Sitting of 5 March 1964

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

    Homosexual Offences
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of known homosexual offences and the number of prosecutions for such offences in 1939 and the latest year for which figures are available.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): Figures are available only for indictable offences. The number of indictable homosexual offences known to the police in 1939 was 1,192, and the number of persons prosecuted in that year for such offences was 596. The corresponding figures for 1962, the latest year for which statistics are available, were 4,866 and 1,946. These figures do not necessarily reflect a proportionate increase in homosexual behaviour.
    Mr. Shepherd: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this increase in prosecutions reflects any increased vigilance on the part of the police in respect of this crime?
    Mr. Brooke: The police are always vigilant. I do not think that I can say more than that.
    Mr. Fitch: Can the Home Secretary say how many homosexual offences came to light because the homosexuals themselves sought police protection against blackmailers?
    Mr. Brooke: Certainly not without notice.

    Firearms (Unlawful Possession)
    Mr. J. Wellsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what
    1492
    was the total number of illegal arms handed in during the last amnesty; and over how long a period that amnesty was given.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): Chief officers of police were asked not to take proceedings for unlawful possession against anyone surrendering firearms and ammunition between 3rd August and 31st October, 1961. During that period 70,486 firearms of all types were handed in.
    Mr. Wells: As it is nearly three years since the previous amnesty, would not my hon. Friend look at the possibility of having another one, with a view to reducing the number of illegal weapons in the country?
    Mr. Woodhouse: This is a very important branch of the law and my right hon. Friend would have to consider carefully the effect of over-frequent amnesties of this nature. The 1961 amnesty came after an interval of 15 years, and my right hon. Friend does not think that a further amnesty after so short an interval would be justified.
    Mr. Lipton: Has the hon. Gentleman taken note of what was said in the last Report of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis in which it was suggested that the penalty for the illegal possession of firearms should be very substantially increased?
    Mr. Woodhouse: Yes, I am aware of that point and it has been the subject of consideration by the Chief Constables Committee.

    All-in Wrestling Performances (Women)
    Commander Keransasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to prohibit all-in wrestling performances by women.
    Mr. Woodhouse: Although reports of one recent case have appeared in the Press, my right hon. Friend does not have sufficient evidence to justify consideration of legislation for this purpose.
    Commander Kerans: Is my hon. Friend aware that this takes place

    1493
    behind a public house at Wadhurst, in Kent, where I understand that local girls and a certain number of foreign girls take part in all-in wrestling? Does not he think this is a bad thing which ought to be stopped?
    Mr. Woodhouse: It is certainly not a spectacle which I should wish to witness myself, but in the particular case—there is only one case, to the best of my knowledge—to which my hon. and gallant Friend was referring, the exhibition was arranged by a local club formed for the purpose of fostering the interest of persons of both sexes in judo, unarmed combat, self-defence and wrestling. So far as I know, the club has only 50 members.
    Miss Bacon: Is the hon. Member aware that there are some people who find all all-in wrestling, whether by men or women, most revolting?
    Mr. Woodhouse: There is provision in certain areas of the country for the licensing of public exhibitions by the local authority which can, in certain cases, attach conditions; but my right hon. Friend has had no representations to the effect that it is necessary to extend such leglisation over the whole country.

    Drug Addicts (Prescriptions)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what supervision he exercises over the issue of prescriptions to persons claiming to be drug addicts.
    Mr. Woodhouse: The provision of supplies of dangerous drugs to a patient who is addicted depends solely on the decision of the medical practitioner professionally responsible for the case. This is in accordance with the advice given by the Rolleston Committee on Morphine and Heroin Addiction in 1926, and by the Brain Committee on Drug Addiction in 1961.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend fully satisfied that this is working properly, since many chemists in the West End of London are concerned that the large number of Canadian and American customers who come to them for drugs say they come here solely for the purpose of getting drugs easily and cheaply?
    Mr. Woodhouse: I think it right that responsibility in this matter should rest with the medical profession. I hope it may help to reassure my hon. Friend when I add that there is a Home Office handbook on the duties of doctors and dentists under the Dangerous Drugs Act and Regulations, which contains advice on prescribing for addicts. If it is found from chemists' registers that a medical practitioner has been prescribing dangerous drugs regularly for a patient over a long period, arrangements can be made for a regional medical officer to visit the doctor to give him such advice as may be necessary.
    Sir B. Stross: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, up to date at least, the number of registered drug addicts in this country is fortunately very low?
    Mr. Woodhouse: It is very low, but it has been rising in recent years.

