient. You should not, if you are careful in your laboratory and animal work, get a great deal going wrong with your trials; but even then, with the best will in the world and in the best possible conditions of all, you may find the occasional catastrophe happening, because we do not know what is going on. Therefore, the sooner we can have some proper machinery made available by the Medical Research Council and the pharmaceutical industrv—I do not mind what

67
it is, but done, I think, by the reputable doctors themselves, working in reputable institutions—the sooner we shall be sure that these totally unnecessary but, at the present moment, almost inevitable tragedies do not occur.
5.26 p.m.
LORD COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, may I, at the outset, express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for his graceful and generous tribute to the Joint Committee on the Classification of Proprietary Preparations which, during the last fourteen years, I have had the privilege of chairing? I shall tell the noble Lord a little later what is its successor. I fully realise that the noble Lord's Question is intended to try to ensure that the maximum safety of drugs will he achieved when they are used for therapeutic purposes. He therefore suggests in his Question that the responsibility for clinical trials should rest with the Medical Research Council or with a Central Agency which will organise the testing of these new drugs. He referred to the Dunlop Committee. Perhaps I might be permitted to recapitulate the history of the Dunlop Committee.
Your Lordships may remember that the public unrest which followed the thalidomide tragedy led to the establishing of a Committee called the Safety of Drugs Joint Committee by the Central Health Services Council in this country and the Scottish Health Services Council, to advise the Government on what measures might be taken to try to ensure the safety of drugs. I was Chairman of that Committee, which recommended that there should be a parent or main Committee which would have three subcommittees, the first dealing with pharmacology—that is, the animal reactions to drugs and the toxicity of drugs in the laboratory; secondly, clinical trials to indicate immediate safety of a drug and its therapeutic efficacy, and, thirdly, a Committee on adverse reactions, because we know that many drugs which appear to be safe, do in the course of time reveal certain undesirable reactions in patients which must be taken into account in prescribing the drug.
The Safety of Drugs Committee, which established the Dunlop Committee,
68
recommended—and I shall deal with this a little later—that the Clinical Trials Sub-Committee of the Dunlop Committee should assess clinical trials, the organisation of which the Safety of Drugs Committee thought should be left (as indeed it had suggested in its Interim Report) together with the toxicity trials, as a responsibility of the manufacturers. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will know the composition of the Clinical Trials Sub-Committee, and I think he will agree that it has an unrivalled expert membership. I do not wish to detail this now: it has already been published. The noble Lord referred to the lecture by Professor Alastair Macgregor, who was a member of the original classification committee. I am sure the noble Lord will be reassured to hear that in relation to the recommendations of the Safety Drugs Committee, under my Chairmanship, this is what Professor Macgregor said in his lecture:
"These are eminently sensible recommendations and the majority of the Committee have felt that although these arrangements will ultimately require legislative sanction they should, nevertheless, be introduced as soon as possible without waiting for legislation, although these interim measures should not be regarded as any justification for delaying a comprehensive review of the whole legislative field."
If the recommendations of the Safety of Drugs Committee are to be comprehended, I think it is necessary for me to stress certain basic facts. The first relates to the concept of the safety of a drug. No drug is wholly free from any hazard. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has referred to the fact that water itself is capable of producing toxic effects in man, and many of the most commonly used drugs may, in certain susceptible individuals, show significant deleterious effects. The homely aspirin can produce stomach bleeding and can give rise to asthma. Only six weeks ago there was a report of a coroner's inquest in Dereham, in Norfolk, in which an unfortunate individual who had been prescribed two tablets of aspirin by his doctor had succumbed. He was a known sensitive aspirin subject, but, unfortunately, the doctor was new and was not fully aware of this sensitivity. Phenacetin, which I suppose over the last 20 or 30 years has been a regular constituent of practically every headache powder or tablet, is now known to

69
cause, when administered continuously, significantly serious effects on the kidney, which can lead to kidney failure. The ordinary bicarbonate of soda that one takes for wind can produce grave renal damage leading to uraedemia.
These are dangers that might follow the use of any drug, and therefore it is important to stress that no drug is without some hazard; that the safety of a drug is a relative and not an absolute quality of the drug, and that whether a drug is safe for human use depends on many factors. It depends on the constitution of the individual. Many of us are curiously constituted and we react abnormally to simple drugs. It depends on the dose. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will remember that prussic acid was once used in the treatment of gastric disorders. Your Lordships know that it can be used for other purposes. The fact is that it is the dose which determines whether or not a drug is a poison, and that is why slogans about certain preparations, such as "Fluoride is poison", are significantly misleading; because it depends entirely on the amount which is taken. For these reasons we think in terms of a "margin of safety" for drugs. There is the dose which will produce a therapeutic effect, and the dose which is toxic; and the wider the margin of safety, the more reliable the drug is for human use.
The duration of treatment, of course, also affects the action of drugs. Some drugs accumulate in the body and can be used for short periods only. Some drugs must be used in excessive doses to try to reverse a disease process, but if continued may prove to have serious adverse effects. Again, the safety of a drug is related to the purpose for which it is being used. You must not tolerate any toxic effect in a mild hypnotic or a mild antacid tablet, but you can tolerate a toxic effect in a drug which is used for a very grave disease. For example, before the advent of chloramphenecol (chloromycetin), the death rate from typhoid was about 20 per cent. We know that chloramphenecol does, in certainly not more than one in 10,000 patients, produce a grave anæmia but we still use chloramphenecol in the treatment of typhoid, because the hazards of the disease are much greater than the hazards of the drug.
70
This is, after all, what Hippocrates taught us over 2,000 years ago: that desperate diseases require desperate remedies. That is why, when anyone is assessing the therapeutic efficacy of a drug, he must take into account also the indication for the drug. I might remind your Lordships that the reason why thalidomide was introduced was that thalidomide was a relatively non-toxic drug, so far as its action on animals and human beings was concerned; the ordinary person can take 50 or 60 times the hypnotic dose of thalidomide without its producing any deleterious effects. When there were in this country hundreds of cases each year of suicide from barbiturate poisoning, there was no wonder that thalidomide (or Distaval, which was its proprietary name) caught on and was extensively used. It was dropped as soon as its deleterious effects were recognised. I think the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has spoken quite objectively about the effects of thalidomide, that they could not be avoided, although I think that, with our present mechanism of recording adverse reactions, we should recognise them sooner.
The noble Lord then referred to the question of new drugs. The Committee which I chaired had to deal, on an average, with about 300 new drugs per annum; but, of course, 75 per cent. of these are not new drugs in any strict sense of the word "new". They have no novelty about them; they are slight modifications of existing drugs. The noble Lord spoke of "molecular roulette". The fact is that these can also well be called "me-too" drugs, because the manufacturer who has produced a very good drug soon has on his heels other manufacturers who wish to produce something similar. As the noble Lord said, they make slight modifications, to avoid certain litigation on patent law, and they then produce the drug. That is why I suppose there are to-day about 25 anti-histamines, 45 tranquillisers and 30 diuretics, all of the chlorothiazide group. It is not because each one of these is an absolutely new, satisfactory drug, but because one repeats the other. And I am doubtful whether we shall see any reduction on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, unless a recommendation that I shall make a little later is adopted. The fact

71
is that only 6 or 7 per cent. of new drugs have some chemical structure which is without precedent in therapeutics or have a promising novel therapeutic action, and only half a dozen of these are significant advances in therapeutics each year. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, some of these drugs have undergone clinical trials by the Medical Research Council. I have taken part in several of these trials, and I have, in fact chaired the Committees which have dealt with all the cortisone series, which the noble Lord will know; others were penicillin in sub-acute bacterial endocarditis; streptomycin in tuberculosis, and streptomycin associated with other anti-tuberculous drugs to try to diminish the likelihood of the emergence of resistant strains of tubercule bacilli.
It is proper that the Medical Research Council should undertake this work, because it requires co-ordination of a very large number of centres, and not infrequently some of the facts are in dispute. But do not let the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, think that this will necessarily increase the rate of turnover of new drugs or diminish the rate at which we shall have replies to our questions about new drugs. I would only remind the noble Lord that anti-coagulants are still the centre of a great battlefield; that there are strong proponents of anticoagulants, and there are the antagonists who regard anti-coagulants as rat poison and the like. The Medical Research Council has had its own committees on this matter. The result really is that no definitive view can be expressed at this stage; it will doubtless appear that the drug might have a value in certain cases but not in others, and the difficulty has clearly been the selection of appropriate cases. My view—and I will explain in a moment why the Safety of Drugs Committee came to this conclusion—is that although the Medical Research Council might undertake them at times, organised trials are not a proper function of the Medical Research Council; nor do I think, indeed, that it is practicable.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, my noble friend is not, I take it, referring to the organised trials which he has just mentioned
72
as having been done by the Medical Research Council?
LORD COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD: I am referring to all organised clinical trials—that is to say, the clinical trials about which the noble Lord has spoken in relation to all drugs, and I say that it is not a proper function of the Medical Research Council to undertake this: the Council's function is essentially research. And it is impracticable, because of the amount of work involved and because it is not the best way of doing it, as I hope to convince the noble Lord in a moment.
May I just read what the Safety of Drugs Committee's proposals were'?—I am quoting paragraphs 20 and 21. Paragraph 20 says:
"The responsibility for arranging clinical trials should lie with the manufacturer. In some special cases the Medical Research Council might be prepared to arrange these trials; in others university or hospital departments or individual consultants may accept responsibility for the trials."
Then paragraph 21 says:
"There should be an independent objective assessment of clinical trials."
That, of course, is the independent assessment which will he undertaken by the Dunlop Committee's Clinical Trials Sub-Committee. The noble Lord is prepared to allow toxicity and pharmacological tests to remain with the manufacturer and to allow the Dunlop Committee to assess them.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord is muddling me a little, because he has been concerned far more with toxicity than with therapeutical efficiency. I have been all the time stressing that what I wanted assessed was therapeutical efficiency. Toxicity is admittedly important, but I am perfectly happy to have toxicity assessed by the Dunlop Committee on the result of animal tests and on the result of therapeutic trials. My concern is to get proper therapeutic trials for the assessment of therapeutic efficiency.
LORD COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD: I hope I shall be able to satisfy the noble Lord's impatience. If he wishes, I will deal with what I think the organisation of clinical trials should be. The Safety of Drugs Committee recommended (and this was accepted by the Government) that the organisation of