    Motorists (Radar Speed Checks)
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallaieuasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the working of the law in regard to the operation of radar speed checks on motorists; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Woodhouse: Radar meters provide impartial evidence of the speed of a vehicle and are effective and useful aids to the police in enforcing speed limits, the proper observance of which is an important factor in road safety.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the purpose of these checks is to catch the motorist who is driving dangerously and not necessarily to deal with someone who in conditions of safety may be making a technical breach of the law? Does radar do that?
    Mr. Woodhouse: I am advised that these instruments are reliable and accurate as instruments of enforcement available to the police. I could not go the whole way with the hon. Member in so far as his supplementary question appeared to imply that exceeding the speed limit is not in itself an offence.

    Eastern European Girls (Entry Permits)
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if

    1495
    he will now relax his policy towards the entry into this country of girls from Eastern European countries to take up domestic employment on a temporary basis.
    Mr. Brooke: Subject to security and other considerations, I am prepared to consider applications for au pair visits not exceeding 12 months by girls from Eastern European countries or, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, to consider applications to employ girls from these countries as domestics for a similar period.
    Mr. Mayhew: While thanking the Home Secretary for his welcome change of attitude, may I ask him to bear in mind in administering his decision that it is the desire of hon. Members on both sides of the House to increase contact with Eastern Europe?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he has said. I hope he will also take note of the necessary safeguards I included in my Answer.

    Flammable Nightwear (Regulations)
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieuasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now able to announce plans for the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of nightdresses made of inflammable material.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has now been made in his discussions with trade representatives about inflammable nightwear; and if, in view of the continuing series of accidents, he will now take steps to make the sale of inflammable nightwear unlawful.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now decided to take steps to prohibit the sale of nightdresses made of inflammable material.
    Mr. Brooke: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave on 3rd March to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Hocking).
    Mr. Mallalieu: Is the Home Secretary aware how unsatisfactory it is to give
    1496
    a written reply to a Question of this importance when a Question for Oral Answer on the subject has been on the Order Paper for five weeks? Will he carry the matter a little further? Will he consider banning not only children's nightdresses which are flammable, but all nightdresses which are flammable? Will be go beyond that to see if steps can be taken to stop the manufacture and sale of all clothing made of flammable material? Will he do all he can to give publicity to the virtues of wearing pyjamas rather than nightdresses by people of all ages?
    Mr. Brooke: Without taking sides on the question of pyjamas or nighties, I want the House to know that I am extremely anxious to diminish these terrible fatalities. I am quite sure that if action is to be effective it has to be taken by stages. It is no good forbidding people to buy things if there are no unsatisfactory alternatives on the market. That is why in the first stage I propose to impose statutory requirements on children's nightwear. Later it may be possible to widen the scope of the Regulations to include other forms of nightwear and, maybe, of materials sold in the piece, but we must make this effective and to do so we must act by stages.
    Mr. Lipton: Will the regulations provide that nightdresses made of approved materials shall be very clearly labelled to that effect with the possible washing instructions, because certain kinds of washing may diminish the value of the fabrics used? Will he see that these Regulations are brought into effect at the earliest possible moment and also make quite clear that the Regulations can provide only that the materials shall be flame-resistant, not necessarily flameproof?
    Mr. Brooke: It is important that warnings should be given to purchasers about methods of washing these materials. That is one of the matters I am considering. I am extremely anxious to have these new Regulations in effect forbidding the sale of children's flammable nightwear before the next winter comes when the danger will increase again.
    Mr. Dance: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill introduced

    1497
    yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) should go a very long way to help in this very serious matter?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the help she has given and the interest she has shown in this matter; but, as I explained earlier, it is absolutely essential before we prohibit other things to make certain that there is an adequate supply of the right type of nightdresses in the shops.