73
clinical trials, like the organisation of toxicological and pharmacological tests, should remain with the manufacturers. I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to elaborate what he said of the stages of a clinical trial. The clinical trial is not a simple thing. It is true that an early stage is that after the drug has passed its appropriate toxicological tests in the laboratory it should be given to human volunteers not only to see whether it is toxic but to examine in man the metabolism of the drug; that is to say, to examine through what changes it passes in the body of man, because this is often a very good indication of the similarity of the changes in man and animal.
The second stage is a pilot trial, and this is of the utmost importance. It is a trial, rightly, as the noble Lord has said, carried out with the knowledge of the patients who are in the trial, and it is on a very limited number in order that we may establish the probable safety of the drug in disease, and its possible therapeutic promise. The results of this pilot trial may indicate that there should be further animal tests—in the laboratory of the manufacturers who have undertaken the original toxicological and pharmacological tests. It may indicate that there is a need to modify the drug, to modify its formulation, to try to ensure that it does not deteriorate in a relatively short time, and so forth. In other words, the whole armamentarium of the pharmacological laboratories of the manufacturer must be brought into use during this pilot trial and there must be repeated and frequent communication and consultation between the clinicians carrying out the trial and the manufacturers themselves. This is vital to the success of the pilot trial, and that is why it is necessary to leave that in the hands of the manufacturer also.
In relation to the full-scale clinical trial, here again the Safety of Drugs Committee, I think rightly, recommended that early clinical trial on a full scale should be carried out only at a couple of centres or so. Nowadays there is too often a tendency to disseminate the drug widely and let it be tried on a wide scale, but in that way you might encounter too many hazards, you might have taken too great a risk. After all, in the United States some 1,270 doctors were provided with thalidomide and over
74
20,000 patients were given the drug because the drug was disseminated in that way. Then, provided you have a promising pilot trial and an adequate clinical trial with proper controls, clearly you can have a more extensive trial with adequate numbers. There is another reason why it is important to leave this with the manufacturer—it is a point which the noble Lord mentioned—and that is that we should minimise delay. It is much quicker to communicate directly with manufacturers than it is with any central organisation.
Is there any real difficulty in arranging for clinical trials? I have had a long experience of this matter and I will tell your Lordships of it. I am sure manufacturers would agree there is no difficulty in arranging for clinical trial of a product which has promise of a major, significant therapeutic advance. And it is no use having a panel as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, suggested for this, because the drug must be tried by those who are most expert in a particular field, and your panel may not include such an expert. For example, if there is a drug for use in a grave disease, such as cancer of the uterus, you want an expert in that field.
There may be, for reasons which I shall mention in a moment, some difficulty about the clinical trials of those marginal products to which the noble Lord has referred in his "molecular roulette", because doctors do not want to waste time undertaking clinical trials of drugs which are of only marginal significance. But if the noble Lord would look at the Hinchliffe Report again he will find that the Hinchliffe Committee recommended that there should be a body to which manufacturers might turn in order that they might have advice, if they wished to seek it, on the organisation of clinical trials and where they might be carried out.
The Ministry of Health in its wisdom, or otherwise, extended the terms of reference of the Joint Committee for the Classification of Proprietary Preparations which had long experience, so that this Committee would be prepared to advise manufacturers on clinical trails. That was in 1960. Until the time when I retired from the chairmanship of the Joint Committee, which was three years

75
later, there were only three requests from manufacturers for advice on clinical trials; they were all for preparations which had had earlier clinical trials in which it had been found that these preparations had no proved therapeutic value. So I am still a little dubious as to whether there is a grave difficulty in finding opportunities for the carrying out of clinical trials, except on drugs which have, it may be, only marginally significant differences; and we in fact know—the noble Lord will, I am sure, agree—that most of these marginal differences do not add to the value of the drugs.
May I mention also that when these trials are carried out, the reports come to the Dunlop Committee's sub-committee on clinical trials, and it is that Committee's responsibility to ensure that the trial has been properly organised by experts, that it is of the right size, of the right duration, covering a sufficiently adequate section of the population and so forth. They may then find that there is evidence of hazards, of complications, of side effects, and they may wish that the trial be held for a further period of time, or the drug used only in hospital or on special prescriptions, rather than freed to the general public. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that this is a big, but it is not an insuperable, task.
Over the fourteen years for which I have chaired the Joint Committee we assessed 8,000 drugs, because in the early days we had to deal with many which were on the market and so our task at that time was gigantic. In the last six or seven years we have assessed approximately 300 drugs each year. There is only one of those drugs—I would challenge the noble Lord, if he knows of others, to tell me of them—in which the assessment went wrong and that was because we had inadequate information. That drug was, of course, thalidomide. In 1958, thalidomide was issued in this country. Its protocol was presented to the Cohen Committee which assessed it, and they said that this was a drug of proved therapeutic value. It was in 1962, after the effect of thalidomide in the production of neuritis and of fœtal deformities had been published that the Food and Drugs Administration of the
76
United States did not agree to the release of the drug. But I can tell the noble Lord if he so wishes, that there were certain drugs that the Food and Drugs Administration of the United States—this vast organisation costing millions of dollars a year which leaves the organisation of clinical trials to the manufacturers—passed which the Cohen Committee refused to pass as of proved therapeutic value.
Having said that, may I just make this quite clear. The Dunlop Committee will, and I think rightly, not express a view on the relative values of drugs; it will only say whether the drugs are or are not of proved therapeutic value, and it relies on the doctor's own judgment in prescribing for individual patients what he feels is necessary for them. After all, this is a fundamental tenet of the National Health Service. One of the earliest Committees over which I presided said that doctors should be allowed to prescribe any drug which they wished for their patients, provided that they can justify its prescription. It seems to me that this is proper.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: How, without test?
LORD COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD: I am sorry; I did not hear the noble Earl's intervention.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I was wondering how, without test?
LORD COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD: I did not hear it even then, I am afraid; it may be my fault. But this, of course, does carry a corollary. It means that the doctor must keep himself aware, in these days of virtually explosive changes in his therepeutic armamentarium, of the uses and abuses of drugs. That is why the Prescribers' Journal, and the British Medical Journal with its weekly treatment article, are giving such valuable service, and why there must be more Chairs for clinical therapeutics and clinical pharmacology in our universities, because what is important is the educational aspect. Drugs which are of inestimable value in the prevention of crippling, and indeed in saving life, can themselves be extremely dangerous, indeed lethal, if they are improperly used.
Now I come to the point which I think is of the utmost importance. Your

77
Lordships may recall that the Safety of Drugs Committee had two dissentient members. They were both pharmacists, who said that it is useless relying on voluntary controls; we must have legislation. The Safety of Drugs Committee itself said that there must be legislation as soon as possible, that this is urgent and no interim measures will justify unnecessary delay; but that voluntary measures can help, provided that the pharmaceutical manufacturers and the doctors are prepared to play. I am delighted to say that the pharmaceutical manufacturers, as represented by the Association of British Pharmaceutical industry and the Proprietary Association of Great Britain, who together are responsible for about 90 per cent. of all the drugs which are manufactured and marketed in this country, have agreed that they will accept the advice of the Dunlop Committee and will act upon it.
That leaves 5 to 10 per cent. of drugs produced by the "black sheep" of the pharmaceutical industry, and of course it takes no account of the drugs which are imported, say, from North America or from Europe. That is why the Safety of Drugs Committee said there must be legislation, that legislation on the whole subject is urgently required, and they emphasised that its proposed interim measures should not be regarded as a justification for delaying this essential measure.
It is well known amongst those who are interested in this subject that there has been an Inter-Departmental Working Party considering this "tortuous and ungodly jumble" of the laws which are concerned with pharmacy and therapeutic agents, and that this Inter-Departmental Working Party has not issued a Report. It seems to me that the most urgent task of prime importance of Her Majesty's Government in this field is to complete their proposed consolidation of, and improvement in, the legislation to embrace the Safety of Drugs Committee's recommendation that there shall he these Committees—such as the Dunlop Committee now on a voluntary basis—that shall be made statutory; that the quality of drugs and their purity, now the responsibility of the British Pharmacopœia Commission, should be made a statutory responsibility of Government, and that indeed there shall be continuing surveillance to guard against
78
long-term, adverse reactions and such matters as deterioration in quality, the regulation of promotional literature, the labelling of containers and the like. I believe that such legislation will prevent the marketing of drugs, wherever they are manufactured, which have not been approved for quality, safety and efficiency, and that therefore we shall have established an effective control. But there will still remain the responsibility, and it is a heavy one, which lies with the practitioner who prescribes these drugs.
6.0 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, this Unstarred Question set down by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has performed a most useful function; but whether its timing is quite right is open to doubt. I say this in the light of what has been said in this Chamber about the development of the effect of the Dunlop Committee. As time goes on, it is clear that its effect will become more pronounced and easier to assess. As to the timing of this debate, it is fair that I should say that I am sorry that the Question was moved forward from last Thursday, because I know of at least one other noble Lord who would have been present on that occasion and who would have liked to take part in it to-day. Be that as it may, any step that will contribute to an advance in the field of medicine is a step worth taking. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on avoiding an attack on the pharmaceutical industry—an attack which has become almost a ritual in some quarters. It makes my task easier and, your Lordships will be glad to hear, my speech shorter.
I am not abashed that I should be one among technicians to address your Lordships on this subject, because, although the issue is a narrow one and very largely a medical one, the industry is involved, as, indeed, has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. Consequently, I feel that the debate would be unbalanced without a contribution from someone with experience such as mine. This leads me to make the declaration which I usually do on these occasions: my interest as chairman of a group of pharmaceutical companies which form part of a larger group. And again, as usual, I would add the fact that, although I am not a pharmacist or chemist, I take

79
pride in being concerned with this reputable, important and vital industry, despite the current mode for abusing it which one sees in some quarters. I do not speak for the industry; and, if I did, I have the feeling this would not be the place to do so. All I wish to do is to make a contribution to your Lordships' deliberations from my own experience.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said something which I feel he did not mean: did drugs do harm in the past? The implication was that in the good old days nothing went wrong with drugs. But I would not go all the way with the noble Lord in that, because, of course, the fact remains that when they did go wrong nobody heard about it. There was no Press to start a hue and cry and to highlight the tragedies and the mistakes which took place. We need not go back very far to find these—to cortisone, antiseptics, and back to Galenicals when medical experimentation must have brought about tragedies such as we find in our time.
I should like to thank the noble Lord for his tribute to the industry, but there have been misunderstandings in some quarters. Perhaps, in the light of what has been said, the time is coming—I make this suggestion in all seriousness—when we should have a debate in this House on the relations between the National Health Service and the pharmaceutical industry. It might provide a better platform for the expression of a number of opinions which need not be expressed to-day.
To turn to the subject of clinical research, my own interests are probably exceptionally well-placed in Edinburgh. Lord Taylor has made reference to the position in Scotland. Each of the three companies with which I am concerned has well over 100 years of history of close association with the medical schools in Scotland. Indeed, the founders of these companies contained doctors of medicine. In other words, we have little or no difficulty in arranging clinical trials. I would emphasise and confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, said: that the more meritorious the product, the easier it is to arrange a clinical trial. After all, the number of
80
new drugs which reach the stage of clinical tests is comparatively small, and of that number only a comparatively small number are really meritorious. Our own research departments screen and discard hundreds of items before the stage of clinical examination is reached. Incidentally, be it noted that one of the functions of the Dunlop Committee is to ensure that only such drugs as these come for ultimate trial. That is a point worth emphasising, and it is one that has already been made.
There is another side to the question. I could tell of medicaments approved by the F.D.A. and already marketed abroad which have been rejected by companies in this country even before they have reached the stage of clinical examination here. I sometimes wonder whether it ever occurs to the critics of the industry that such things do happen. Our Scottish tradition of co-operation between the medical authorities and the industry is something which has grown up over the years and cannot be replaced. But can it be augmented? That is what the noble Lord is asking. Are improved facilities for clinical trials possible of development? These are questions which, in a measure, have been answered by the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead; but, as other noble Lords have said in their speeches, Sir Derrick Dunlop's Committee is well equipped and is the best source from which to seek advice, recommendation and instruction on how this can he done. It is already an "early warning" system, and it is really a question of whether more co-ordination and a greater pool of information can be achieved under its ægis.
As it is, the pharmaceutical industry's own skills, the established position of the Cohen Committee (if I may so call it) and the Dunlop Committee, are powerful safeguards. The value of having another organisation under the Medical Research Council seems to be doubtful, and it occurs to me that when the noble Lord added the words "or elsewhere" to his Question on the Paper to-day it was perhaps an indication that he felt, on examination, that that might well he the case. As I have said, the present safeguards are powerful, and it is left, and properly left, to the pharmaceutical companies, and their medical advisers up and down the

81
country, to arrange clinical trials. I emphasise the point that the spread in terms of space and personnel is tremendous. This point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead. There is no one group of consulting physicians or registrars who could cover the whole field. The co-operation in clinical trials, which has been so willingly given to the pharmaceutical companies, has worked well, and I am one who agrees with the view that it should continue and, if anything, be embellished. Of course, this embellishment is all the easier since the creation of the Dunlop Committee.
The noble Lord referred to the fact that the Medical Research Council has already concerned itself with the organisation of co-ordinated and controlled clinical trials, through its advisory board in clinical research, but I think I am right in saying that this advisory board does not conduct trials of specific drugs. As to whether the existence of a further centralised body might add to the present difficulties in terms of speed, the importance of which has already been mentioned, and as to whether the existence of another centralised body would slow up development, I am inclined to believe that it might. It would not, I feel, add many workers in the field; and since it would exercise selection among comparable competitive drugs, progress would be delayed and chance observations overlooked.
My Lords, there seems to be an opinion held by some that pharmaceutical companies are anxious to get products on the market at all costs and without adequate trials. I say that such an opinion is held by some, because this is an opinion which is not shared by all. But it is an opinion which is very far from the truth. I would make the point that, from the purely commercial point of view, any company which marketed a product of dubious merit would be in a difficult position. Therefore, it does not do it. Proper clinical observation is, therefore, a commercial essential. It is well, too, to remember that, given always the need for maximum feasible security, speed is of importance. I would emphasise this not only as regards the problem of making new, meritorious drugs available to the sick, but also as
82
regards keeping pace so far as possible with world competition and keeping up with our export trade. I noticed when the noble Lord suggested that 3,999 out of 4,000 shots were going to be misses that he referred to disappointment. But he did not refer to the cost in terms of pounds, shillings and pence which this enormous figure means.
Of course, Britain's ability to compete in world markets with our low prices—and our drugs are priced low—is seriously affected by the limited financial resources available for research compared, shall we say, with people like the Americans and the Swiss. I could not restrain a chuckle when the noble Lord talked about the pharmaceutical companies paying for this and paying for that, when I thought of the times we hear that drugs are too expensive and the price should come down. Now we hear that the industry will be able to pay for these plans. However, that may be, I think it is safe to say that the pharmaceutical companies will support any workable proposal. Of course, the noble Lord has referred to the fact that the associations representing the vast majority of the pharmaceutical companies in the country have assured the Dunlop Committee of their full support, and I am not surprised.
My Lords, before I conclude I would mention another factor in the industry's approach to clinical work. I refer to the ordinary pharmaceutical companies' force of representatives. These skilled and generally dedicated men are in some measure the industry's eyes and ears. Unfortunately, part of the ritual of decrying the industry has been to pour scorn upon its sales staff. But it should not be forgotten that they have a part to play in initiating, in promoting and in fertilising the exchange of clinical information. Through them news often reaches research departments of unexpected happenings or reactions, for G.P.s in busy practices will recount in conversation observations that they have neither the time nor the inclination to write about. Observations such as these can be followed up by research experts with minimal delay. To this extent the sales force of the pharmaceutical organisation is a useful, if small, adjunct to clinical research.

83
Before I sit down, I should like to make a point about the noble Lord's therapeutical trials board. What I have to say is very much what the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, had to say. There is the problem in regard to the supply of trained clinicians and, of course, the supply of patients. It is for that reason that I made use of the word "spread" when I described the ramifications of the clinical research system as it exists at present. The noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, quite properly mentioned the problem of competition and secrecy, which were the commercial and industrial difficulties which would obviously spring from one of the suggestions which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has made. I feel myself that if speed is essential, and it is, then this problem of competition and secrecy would make such a board difficult to create. Surely, a stage might be to provide a sort of bureau of exchange through the existing Committee.
I see that I have made a note here of this word "meritorious", but I have written it beside a note I made when the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said that we were going to get a lot of new drugs. Of course I am thrilled with the idea, but that is not so. I am quite certain that, it terms of available meritorious drugs of the future, there are going to be something like the half-dozen which the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, implied that he felt that some drugs were improperly tested to-day. I do not think he meant it; certainly, not in connection with the major pharmaceutical advances. As I said before, this is probably not the place to discuss complex industrial problems, some of which the noble Lord has raised. I should like to congratulate him on the presentation of his material, though I sympathised a little with a number of noble Lords who are not intimate with the industry or with the technicalities of medicine, in the detail into which he went. But I hope very much that my part in this debate has been a contribution to the end which we all seek.
6.20 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend for initiating this debate,
84
because this most important matter which we are discussing to-night on this Unstarred Question concerns the welfare of the whole community, for, sooner or later, every one of us must be treated for a minor or a major complaint. Because of this, for many years we have pressed the Government to establish some kind of machinery designed to ensure that the new drugs, with their potential dangers, should be adequately tested. To emphasise that point, let me quote the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, when he said that in the field of the drug industry we can only describe the situation as "explosive". What better word than that of the noble Lord can describe the importance of this matter?
At long last a Committee of eminent people has been set up, with Sir Derrick Dunlop in the chair. But its inherent weaknesses are these. First, it is not compulsory for the drug manufacturers to submit their products; and, secondly, the pharmaceutical industry, which profits from drug manufacture, has again been left to undertake a report on the toxicity tests and the clinical trials. Surely, that is a fundamental weakness of this new Committee. Although the manufacturers are given a memorandum and told what is required of them, how can the Committee assess the thoroughness of a clinical test unless an independent agency of the highest repute is responsible? That is what my noble friend is asking for, whether it is under the ægis of the Medical Research Council or some other professional body.
This raises the question—and do not let us be mealy-mouthed about it—of the trustworthiness of certain elements in the drug industry, and whether they have forfeited our confidence. That, shortly, is why we come to your Lordships to-night and ask that this independent agency should be set up. Tonight, I want to prove to your Lordships that certain elements of this industry have completely forfeited our confidence. Year after year the Public Accounts Committee comment adversely on the mounting cost of drugs and the individual prescription, and the disproportionate number of proprietary drugs prescribed. The drug industry completely ignore these strictures by applying more and more pressure on the doctors to buy proprietary products,