    Shops Act, 1950
    Commander Keransasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to bring up to date the Shops Act 1950, and to remove anomalies in its operation, with particular reference to the Fifth Schedule, under which it is permissible for shops in England and Wales to remain open on Sundays for the sale of fodder for horses, mules, ponies and donkeys at any farm, stables, hotel or inn.
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to amend the Shops Act to restore to small retailers the freedom to trade on Sundays and at hours not at present allowed in order to enable them to compete against multiple retail stores.
    Mr. Brooke: I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave on 5th February to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark).
    Commander Kerans: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Shops Act, 1950, is full of extraordinary anomalies, especially regarding Sunday opening? If we are to have a Bill on resale price maintenance, should we not also amend the Shops Act and bring it into line with the present age of the 'sixties?
    Mr. Brooke: I am sure that we should not wish to take any steps about Sunday opening of shops until we have received the report of the Crathorne Committee. The 1950 Act contains a number of anomalies. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not take it amiss when I point out that the Fifth Schedule not only permits the sale of fodder for
    1498
    horses and mules on a Sunday, but also of cooked or partly-cooked tripe.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Can my right hon. Friend say when the Crathorne Committee is likely to report? Is he aware that from such researches as I have been able to make, whereas it is possible to buy fish and chips in a café, it is illegal to buy fish and chips in a shop on a Sunday morning?
    Mr. Brooke: I am not sure when the Committee will report, but if my hon. Friend has any points which he thinks should be brought to the attention of the Committee, it is still in session.
    Sir J. Eden: In the consultations my right hon. Friend is holding to discuss the operation of this Act, will he take into account the powers of local authorities to enforce a half-day closing of shops, which directly militates against the introduction of a proper five-day working week?
    Mr. Brooke: That is one of the points on which I have sought the views of all interested associations.

    Offenders (After-care)
    Mr. Fitchasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the officials of the National Association of Probation Officers on the recommendations made in the Report of the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders in relation to the organisation of aftercare.
    Mr. Brooke: I would like to arrange for discussions shortly. If in the meantime there are any particular points which the Association wish to bring to my notice, I shall be glad to consider them.

    Mr. J. F. Lane
    Mr. G. H. R. Rogersasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will pay compensation to Mr. John Francis Lane in respect of his imprisonment from 5th December, 1962, until 21st June, 1963, in view of the fact that his conviction at London Sessions on two charges was quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on the latter date in a judgment which held that the summing up was wrong in law, that it

    1499
    contained mistakes of fact, and that it failed to give sufficient weight to the defence evidence.
    Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. It is not the practice, save in the most exceptional circumstances, to make payments from public funds to successful appellants. I have been unable to find grounds for treating Mr. Lane exceptionally.
    Mr. Rogers: Surely it is clear from the strong language used by the Court of Criminal Appeal that my constituent's loss of liberty for over six months and consequent loss of hundreds of pounds income was due to a grievous error at London Sessions? If that is not a case where compensation should be paid, I should be glad if the Home Secretary will tell me what is.
    Mr. Brooke: In this case I understand that the person in question—I do not know his reasons—did not apply for leave to appeal until three months after his conviction. It has been the policy of successive Home Secretaries of all parties to make ex-gratia payments to acquitted persons only when the claimant has suffered hardship through the negligence or misconduct of the police or some other public official. There is no evidence of that in this case, which I have looked into carefully.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Surely there have been occasions when people have been imprisoned for long periods and found innocent and payments have been made to them? Will my right hon. Friend recognise that that is only common justice and commonsense when people have suffered hardship—three months in prison is hardship—through mistakes made in the law?
    Mr. Brooke: The three months to which I referred were the three months which this person delayed in lodging his appeal. As I explained in answer to the last supplementary question, it has been the practice to make ex-gratia payments where, and only where, the claimant has suffered hardship through negligence or misconduct on the part of the police or some other public official.

    Laboratories (Live Animals)
    Mrs. Emmetasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to appoint a well
    1500
    qualified woman to the committee advising his Department on the supervision of laboratories making use of live animals for scientific and medical purposes.
    Mr. Brooke: I have invited Dr. Frances Gardner, F.R.C.P., to take the place of one of the members of my Advisory Committee who recently resigned. I am glad to say that she has agreed to serve, and I have accordingly appointed her a member of the Committee.
    Mrs. Emmet: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that appointment, which will give a great deal of satisfaction to a number of my constituents who have written to me about the completely male set-up of this Committee up to date, may I ask him to bear in mind that one lady might be a little lonely on the Committee and that if another vacancy occurs it might be strengthened in that respect? Is he aware that if he were to do that it would ease a great deal of the worries of those who feel very concerned about this matter, who would feel that with women and men together on the Committee there might be a more detailed and practical supervision of these laboratories?
    Mr. Brooke: As my hon. Friend raised this question, I might be permitted to say that one lady among a committee otherwise of men does not always feel lonely. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me credit for having broken through the hitherto all-male character of this Advisory Committee.