85
although there is a non-proprietary equivalent at a lower price. In the last five years the cost of prescriptions has risen by 32 per cent., and the estimate for our drug bill under the National Health Service for 1963–64 puts the total cost at over £100 million.
The industry claim that it must have high profits for research; but after the cost of research has been met the profits are very high. Let me remind your Lordships of what some of the profits are. The Glaxo company, which of course produces a great many drugs and not only the old-fashioned milk powder, had a trading profit last year of nearly £10 million, and their dividend was 14 per cent. This firm also have a policy of issuing share bonuses. The Beecham Group had a trading profit of nearly £10 million, and their dividend was 30 per cent. for 1963. The British Drug Houses, a rather smaller concern, had a trading profit of £875,000, and the dividend for 1962 was 16 per cent. The Committee of Public Accounts for the Session 1961–62 were informed that the cost of advertising amounted to 9·7 per cent., or about £6½ million. The Ministry of Health said they knew of firms which spent substantially more than 10 per cent. of their sales receipts on promotion costs.
The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in another place referred to the anxiety which the Committee felt over the prescribing of proprietary drugs as against the unbranded equivalent, and to the "cold war" which existed between the Ministry and the pharmaceutical industry. My Lords, those are strong words coming from a responsible man like the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee, with regard to the promotion of drugs, said this:
"The National Health Service, as the main purchaser of drugs in this country, bears the bulk of the sales promotion expenditure incurred by the drug manufacturers. Part of this expenditure is incurred in promoting the sale of proprietary preparations in competition, not only with similar proprietary preparations but with unbranded standard equivalents which are frequently available at a lower price. This may involve a two-fold extra charge to the Health Service: first, for the sales promotion expenditure itself, and secondly for the excess of the cost of the proprietary preparations over the cost of unbranded standard equivalents".
86
In view of the high cost of drugs the Ministry of Health decided to buy drugs from a cheaper market abroad, and we must congratulate the Ministry of Health for trying to do their best to counter this mounting drug Bill. The drug firm Pfizer's had the affrontery to challenge in the courts the Ministry of Health's right to try to cut down the expenses of the Health Service. The Court of Appeal overruled the High Court and upheld the legality of the Ministry's right to buy in cheaper markets. This is an appalling background, and I think that when I said that the drug industry has forfeited our respect that was not an overstatement. The pharmaceutical industry makes no attempt to put its own house in order. It seems incapable of controlling that element which is devoid of ethical considerations, and which regards the National Health Service solely as a source of wealth.
The industry produces an unending flow of drugs for mental depression. This, of course, is a commercially remunerative field, because nearly 40 per cent. of complaints are functional, and the introduction of the so-called tranquillisers offers a huge market. Indeed, the very nature of the complaint—let us take the neurotic—lends itself to the production of different products with substantially the same ingredients but under different names. That is what they want. The neurotic has one prescribed, and then says, "This doesn't do me any good, doctor; give me something else". The doctor, willing to oblige, and pressed always by the commercial representatives of the drug houses, then prescribes something else. There is a fortune, of course, as they know, in selling these tranquillisers to the neurotics of the world. In America, colossal sums are made. The Practitioner of January 1 said:
"The very multiplicity of these new preparations has proved a handicap to the medical practitioner."
And the Dunlop Committee (we have already heard of the Dunlop Committee) made one recommendation last week. The Dunlop Committee warned doctors of the country of the possible side effects from eleven of these drugs, many of which contain amphetamine, an ingredient of the so-called "Purple Heart" pills. Some of these drugs have been

87
responsible for a rare liver disease which may be fatal; others are associated with changes in the blood pressure and strokes.
But the significant thing about this last week, when the doctors were warned about eleven drugs, is that the industry has been responsible for ensuring clinical trial of these drugs, most of which have been prescribed for years. Yet only now that this Committee has been set up has a warning been issued. Nardil has been widely advertised in every medical paper for years. Yet only now are the doctors warned against it. This drug has been used since 1959. Parnate has been available since 1960. It has been completely withdrawn in the United States of America because there is evidence that it can produce fatal brain seizures. Let me tell your Lordships the other eleven. Parstelin has been available since 1960; Drazine has been available since 1961; Actomol since 1962. Then there are Cavodil, Eutaryl, Marsilid, Niamid, Tersavid, Marplan. Many of these contain the same basic constituents but masquerade under different names to increase sales. The noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, called them "modifications". This is a delightful understatement of the situation, but it is absolutely accurate.
The noble Lord opposite talked about ritual. He really should not be so cynical. He accused me last time of doing a "ritual dance". I would call it a minuet; but at least I have been doing a minuet with the Public Accounts Committee and the Ministry of Health. Here are eleven drugs on which last week the doctors were warned that there was a risk. The Dunlop Committee feel that it is sufficient to inform the doctors of the risk of serious side effects; but the United States Food and Drug Administration have decided that it is dangerous to leave the valuation of drugs to the individual practitioner.
I would remind your Lordships that a few weeks ago when there was a debate in your Lordships' House on the position of the general practitioner, one-third of the general practitioners of the country petitioned the Government to grant them relief from day and night working, bad conditions and underpayment. These are the people who are now to be asked to do the most detailed
88
research work, to keep carefully a record of day-to-day reactions from a wide variety of drugs. Then they have to compile and send the findings to a central register. This is a fact, The general practitioners were told last week that the use of these drugs carried wide risks; and yet here are these busy men—exhausted, worn out, actually agitating at the door of Parliament for relief—given this work to do.
I can think of no scheme more welcome to the worst elements in the pharmaceutical industry. They can put drugs on the market without clinical trial and then, if things go wrong, can throw the blame on to the doctors for not reporting that certain drugs caused danger to their patients. Striking proof of what I say was given at Salford last week at an inquest of a woman who died from the combined effect of Nardil and another anti-depressive drug. The manufacturers said there was a warning in one of their pamphlets. The poor, busy doctor said that he may have read it three years ago; but, as he gets about 20 circulars from the drug manufacturers every day, he has no time to read them. Another pathologist, in Yorkshire, questioned a general practitioner after the death of another woman who had taken Nardil. He said, according to a Report:
"It is obvious doctors just have not got the time to read everything that is sent to them. They cannot possibly do that, run surgeries, visit patients, keep up with their medical Press and have a normal home life as well."
These changes we are asking for tonight, that a new individual authority should be set up, will be resisted by the pharmaceutical industry. When the United States Food and Drug Administration ordered the withdrawal of Parnate, the president of the manufacturing company, Smith Kline and French, said that although they were withdrawing the drug they did not agree with the United States Food and Drug Administration. Though they would order the withdrawal of it in the United States, they challenged the Food and Drug Administration. Yet I would remind your Lordships that the Food and Drug Administration of the United States was responsible for refusing to allow thalidomide to be prescribed. The manufacturers called the woman doctor who was responsible "ignorant" and "stupid" when she repeatedly refused permission to allow thalidomide to

89
be distributed. We are moving into a period when this matter becomes so serious that the British Medical Journal on January 25 printed an article, under the heading Drugs and The Embryo, but it concerned men and women. It said:
"We now have to recognise that the increasing complexity of drugs may result in increasingly subtle interference with the intricate biochemical mechanisms of the dividing cell. In future, therefore, a doctor who prescribes a new drug to a patient of either sex may unwittingly be testing its ability to produce genetic mutation, with eventual deformity and disease in future generations."
Sometimes the seriousness of this matter is so great that I find it difficult to understand how the public can accept the situation as it is to-day, and the irresponsibility of certain drug houses—for instance, in distribution of oral contraceptives. It is outrageous that British Drug Houses should advertise these products to harassed, ignorant and innocent women. Last week a doctor showed me a sample brought in by the latest commercial traveller. It was a box of oral contraceptives, beautifully packed, to go to some woman who might come in. I looked at the pamphlet which was with the package. British Drug Houses, in advertising these products to the doctors, sought to allay the doctors' fears by printing under the heading, "Evaluation of testing", the words:
"Before release it was necessary to establish the safety and efficacy of this product".
This is a deliberate distortion of the truth. Many eminent doctors have warned of the possible danger of oral contraceptives. The Times of March 2, in an article under a heading, "Caution over Oral Birth Control", said:
"Cautious individuals very reasonably question the advisability of the use of such a potent group of hormones for a purpose which may be satisfactorily handled otherwise."
The Times to-day thinks it necessary to quote the Lancet on the same subject. The Lancet said:
"Despite the lack so far of evidence in the human of harmful permanent effects, their use"—
that is the use of oral contraceptives—
"for long periods cannot be contemplated without considerable trepidation, for it may be dangerous to interfere with rhythmical processes … Twenty years may go before we can he sure about the safety of the present oral contraceptive".
Yet doctors throughout this country will be sent beautifully packed parcels of
90
oral contraceptives for their poor women patients with large families, who are desperately anxious to do something, irrespective of what it might do to their health. The firm have written in these pamphlets:
"Before release it was necessary to establish the safety and efficacy of this product."
We are asking your Lordships to-night to agree to the setting up of an independent agency, absolutely independent of the pharmaceutical industry. There is no doubt that the control of the testing of drugs is now an international problem. For this reason, we were pleased that a symposium on the toxicity of drugs has just taken place in Moscow, attended by delegates from nine European countries, among whom, I was delighted to see, Britain was represented by the Principal Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Health did not feel that he had to echo the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. Not a bit of it. Among other things he recommended in Moscow was that all new drugs should be clearly marked, warning people of adverse side effects.
One does not need to have any medical knowledge to know that one can go into a chemist's to get a prescription made up and is given a box or bottle without any name on it or any indication of what it contains, whether it is something simple or something very dangerous. In his opening remarks, my noble friend said that any prescription can be poisonous, if you take enough of it, but the dangers to children are obvious and they are faced every day of their lives with all these bottles and boxes containing mixtures and tablets.
Finally, it is astonishing that, while we have waited for months for the Dunlop Committee to be set up, the medical advisers of the pharmaceutical industry only last month decided to discuss the ways and means of effecting clinical trials. The report in the Lancet of February 1 fills me with misgivings. It said:
"In the past it was said clinical trials had been nobody's business but the hobby of a dedicated few."
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, opposite told us how all drugs have been carefully tested. He has no difficulty at all in securing clinical trials.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, does the noble Lady suggest that any drugs which

91
go out from firms with which I am associated have not been tested?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I am always very careful to support any such statement I make by an authentic quotation. I am quoting now the noble Lord's industry at a meeting last month, of which results were reported on February 1, when they said:
"In the past it was said clinical trials had been nobody's business but the hobby of a dedicated few."
LORD FERRIER: May I interrupt the noble Baroness?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I did not interrupt the noble Lord; would he mind please sitting down? Sir Derrick Dunlop found it necessary to remind that meeting of a very elementary fact. The noble Lord ought to blush that it had to be said. Sir Derrick said:
"The deep-rooted, built-in ethics of the profession is the greatest safeguard, greater than any rules that could be drawn up by any committee."
I say that the corollary of this is surely that we must establish an independent agency governed by the highest ethical standards to undertake the clinical evaluation of drugs if the public is to be afforded the fullest protection.
6.45 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Amulree, on behalf of my Department, for the kind words which they said about The Prescribers' Journal, which I personally was very glad to hear.
In view of the learned discourses to which we have listened this afternoon, your Lordships will not, I hope, expect from me a judgment of Solomon upon this difficult and complex matter. It is not just a matter of organising an efficient piece of machinery. The professional ethics of doctors are involved and, so far as I am aware, there is in the profession no general consensus of opinion that a central testing agency is desirable. Indeed, from what has been said this afternoon by my noble friend Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, it is clear
92
that there is a powerful weight of professional opinion on the other side. So, my approach is cautious.
Though we have sometimes strayed rather far from the theme, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is mainly concerned with the value or efficacy of new drugs, and, indeed, the expression "clinical testing" or "clinical trial" is normally taken to refer to the administration of drugs to patients, under controlled conditions, for the purpose of testing their therapeutic efficacy, as opposed to tests for determining toxicity—and, therefore, safety—which are performed in the laboratory and on animals and sometimes on human volunteers. Things would be simpler if toxicity and efficacy could be treated as wholly separate aspects of a drug's nature, but, unfortunately, they cannot be. I follow my noble friend Lord Cohen of Birkenhead in saying that for any worthwhile drug, judgment about hazards must depend on judgment of what the drug will do therapeutically. In a drug that could be relied on to cure cancer, for instance, a much higher risk of side-effects could be accepted than in a drug for curing headaches. So toxicity and efficacy must be looked at together in order to assess safety.
In October, 1962, after the thalidomide tragedy, the Medical Research Council reviewed their responsibilities over the whole field of toxicity testing and clinical trials. They confirmed the principle, which had developed down the years, that responsibility for routine toxicity screening of new drugs should remain with the manufacturers and that the Council themselves ought not to become involved in it. It is a matter of history, as your Lordships know, that following the Report of Lord Cohen of Birkenhead and his Committee—a Report which was endorsed by the Standing Medical Advisory Committees in England and Wales and in Scotland—the Government appointed the Dunlop Committee on Safety of Drugs, after receiving assurances of co-operation from the pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession. As your Lordships know, the Committee began their functions on January 1 this year.
The arrangements for submission of new drugs to the Committee ensure that such drugs are not offered by their

93
manufacturers for clinical trial without adequate toxicity testing. Furthermore, the Committee decide whether or not the results of the clinical trials of a new drug justify that drug being put on the market. This, I should think, is as effective as the proposed board of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in reducing the number of insufficiently tried drugs coming on to the market.
The Medical Research Council have given advice on the conduct of clinical research and of clinical investigation generally, with special reference to the interests of patients. Nevertheless, my Lords, the individual doctor's judgment as to whether a particular drug should be administered to a particular patient is still crucial and it always will be. His personal responsibility is, and always will be, an important safety factor.
I turn now from safety to efficacy, and, first, the attitude of the Medical Research Council. In their review of their responsibilities in this field, which they made in 1962 and to which I have already referred, they concluded that clinical trials which are clearly desirable on medical grounds ought to be arranged directly between the manufacturer and the individual physician. They further decided that they should be concerned only if there were a necessity for full-scale co-operative trials which involved issues of major importance to medical practice; and even then they considered that they should retain the freedom of deciding whether or not to undertake the trial of a particular drug. That, I am advised, is the view of the Medical Research Council. My right honourable friend the Minister for Science supports the contention of the Council that they should not become responsible for routine testing, as it is not an appropriate task for a research council.
As I understood it, part of Lord Taylor's argument is that manufacturers find it difficult to get trials done; and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, said, from his personal experience, that he considered it difficult for an individual doctor to carry out clinical trials. On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Ferrier has said that his pharmaceutical firm have no difficulty in getting trials done; and, moreover, the Committee on the Safety of Drugs, presided over by my noble friend Lord Cohen of Birkenhead,
94
said they had been informed that the pharmaceutical industry had little difficulty in arranging for clinical trials of new drugs which showed promise of marked therapeutic advance, although there was difficulty over drugs of probable marginal advantage over existing remedies; and my noble friend more or less repeated that in his speech this afternoon. If this is so, it seems safe to conclude that at any rate the priorities to-day are not wrong.
I suppose it is possible that a doctor might be more willing to undertake the clinical trial of a new drug if requested by an official agency rather than by the manufacturer. But might he not feel that an official overture was derogatory of his professional status and of his personal responsibility for the care of his patients? I do not much like Lord Taylor's suggestion that doctors might receive a special payment for undertaking clinical trials; and I think I have the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, with me on that. I do not believe that that sort of inducement would be acceptable to the profession generally, and I am reasonably certain that it would not be acceptable to the general public, because many of the general public do not like being treated as guinea-pigs by the medical profession.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, this is a very fair point, and I stand corrected. I would accept what the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has said. But the difficulty arises where a doctor is in hospital and cannot do it but could employ a part-time registrar, for example, to do it, and the question of paying him might arise. However, on principle, I think I would agree with the noble Lord, and I withdraw my previous suggestion.
LORD NEWTON: I am obliged to the noble Lord for saying that.
The noble Lord's idea of a central agency is certainly, at first sight, an attractive one. It might well secure that available resources were used to the best advantage and save manufacturers and doctors the trouble of harassing and being harassed. The agency would need to be very knowledgeable; it would have to concentrate in a few people all the knowledge in depth about the whole range of drugs which is at present spread among manufacturers, each of whom tends to specialise in a particular range.

95
That might be feasible, but not obviously so. The manufacturer knows the clinicians who are interested in his particular line. It would not be easy for a central agency to acquire that information for the whole range of new drugs, although I am not saying that it could not do so.
As a matter of historical interest, in the 'thirties the Medical Research Council operated a therapeutic trials committee to supervise a scheme for the clinical testing of new substances which had given promise of therapeutic value in laboratory tests, but it was not reconstituted after the war because the rapid increase in the number of new drugs made it impossible for a single committee to cover the whole field. On the other side of the coin, the prevailing system, unco-ordinated though it may be, has the advantage that it makes for the closest personal contact between manufacturer and clinician; and my noble friend Lord Cohen of Birkenhead said that, in his opinion, that contact is vital. This enables the clinician to obtain expeditiously all the information he needs before making up his mind about undertaking trials in the interest of his patients; it also enables him to exchange information with the manufacturer while the trials are in progress. A central agency would, rightly or wrongly, come between the two and affect the responsibilities of each in relation to the other.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has asked in his Question that the Government should consider the establishment of a central agency. We have considered it, and we will consider it. But I have felt it right to sound a note of caution, and I warned your Lordships that I would. I have done so mainly for this reason: that the doctor, unlike any other scientist, has to care about what ultimately happens to the physical matter upon which he carries out his experiments. He cannot just chuck the hits into the dustbin and start again, because the bits are human beings, and nothing must ever be done, in my view, which would limit the responsibility of a doctor for the treatment of his patients.
So I would sum up my position like this. After listening carefully to the
96
debate, I am not convinced that the present arrangements are so defective that, notwithstanding their advantages—which I have mentioned—it is imperative to discard them and set up new machinery.

NUCLEAR PROPELLED MERCHANT SHIPS
6.58 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government to state what steps are being taken to put this seafaring nation on comparable terms and to match the progress of other nations in respect of nuclear propulsion in merchant ships The noble Earl said: My Lords, I regret that we are somewhat late in opening this debate on the Unstarred Question that I have on the Paper. Your Lordships will see that it is my request to the Minister and to the House of Lords that we should be given information as to the steps which are being taken to keep this great seafaring nation of ours on comparable terms in research, and, I hope, development, with regard to the question of nuclear propulsion of merchant ships. I think it is essential for the reputation of our country in mercantile matters; and I think it is essential, also, that we should be making progress in this matter because of the likely future of nuclear propulsion of merchant ships.
Your Lordships may think it strange that I should have raised this matter in the debate upon the Shipbuilding Bill two or three weeks ago. But I had to speak upon the Bill anyway, and what impressed me, as I read the debate in another place which took place on January 15, was that a very great case was submitted by the speaker for the Opposition with regard to this general question of nuclear propulsion of merchant ships. What impressed me even more was that there was no attempt on the part of the Government to reply to the case that was then presented with considerable force.
When I came to speak upon the Shipbuilding Bill, I pursued a similar line to that which had been pursued by the I Opposition in another place, hoping to