    Prison Officers (Social Work)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what progress has been made in associating prison officers more actively in the rehabilitation of prison inmates;
    (2) what new training facilities he is establishing to enable prison officers to qualify as social workers in prisons.
    Mr. Brooke: I welcomed the constructive proposals in a memorandum recently submitted by the Prison Officers' Association on the rôle of the prison officer in a modern penal system. These proposals, which include suggestions for enlarging the scope of prison officers' functions in closed local prisons and for the development of

    1501
    training in social studies, are now being considered by a joint working party of the Prison Department Whitley Council.
    Mr. Boyden: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that Answer. Will he give special attention to seeing that prison officers are trained specially for this rehabilitation work and not, as it were, leave them up in the air, having approved the scheme? Will he also see that prison officers are given scope for promotion on the welfare side in view of the long wait which most of them must now have before getting even one stage further?
    Mr. Brooke: This is a matter which is of considerable importance and I am very grateful for the attitude of the Prison Officers' Association to it. As to training, a course in group work has been arranged at Leicester University and that is being attended by officers from three prisons and one borstal. It is also hoped to make arrangements with adult education authorities for other training in social studies.
    Miss Bacon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is encouraging to know that prison officers wish to do this work? Will he do everything to expedite a decision, which could be of benefit not only to prisoners but also to prison officers?
    Mr. Brooke: Yes. Sir, and I think that we are acting as the hon. Lady would wish. This is now under consideration by a working party on which both my Department and the Prison Officers' Association are represented. I am sure that that is the most profitable way of making progress.

    Drugs
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in view of his recent consultations with the manufacturers of purple heart pills, what further action he proposes to take to control their sale to the public and particularly to young people.
    Mr. Brooke: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Holland) on 27th February.
    Mr. Jones: I studied that reply and found it to be quite unsatisfactory. May
    1502
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that I have discussed this problem with chemists and that they have assured me that these young people at the count-down, after being "blocked"—I use the colloquial term—are really pitiable creatures? Is he also aware that I have gone further into this matter and have analysed it with the help of documents in the Evening Standard library? Does he know that reputable journals come down heavily on one point; and why is it that the Home Secretary does not register these very dangerous drugs in the same way as he registers heroin and morphine under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1951? Why is it that, in the face of this scourge, the Home Secretary is being so dilatory?
    Mr. Brooke: I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman in criticising my announcement the other day, when said that I did not think that effective action could be taken under existing legislation. I have come to a conclusion on this matter and have decided to introduce fresh legislation to deal effectively with this menace.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further reports he has received in respect of the possession, sale, usage and particular effects of marijuana, heroin and other similar narcotics and drugs; to what extent police action has been successful in repressing or diminishing offences involving these drugs; and what steps have been taken to encourage the acceptance of therapeutic treatment by those affected by them.
    Mr. Brooke: I have not received any special report on these matters, but my Department is in continual touch with the enforcement authorities. It is not possible to say how far police action may have prevented offences being committed: the number of convictions for offences involving drugs controlled under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1951, was 686 in 1963 compared with 675 in 1962. The treatment of a drug addict is a matter for the medical practitioner in charge of the case.
    Mr. Sorensen: I thank the Home Secretary for that reply, but did I understand him to say earlier that he contemplated introducing legislation to deal

    1503
    with this traffic? Further, is any attempt being made, through boys' clubs and such organisations, to indicate the serious nature of drug addiction, and possible cures?
    Mr. Brooke: I indicated that I intended to introduce legislation regarding the amphelamines and barbiturates, which are not drugs of addiction in the sense of the drugs mentioned in the Question, but I entirely agree that everything possible should be done through youth clubs and the like to bring home to young people the dangers of drifting into the habit of taking these things.
    Mr. Sorensen: In that case, could not the right hon. Gentleman include drug addiction in the legislation he has already announced he will introduce?
    Mr. Brooke: I think that the existing legislation is effective for drugs like heroin. A Dangerous Drugs Bill, which has already received its Second Reading and been referred to a Standing Committee, is concerned with tightening the law in respect of canabis, otherwise known as Indian hemp, and I now wish to introduce further legislation relating to "purple hearts"—the so-called "pep" pills.