97
get an answer. But the remarkable thing was that, although a case had already been made known by the debate in another place to the Department for whom the Minister here was speaking, no reply at all was made in this House to my contentions about the nuclear propulsion of merchant shipping. After all my experience (especially through practically 80 per cent. of the war period and then after, having been at the head of the direction not only of naval repair and shipbuilding but merchant repair and shipbuilding, when anything to do with the future of that great nautical industry of ours was of concern to me) I still fail to understand why no reply was given, either to my colleague in another place or to myself on this matter.
So last week I put on the Paper a Question to the Government, to which the noble Earl opposite made a reply. I was bound to express at the end of the Questions and Answers on that day that I was wholly dissatisfied with the Answer which was given, and that I would take the earliest opportunity of raising this subject upon an Unstarred Question, on which there could be at least a short debate.
The more I go into this matter, the more I feel that there is something which, in the public interest, needs a real inquiry. I am not quite sure what sort of inquiry would be the best, but that an inquiry is required in my view there is no doubt. The operations of the Atomic Energy Authority in regard to this matter have now gone on for a good many years. There were various proceedings and inquiries by themselves and in conjunction with a number of industries, or sections of allied industries, concerned, so that there were about five of them in constant consultation with the Atomic Energy Authority on this matter. They entered into a great deal of activity and research along lines arising out of the consultations, but those were brought to an end, so far as relations were concerned, on a question of payment of research money for the work the private firms were doing. Then came the decision in 1961 to make a fresh start, because, apparently, no great progress had been made. I do not know exactly what was the total cost to the Atomic Energy Authority
98
during that trial period, but it was then decided that there should be set up a special arrangement by which the Government would make a grant of £3 million, which was to cover three years' research into this question.
Since then, it seems to me that things have been going so far wrong that there has been a constant attempt by Questions, mostly in another place, to find out the situation of the research; how far it had developed and how much money had been spent from time to time out of the £3 million grant, and the answers came in various and somewhat uncertain degrees. At one stage, it was suggested that the cost at the end of ten months of the period after the end of November, 1961, was about £600,000. The replies at which I have looked since seem to have been of various kinds. Sometimes, when general information has been asked for about the progress of this research, the answer has been given that the statement could not be made now, or it was postponed to some other time, and no real information was ever given to Parliament, which, after all, is responsible for the management of the nation's finances and is entitled to be kept informed of what is going on.
It is essential to call attention to these things to-day, when you consider the amount which has been spent upon research and experiment in this country in the last twelve years, and how little real result we have from it in the nuclear—military or civil—sense. At last, however, a statement was made that it was expected that the £3 million would be used up by the end of December, 1963. The noble Earl kindly answered a Question of mine the other day, when he said that up to that time, at any rate, the expenditure amounted to £3·4 million and that it would continue through 1964, and would probably—I do not suggest he gave an absolutely firm figure—be round about £5 million by the end of 1964. What I was then pressing for was to know what results had actually been obtained from this research. I am bound to repeat to the noble Earl to-night (as I am sure he expects me to repeat what I said then) that I was wholly dissatisfied.
As I had made the speech on the Shipbuilding Bill, and asked my questions, which were not answered, he must not be surprised to find that people with technical knowledge of the matter got into touch with me. I had not met them before at all, and they brought what may be regarded as their certain and known facts of the situation to my notice and, therefore, made me keen to press for an inquiry into the whole question. One thing is quite certain, and that is that, whatever may be said by the Government to-night, to my mind, knowing what has happened in the past in our general industries, and not without regard to our great seafaring industry, there is a future for nuclear power in the propulsion of merchant shipping.
The extent to which nuclear power has been developed in Service ships, of course, is used as an argument to say, "They are not required to be economic; they are done for specific purposes of defence". It does not need a lot of intensive study of the question of the future of the propulsion of merchant ships to show that there is every reason to suppose that nuclear-powered ships could be made effective and economical. You need only cast your minds back to the history of engineers' experience with regard to the propulsion of merchant and passenger ships, back to the period of—I ought to know the name; I handled it many times, but I forget it at the moment; at any rate, back to the period when the methods of driving a ship which are now so common were said, as recently as 1900, to be quite impracticable. Yet after research, and especially the final and successful research, in the British shipbuilding industry, these methods have made us quite pioneers in the new types of propulsion. And the same thing will arise in regard to nuclear expectancy.
The grant was made originally by the Government to the Atomic Energy Authority to continue following up the previous researches, to enable the Atomic Energy Authority to engage in research, but also to keep in touch with, and use (as I took it to mean), these services of private industry who had also
100
been interested in it, especially in certain research and experiments. But, from the date the grant was made, I cannot find, from all the information given to me, that anything really effective has been done by the Atomic Energy Authority to use to the full the knowledge, experience and research of private industry in this matter. There seems to be an attempt to keep anything arising out of their consultations for the sole benefit of any operations of the Atomic Energy Authority, rather than to spread the advantage to the whole of the consulted industry as well as to the Authority. I think this is not a fair way in which, under the terms of reference of the grant, this expenditure should have been made. I think that aspect needs inquiry.
I then find, of course, from getting the inside knowledge from those who have been inside this business, that the real course pursued by the Atomic Energy Authority was to confine, largely at any rate, its research to the development of the boiling water reactors. You had two types of what were called the I.B.R.s, which were pursued at considerable expense; and I think the Minister will confirm, when he replies, that both have been abandoned. But on the course up to their abandonment certain things happened.
First of all, there was the fact that no announcement was made by the Minister of Transport about the course of research to be adopted in this matter, until, I think, 1962; although it is clear to me, at any rate—and I should like to know what the evidence of the Minister is—that the decision to concentrate upon these boiling water reactor types was made much earlier in the year, and that the consideration of the other type of reactors which were included in the submissions of those who had been engaged in private and industrial research was put on one side, so that the Minister had only one choice to make: to approve what was put to him. He had nothing before him at all on what would be a question of special examination, from the nation's point of view, of the differences in effectiveness, as well as in cost, between the various types.
It is of note to relate from my information that in fact the T.B.R.s have been

101
abandoned, and solely, or almost solely, for the reasons which were exposed by Captain Atkins in the Press just over twelve months ago. He may perhaps be charged by some people with having revealed something he ought not to have revealed, but he certainly saved this nation from what would have been enormous expense to no avail, if that basis of research had been continued, because the reasons which have led to the abandonment of the I.B.R.s were the very reasons which were made public by one who himself was a qualified naval engineer of great experience and who had been connected with the work that had gone on on the industrial side a year or two before—that in connection with Rolls Royce and associates. What happened? The Chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority insisted that he be dismissed from his post by the head of the firm concerned in Rolls Royce associates dealing with the matter; and he was promptly dismissed. But the I.B.R.s have been abandoned for the very reasons that were exposed then. How does this sort of thing arise? I think we ought to have an answer to that.
When I come back to other aspects of the question, I look at the information supplied to me, and what I find is that there has been no adequate consideration at all of the other types of reactors which have been under examination and research by private firms, and which have not, in their judgment, some of the particular handicaps which I know to be in the boiling water type of reactors. What has gone on? They have had communications, I think, from time to time, and conversations; but no indication that the merits of these other proposals have ever been fully examined. Yet were any explanations given with regard to the decisions made? No, not at all. Instead, there has been a steady pursuit of the same ultimate type of reactor, the Vulcain, through the Belgonucleaire Organisation; and so, at the present time, so far as I can see, the Government are committed to a contract, a considerable contract—
LORD HOBSON: Two million pounds.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am not certain about the figure. My noble friend has one in mind
102
apparently, but it is certainly quite considerable; and I should say that it is extraordinary in these circumstances that the Minister of Transport says that he declines to give the figure of the contract price, in spite of this situation I have been describing.
This is an extraordinary position. We now know that the £3 million grant is to go up to £5 million by the end of the year. The Government give no reason for it, but is not the reason, in the main, that this sum is about to be added to the balance of the contract price which still goes to be met with the Belgonucleaire Organisation? I want to ask the Minister to-night to tell us how much has been paid to the Belgonucleaire up to the moment and what remains to be met on the contract which is now entered into. This is something which ought to be communicated to Parliament in view of the fact that, in spite of all that has been done so far, there is no result—unless the Minister can tell us to-night what that result is.
What is the fact about the other proposals which had been made by other organisations before the date of the making of the first grant, the £3 million grant? What had gone on before then? The Rolls Royce associates were willing to supply a reactor of the type which one might describe, not being an engineer, as a steam-cooled reactor, but I am sure that the noble Earl with the research he has been making knows all about that particular one. That was offered to be produced and installed into a ship ready for trial for £550,000. That offer was not accepted. So far as I know, that particular offer was quite deliberately turned down.
But then later on, after the £3 million grant had begun to overate for this special research, after the announcement was made at the end of November 1961, the Mitchell organisation had consultations with the Authority, and they found that although all these other people were to have been consulted they had in fact been forgotten; and there was no going back upon that; but if they liked to make some submissions they might be considered. The other organisations concerned had no doubt been recipients of payments for the pieces of research work they had done for the

103
Atomic Energy Authority before the commencement of the operation and administration of this £3 million grant.
The Mitchell organisation submitted a scheme of design which had been very carefully and thoroughly prepared and costed to their satisfaction down to the last degree. They offered to supply a steam-cooled reactor for propulsion of merchant ships at £500,000 installed in the ship for sea trials. This was a firm that had never had any research money at all from the Atomic Energy Authority. In my view, according to my information, the way in which they have been treated hardly bears description. They have been asked questions as to what has been done and the secrets of their own design for production. They have never been paid anything for that information. I do not think they have asked anything for it. But what apparently seems to happen is that the Atomic Energy Authority in such matters ask for and obtain all the information required in the course of consultation, and seek then to use such information for the development of their own organisation of production.
Looking at the records of the Atomic Energy Authority over the last twelve years, I wonder what has actually been produced by them and about the results of their research. I am sure they must have done something, but how much? I understand that they now have a staff of 42,000, and that the productive workers number hardly much more than one-quarter of that number, certainly not much more than something between one-third and one-quarter. Despite all the money going in and being paid out, we seem in a matter of reasonable simplicity, the matter of this particular nuclear project, to be getting no information about the results. Until now it has been whispered and said in different places that the Government, having spent the money thus far, say that, after all, the idea of having nuclear-powered propulsion of a merchant ship is not likely to be economically successful at all at any time. I must say I disagree with that. When we consider a ship of 15,000 to 20,000 tons, and even larger ships than that, if we can get a satisfactory reactor which can develop 20,000 shaft horse-power at 0·2d.
104
per hour, which does not entail having to put into your merchant ship all the immense space required for the bunkers at present required for oil or diesel or other fuels, and does not interfere with the whole arrangements for the voyage by the ship having to go from port to port to re-fuel, and if the reactor is able to produce all the fuel that is required for propulsion—certainly up to the period required for entering for the ordinary inspection as required by Lloyds, and therefore it must be able to make and will make its own fuel out of the same core for four years and, if necessary, it could go to five years—then, in the light of these economic factors, the idea that we cannot ultimately get by research and trial a real economical use of nuclear power in merchant ships sounds to me ridiculous. It sounds ridiculous to suggest at this stage that there is no likely future economic case for the development of nuclear propulsion of merchant ships. These are facts.
The Atomic Energy Authority ought to be asked for other information as well. I was very much struck to-day in picking up the Hansard of another place and reading Mr. Hay's statement with regard to the Dounreay reactor which was to be built there for the "Valiant"—that is, the No. 2 nuclear propelled submarine out of the three, at least, to be built for ordinary submarine purposes; not one of those which is to be in the Polaris. What do we read? We read that in fact certain faults have occurred in materials used, resulting in certain complete changes having to be made in the piping which had gone into the business, and that is now to require months of delay, at that very choice centre for nuclear development at Dounreay. And yet one of my informants had made his protest against the acceptance of materials and methods with regard to that particular operation there, and because he would not give up his professional views upon that he had his contract ended.
I say that the way this business is going on at the moment calls for an inquiry. I should be glad to discuss with the Government if necessary what form the inquiry should take. But there is something that needs a lot of answering. I shall be most interested to hear what the noble Earl has to say upon it, but I

105
have no doubt at all that if the inquiry is granted there can be revelations for the benefit of Parliament, which has to provide the taxpayers' money in these matters, and for the benefit of the industry, which has every right to be encouraged to come to a more modernised and, in the end, more economic form of merchant ship propulsion. I believe this would provide some general addition to the incentive for protecting and increasing the expansion of British industry. I hope we shall get an answer to-night.
7.31 p.m.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, I rise to support my noble Leader. In preparation for this discussion on the Unstarred Question I did a little research in the Library, and I found that on no fewer than eleven occasions this question of nuclear ship propulsion has been before another place and your Lordships' House. It has been handled by two Ministers, the Minister of Transport and the Minister for Science, and in not one single case has a direct answer been given. There has been equivocation and dodging of the main points that have been put to the Ministers by the questioners. I think this is most unsatisfactory, and I hope that the noble Earl will be much more forthcoming when he comes to reply.
I want to ask him straight away one or two questions. First of all, I want to know whether the Committee under Sir Thomas Padmore has yet reported. I think that would be of interest to your Lordships, because, after all, this was the Committee which was set up to go into the matter. May we know whether the technical Committee under Professor Diamond of Manchester University have reported? Presumably they will have done, if the Padmore Committee have. Their terms of reference were singularly limited at the outset. They were called on to study two types of reactor—the integral boiling water reactor, which of course is a paper design produced by the Atomic Energy Authority at Risley; and secondly, what is known as the spectral shaft reactor of a water type known as the Vulcain.
The Vulcain is designed by a Belgian consortium, and what makes it rather unsatisfactory is, I think, that the British Atomic Energy Authority have entered
106
into a contract with Belgonucleaire who produced the Vulcain. Presumably if the A.E.A. choose this form of reactor it will be produced in Britain under licence, but it is not a British reactor. This is the point that I want to make, because later on in my speech I shall refer to other reactors of a foreign make. Obviously, there is no prejudice so far as Her Majesty's Government's present advisers are concerned, in obtaining and manufacturing a foreign reactor and placing it, should it be necessary, into a British ship. I should like to know whether the Atomic Energy Authority are providing money, which they presumably are, for the Vulcain, and whether there is any evidence at all that this reactor will be a suitable one for placing in a vessel. I think that is information which ought to be given to your Lordships.
One of the disturbing factors to those who have something to do with the industry is that apparently the Atomic Energy Authority are wedded to the philosophy of a pressurised water reactor, despite the fact that there are other systems. The most likely one at the moment is an American design of an air-cooled reactor. I want to reinforce what my noble Leader has said. The point is that tenders were asked for for this nuclear engine and reactor, and five firms tendered. Of those five firms, three submitted tenders for reactors of American design. I think that is rather of interest. But have these firms been told whether or not their tenders have been rejected? We should like to have an answer to that question. Were the firms told at the outset that the nuclear reactor that they had to produce for the ship had to have such characteristics that it would be an economic proposition if placed in a merchant ship? I think that is most important.
There is not the slightest doubt that we are behind other countries so far as nuclear reactors for ships are concerned. Let us look at the present situation. In the United States of America they have the "Savannah". I do not propose to say much about that; but it is a merchant ship. Of course, so far as naval ships are concerned they have the aircraft carrier, nuclear submarines (I forget how many), and a

107
nuclear-propelled cruiser. I am told that they are all of the pressurised water characteristic. So there is experience of nuclear propulsion. Then comes the question of the type. The type of reactor that is placed in the "Savannah", for instance, I am told, weighs something like 2,000 tons, for a shaft horsepower of 20,000; but with the air-cooled water reactors that weight can be reduced to something like 400 tons for a shaft horsepower of 20,000.
There is nothing secret about all this. This is not classified information. The noble Earl will be perfectly free to say whether this is true or not, because one can actually go and buy the technical appreciation of these forms of reactor. It is unclassified material, and is readily available in the United States. What we want to know is, what at the present moment are the Government going to do? Germany has placed a contract for a 15,000-ton oil carrier. The nuclear reactor is going to be of the Babcock and Wilcock water type. It is going to be built by Babcock and Wilcox Deutsch in consultation with Siemen-Schuchertz. Obviously, the Germans are pretty hardheaded in this matter. Apart from being our nautical rivals at the moment, they must have thought that this was an experiment worth going on with and that there seems to be a future for producing a merchant ship with a nuclear reactor.
What are the objections to going ahead with this scheme? I think the noble Earl should tell us what the objections are. There certainly cannot be any doubt about building a ship's reactor under licence. I cannot see any objection to that. Indeed, the Atomic Energy Authority, as I said earlier, are already considering the Vulcain. And from the point of view of the shipbuilders of Britain—after all, we do build hulls for ships and occasionally put in foreign engines, so there is nothing unusual in that—certainly the industry should be given a chance to produce a hull in which we can put a nuclear reactor.
A statement was made in answer to a Question in the other place that there was to be international co-operation so far as Britain was concerned in the production of a maritime nuclear reactor. What has
108
become of that proposal? Are any consultations taking place between the countries of Euratom? Has any consideration been given by the Technical Assessment Committee under Professor Diamond to the American 630A reactor? This reactor seems to have the best possibilities of all. It is much lighter, and indeed was originally conceived out of an idea of President Kennedy when the Americans were flirting with the idea of having a nuclear-propelled aeroplane. This reactor—and there is nothing secret about it—is certainly of much lighter weight and produces steam of a quality which is compatible with turbine techniques in modern merchant ships, so it overcomes many of the difficulties which exist in such ships as the "Savannah". I should like to know what consideration has been given to these matters.
I should also like to ask the noble Earl what is wrong with the conception of constructing an Admiralty fleet auxiliary, a tanker of 15,000 to 20,000 tons, and placing within that ship a nuclear reactor. We should get the experience of running it and also have extra facilities for training the crew. This appears to me to be something which could well be done. I am surprised that there has been no indication whatsoever from any spokesman on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that they are considering this. I think it is far better to work in that way than to have a dry cargo ship constructed by a private firm which would have to be subsidised at the outset. I think the Admiralty fleet auxiliary is a suggestion worth considering.
The fact remains that for British people it is rather annoying—because, after all, we were the pioneer of steam turbines in the past—that we should lag behind in this matter. It is evident that at the moment there is no nuclear reactor of British design which fits into the time schedule of the other nations who are constructing nuclear ships. To that extent, I consider that all British people—we are a seafaring nation—feel hurt in this matter. This is a question of pride.
I do not think that the implications of this Unstarred Question are that the Minister is expected to get up and say, "Here we have a reactor which is viable and, when installed in a merchant ship, will be a paying proposition." We do

109
not expect that. But we are now entitled, after three years of equivocation and of dodging the issue, to have some authoritative statement whether the Government are throwing out the whole conception of nuclear propulsion in merchant ships or whether they are prepared to go ahead. For my own part, I should like to see this great maritime nation build a nuclear ship. I am absolutely convinced that if we do not, we are going to fall behind in what, in five or six years' time, could very well be almost standard means of propulsion, particularly for fast cargo ships.
The Atomic Energy Authority have been criticised. One finds it difficult to know precisely what their rôle is in this matter, but there is no doubt that whilst they have spent taxpayers' money, so have many private firms in the British consortia spent many thousands of pounds in going into this problem. It is now incumbent on Her Majesty's Government to declare firmly their intentions in regard to nuclear propulsion in merchant ships.
7.45 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH): My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition for putting down this Unstarred Question on a subject which certainly deserves considerably more discussion than we were able to give it in question and answer the other day, and, indeed, than perhaps we can give it this evening. The noble Earl has great experience in these matters, as has the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, who, as a former power station engineer, is perhaps as well qualified to speak as anyone else in this House; and I am very glad that he did speak.
I should like first to deal with certain points which were raised by the noble Earl in his supplementaries last Wednesday, and which also have a direct bearing on what he has said this evening. The noble Earl referred a few days ago to the article in the Financial Times. of February 20 and asked me whether it was true that by then, as he has again stated this evening, £3·4 million had already been spent on research into nuclear propulsion for merchant ships. I confirm
110
what I said in answer to him that £3 million had certainly been spent by the beginning of this year, and that expenditure was continuing at the rate of about £2 million a year.
The noble Lord, Lord Waleran (who unfortunately is not with us this evening), asked me how I related the statement that £3 million had been spent since November, 1961, with the answer made by my right honourable friend, the Chief Secretary, in another place on November 20 last, that the nuclear marine programme cost £200,000 a year. I have already informed my noble friend that this figure of £200,000 related only to the extent to which the Atomic Energy Authority had placed contracts with industry and paid for research, design and development work on nuclear merchant propulsion. The figure of £200,000 was given in response to a question specifically concerning British companies engaged on this research. This expenditure was part—and only a small part—of the total expenditure of £3 million to which I have referred. The remainder of this sum of £3 million has been spent by the Atomic Energy Authority on work by its own design teams, working in conjunction with engineers, naval architects and others seconded from the British shipbuilding industry and the British Ship Research Association, together with the Authority's share of the expenditure on the joint project with Belgonucleaire on the Vulcain reactor.
The development of any reactor, and particularly one designed as a marine propulsion unit, is essentially a long-term process. Results of such development programmes do not materialise within a year or two, as I think noble Lords opposite recognise. For example, the agreement with Belgonucleaire to develop the Vulcain system, which was signed in 1962, extends to 1967. This is a long-term agreement covering this particular project of which we are a joint party. Belgonucleaire is a commercial undertaking, and its partnership with the Atomic Energy Authority necessarily has a commercial aspect. The Belgonucleaire and the Atomic Energy Authority are joint owners of the patents, and an arrangement has been reached on licensing should the Vulcain system prove to be successful.