    Guns (Accidents)
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many accidents were caused by guns in 1962 and 1963; and how many of these accidents, in each year, involved children under the age of 16 years.
    Mr. Woodhouse: I regret that this information is not available. My right hon. Friend proposes, however, to review the working of the Air Guns and Shot Guns Act, 1962, at the end of July, after it has been in operation for two years and to ask then for a special return from chief officers of police.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Under-Secretary aware that I am rather surprised that this information is not available, because a constituent has written to me assuring me that the number of young people killed as a result of the unrestricted use of these air pellet guns is very high indeed? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is not only a question involving young lives but that wild life in the
    1504
    country is also being menaced? Does he not agree that some form of restriction should be applied to children under 16 regarding the sale and use of these weapons?
    Mr. Woodhouse: As I have said, this information will be obtained when the Act has been in operation for a reasonable period. Preliminary reports by chief constables already indicate that the new Act has had some effect in curbing the irresponsible use of these weapons. I am glad to say that in the Metropolitan Police District, the one area for which I already have figures, there has been a decrease from 1960 to 1963 in the number of accidents, including those involving children under 16.
    Mr. Jones: If the Under-Secretary can say that there has been that decrease in that area, why can he not give me the total number of accidents? If he can supply one set of figures, why can he not supply another?
    Mr. Woodhouse: For the reasons I have already given.

    Pornographic Material
    Mr. Longdenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the increase in the traffic of pornographic material; and what steps he is taking, and proposes to take, to counteract it.
    Mr. Brooke: Yes, Sir. Apart from books for which some literary merit may be claimed, there is a large traffic in pornographic material of no literary merit whatever. Those responsible for enforcing the existing laws have been active in suppressing this traffic, as evidenced by the facts and figures given by my hon. Friend, the Joint Under-Secretary of State, in his reply to the Adjournment Debate on 3rd December. Decisions of the courts have, however, revealed defects in the Dowers under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, to deal with this type of pornography, and I am considering what amendment of the law may be required.
    Mr. Longden: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he accepts that it is the duty of Parliament to take effective steps to protect young people from this traffic?
    Mr. Brooke: I am quite certain that it is the duty of the Home Secretary to see that the law is adequate to protect young people, and, indeed, people of all sorts, who may be corrupted by this kind of filth.
    Mr. Bellenger: Although I am glad to hear the last remarks of the right hon. Gentleman and to learn that he is considering taking steps to amend the 1959 Act, may I ask whether he realises, in view of the recent prosecution by the Director of Public Prosecutions, that it seems that the law acts in an isolated manner? If it is bad in one instance surely it is bad in another and does he not agree, therefore, that those who try to sell this obscene literature should be prosecuted?
    Mr. Brooke: Without going into the question of Fanny Hill and Lady Chatterley, the point I am seeking to make is that there is a great mass of pornographic literature which cannot conceivably be held to be in the interests of science or literature, and I intend to deal with that.
    Miss Quennell: When my right hon. Friend's committee considers the problem, will it please also bear in mind the fact that the laws we eventually want to see should not have such a confused and illogical character as they at present betray?
    Mr. Brooke: I do not think that I would wish to pass general strictures on the 1959 Act, which started as a Private Member's Bill. My concern is to close certain loopholes which have undoubtedly been shown up by decisions of the courts under that Act.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is the Home Secretary aware that we all welcome his assurance that he is determined to stop this vast mass of pornographic literature that has no claim at all to literary merit? Is it correct that the quantities of imported literature seized by the Customs and by the police has now reached such alarming proportions that there is not enough warehouse space to accommodate it, and is he taking steps either to build more warehouses or to start some bonfires to deal with it?
    Mr. Brooke: I would not say that the proportions that have been reached are so immense as to be alarming in the
    1506
    sense that the stuff cannot be stored, but I do think that it is alarming in relation to the harm it may do to people in this country, who may be corrupted by it. That is why I intend to deal with it.

    Mr. C. Oyesiku
    Mr. Reynoldsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why there was no police prosecution against the alleged assailant of Mr. C. Oyesiku of 26, Fonthill Road, London, N.4, who suffered injuries as a result of an assault on 13th October, 1963.
    Mr. Woodhouse: It is entirely a matter for the Commissioner of Police to decide whether there should be a police prosecution in any particular case arising in the Metropolitan Police District.
    Mr. Reynolds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that two years ago my constituent was run over by a motor van, that he reported the accident to the police, that investigations were made and that then all records were promptly lost? Is he aware that when my constituent took private action for damages, it was found that the driver of the motor car had no licence but had not been prosecuted? Is he further aware that in the assault case my constituent suffered a broken nose, a split rib, and was under medical care for three weeks, receiving far greater injuries than did Christine Keeler?
    Is he further aware that when my constituent's car was bashed into when it was stationary by the side of the road, my constituent was summoned for assaulting the police and using foul language? Is he further aware that my constituent has three times in six months been stopped when in his car, forced to show his driving-licence, and asked who the white woman was who was sitting next to him? Will the Under-Secretary carry out an inquiry into all the things I have just mentioned, because this seems to be too much of a coincidence to be true?
    Mr. Woodhouse: I have much sympathy with the hon. Member's constituent in the events recounted by the hon. Member, some of which were new to me, but the fact remains that the responsibility for prosecution, which is