111
Under the Vulcain project the fuel elements, which have been designed for the Vulcain reactor, will be tested as a complete charge in an existing pressurised water reactor, the B.R.3 in Belgium, in order to determine the behaviour of the fuel elements under operating conditions. Noble Lords know what problems are involved there.
LORD SHEPPERD: My Lords, before the noble Earl proceeds, could he give the figure of the British financial contribution to the Belgonucleaire agreement? This is a question that my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has put on two occasions. I think it is very important, when taking into account the small amount that the Government have contributed to British industry.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, this is a figure which I was hoping I might be able to give your Lordships. I cannot do so to-day, but I hope that it may be possible to do so on a later occasion.
The noble Earl also asked me—and he confirmed this to-day—whether or not the handing over of this research to the Atomic Energy Authority had led to the discarding of any further consideration of the American steam-cooled reactors, or those developed by Rolls-Royce and their associates, or by Mitchell's. He said that the Mitchell reactor had, in fact, been quoted at a firm price, much below anything we seemed to be able to get in any other direction. In reply to the noble Earl on those points, I should like to say this. Those American types of reactor, which are essentially variations of the pressurised water system, are said to be ready for immediate installation. But, my Lords, the United States Administration do not at present appear to intend to build another nuclear-propelled merchant ship.
I understand that the reactor system which was investigated some years ago by Rolls Royce and its associates is no longer being put forward by that group of firms. I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me if I do not at this moment enter into any discussion on the merits of the reactor design put forward by the Mitchell undertaking, nor refer to the
112
claims which he made the other day regarding its cost of construction and seaworthiness.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, with regard to the steam-cooled design which was quoted by Rolls Royce and its associates at £550,000, may I ask if there was ever any communication to them that there was any disapproval by the Atomic Energy Authority of its design? May I ask, also, whether any similar expression of disapproval was communicated from the Atomic Energy Authority to Mitchell's; and, if so, why?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, these points are all matters for the Working Group and for the Diamond Panel. I do not think it would be at all appropriate for me to go into them this evening. They are matters which have been examined by the Working Group; and, as I say, their Report is awaited. Until Ministers have this Report in their hands, they will be in no position to evaluate the claims which have been made on behalf of this reactor system and others.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl, before he proceeds?—because this is a most important matter. My noble friend Lord Hobson specifically asked whether the Report had been received. Obviously, it has not been received, so can the noble Earl say when he expects to receive it?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: It will be received very shortly, my Lords.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We never get any information.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: In answer to further supplementary questions last Wednesday, I also referred to the Russian icebreaker "Lenin", which can be operated without regard to ordinary commercial considerations. There is then the United States passenger cargo ship "Savannah", to which I have already referred, and this cannot be regarded as an economic unit. I have already said that the Americans show no present intention of building another passenger cargo ship. I have just seen that the "Savannah" is reported as

113
having cost the Americans 83 million dollars, and we might well ask what the results have been there. I also mentioned the other day that the Germans and the Japanese had each announced their decision to build a ship. I should add, in this connection, that the Germans have, as the noble Earl knows, ordered a reactor of American design from Babcock and Wilcox. There are observations I could make upon that, which I cannot do in your Lordships' House, but your Lordships may well be able to imagine what has passed. Then, in so far as the Japanese are concerned, they have still apparently to decide what reactor they propose to install
The noble Earl now asks:
"What steps are being taken to put this seafaring nation on comparable terms and to match the progress of other nations in respect of nuclear propulsion in merchant ships."
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not want to embarrass the noble Earl, but before he goes on to the future steps I should like to have some answer, if I may, as to why the I.B.R.s were abandoned, and why all the steps were taken by the Atomic Energy Authority to get somebody dismissed who had exposed the very reasons for which they have subsequently been abandoned. I should also like to know the actual relationship of the Vulcain project to the I.B.R.s which have been abandoned.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I have the answer. The work by the Atomic Energy Authority on the I.B.R. has been suspended for reasons unconnected with the contentions put forward by Captain Atkins, whom we all recognise as an eminent naval engineer. The main reason was that the design of the fuel elements entailed a long-term development programme. Incidentally, I would take this opportunity again formally to deny that Sir Roger Makins had any connection with the dismissal of Captain Atkins by Vickers. Lastly, on this point, I should emphasise that the Atomic Energy Authority has achieved much in the development of nuclear power stations, for which the economic prospects are good. Nuclear power for ships, however, is a different problem.
I assume that what the noble Earl has in mind is the development of a
114
reactor unit which can be economically operated in a merchant vessel. Your Lordships will have gathered from what I have said—and I must re-emphasise it—that so far no country has built an economic propulsion reactor for use in a merchant vessel; and, so far as I understand the matter, it will be many years before they do. Indeed, during the course of this debate some noble Lords could have said that we might see a jet engine in a motor car. This, of course, may come. I do not know whether the noble Earl was referring to diesel engines or not, but he referred to the fact that at one time a certain type of engine was not accepted but that later it was. Sometimes a design may he accepted: sometimes it may prove to be inappropriate.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I struggled for the right word. The word I ought to have used was "turbines". Turbines, it was said in the early 1900 period, were unlikely ever to be useful for the propulsion of merchant ships. But in fact this country then made a great advance in turbines, and later on very specialised turbines swept the industry throughout the world, almost. I want that to happen with the nuclear propulsion of merchant ships.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: The noble Earl may be right—I do not know. I hope he is. I do not want to knock this project too hard, and I am merely putting the considerations which have to be taken into account. The American one has cost 83 million dollars—
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt while he is on that point? Could consideration not have been given, as I said in my speech, to putting a nuclear reactor in an Admiralty fleet auxiliary? They are not under any real compunction to operate at an economic cost, but you would get the experience.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: That is a very interesting suggestion which I am sure the Working Group, if they have not already considered it, would be only too willing to consider. But, as I think your Lordships recognise, submarines, warships and icebreakers are another matter, because they do not

115
have to operate under commercial conditions, and there are, of course, logistic advantages in ships which can refuel only at very long intervals being equipped with nuclear reactors. But merchant ships can refuel, and they do require above all to be economic, and in that context capital and operating costs are very important.
My Lords, I am not going to go into details regarding the figures of shaft horse-power. I do not think that I can accept the figures which the noble Earl gave me this afternoon. But, there again, that is a matter which the Working Group will no doubt also consider. I know that the noble Earl will appreciate from what I have said in regard to activities in certain other countries that to use the phrase which he has used in his Question, "match their progress", is somewhat to misdescribe the position they have reached. These countries, like us, are grappling with what is a complicated problem, and one which, if it is to be resolved successfully, will entail a substantial expenditure over a long term of years. We are not giving up this project, but it is a most complicated one and it is by no means certain that success will ultimately be achieved.
There is no question but that a propulsion unit could be built now for reliable operation in a merchant vessel, but it could not be economic in competition under normal commercial conditions with conventional ships, and none of my shipping friends seems to support the idea. In view of what has been said, I think I must quote to your Lordships a passage from the Annual Report of the Chamber of Shipping, dated February 27. They say here—and this is really an objective analysis:
"There is no evidence that any of these ships will be commercially viable. These facts alone indicate the uncertainty surrounding the future of nuclear power for merchant ships, and put more accurately in perspective the absence of any firm decision in this country".
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUH: My Lords, that is the reason why they have no evidence. It is because they have not been given all the information that I have had, for example.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I think they have gone into it in some
116
detail, my Lords. There is no question, as I say, but that a unit could be put into a ship, but I do not find that the shipping industry thinks the possibilities very promising. The vital question is whether, by building and operating an experimental ship, we could put ourselves in a better position to achieve, in the longer term, an economic unit capable of competing with diesel and steam turbine units. That is what the Government will have to decide when they have the Report of the Working Group. I should perhaps remind the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, that the tenders submitted in 1960 were considered at the time. The Government decided in the following year not to proceed with building a ship, and instead to initiate a further programme of research.
In regard to the noble Earl's suggestion that an inquiry should be set up, I hardly think that this is necessary, since the Working Group, under the chairmanship of Sir Thomas Padmore, is itself an independent body, as is the Technical Panel which assists it and which was set up to assess the merits of the various reactor systems. I cannot therefore think it necessary to set up another committee. The Panel have examined six reactor systems. For the most part, they have been variations of the pressurised water system, together with the Mitchell steam-cooled reactor and one other, more advanced, concept making use of air-cooling. My Lords, I feel we must await the Report of the Working Group. I hope that this Report will shortly be in the hands of Ministers, who will, I am sure, be anxious to reach a decision as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter. On a subject of this importance they will need some little time in which to digest the considerations advanced and to decide what would be the most desirable course for this country to follow.
My Lords, this has not been a general debate on atomic energy, but the remarks of certain noble Lords would perhaps have fitted more conveniently into such a general debate, which I suppose we can hold at any time if the Business of the House makes it possible. But the general performance of the Atomic Energy Authority is something very

117
much wider than this relatively narrow field. As to the announcement which my right honourable friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty made in another place yesterday, that, again, is something which I do not think your Lordships would wish me to deal with here, but I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, for having raised this matter. It has interested me greatly in going into it, and it has interested me greatly also to
118
hear what he has had to say, as well as what the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, has said.

SAINT JOHN'S CHURCH, SMITH SQUARE BILL [H.L.]
Committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
House adjourned at nine minutes past eight o'clock.