    1507
    what the Question is about, rests with the Commissioner.
    Mr. Reynolds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter again at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Firemen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the various duties which firemen are expected to discharge; how many firemen in Great Britain are employed in cleaning fire stations; how many man-hours are spent in this way; why firemen are so employed; and if he will arrange the release of firemen from those duties so that they may devote their time to fire prevention work and employ cleaners for cleaning duties.
    Mr. Woodhouse: The position in England and Wales as regards the duties on which firemen are employed is similar to that in Scotland, and I cannot usefully add to the reply given yesterday to the hon. and learned Member by my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Under-Secretary agree that the reforms implicit in my Question are of a very constructive and serious character, and long overdue, and will he take urgent steps to implement them?
    Mr. Woodhouse: However much I might agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman—and I have much sympathy with what he says—the responsibility rests with the local fire authorities.

    Fire Losses
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that fire losses in Great Britain last year exceeded £65 million and that this figure is the highest ever; if he will state the localities chiefly affected what have been the principal causes of the increase in fire losses; and what steps he has taken and plans to reduce such losses.
    Mr. Woodhouse: The estimate of fire losses in 1963 is made by the British Insurance Association, and I have no analysis of its estimated figure of over £66 million. The legislative action which the Government have already taken to improve fire precautions in factory and other commercial premises, together with that which they are considering in respect of certain residential premises and places of resort, should make an impact on fire losses. But the problem is also largely one of increasing public awareness of the dangers of fire, and arrangements have recently been made to co-ordinate the efforts in this field of Government Departments, fire authorities and other interested organisations.
    Mr. Hughes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that detailed reply, but does he realise that these figures represent a very great national loss? Will he take steps to minimise them, either by increasing the fire services or by increasing the emoluments of the very skilled men already serving in the fire services, or both?
    Mr. Woodhouse: As I explained in my earlier Answer, the responsibility rests with the local fire authorities, but what we are doing, in addition to the legislation to which I have referred and all the fire prevention publicity, is to increase the number of fire prevention courses at the Fire Service College, of which we hope the local fire authorities will take account.

    Fuel Storage and Oil Fire Installations
    Miss Quennellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that fire authorities have no powers to regulate the siting of fuel-oil tanks; and if, for greater public safety, he will take steps to regulate the installation of bulk fuel-oil containers.
    Mr. Woodhouse: My right hon. Friend is aware that fire authorities do not have such powers. The Building Regulations Advisory Committee, in its first report to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works, has recommended that the control of fuel storage and oil fire installations

    1509
    should be linked with the procedure for examining plans under building control. The matter is being examined as part of the wider consideration which my right hon. Friend is giving to the extension of enabling powers for building regulations.
    Miss Quennell: Is my hon. Friend also aware that the growing popularity of oil-fired central heating, the increasing flammability of some of the fuel oils used, and the installation of this form of heating even in small dwellings like bungalows, will make this quite an acute problem if steps are not taken fairly soon?
    Mr. Woodhouse: I am aware of those facts. That is why the Ministry of Public Building and Works, which has recently taken over this responsibility from the Ministry of Housing, is examining the possible desirability of extending the present Public Health Act provisions.

    Commonwealth Immigrants (Deportation)
    Mr. N. Pannellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Commonwealth immigrants convicted of living on immoral earnings in the Metropolitan Police district in 1963 were recommended for deportation; and in how many cases the recommendations were confirmed.
    Mr. Brooke: I received 11 such recommendations in respect of Commonwealth immigrants and two in respect of citizens of the Irish Republic. Two of the recommendations were subsequently quashed on appeal; in nine cases deportation orders were made, and in the remaining two I decided not to act on the recommendation.
    Mr. Pannell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the incidence of this crime is increasing alarmingly; and that, in 1963, of 187 convictions, no less than 101 concerned Commonwealth and Irish immigrants? Is it not preposterous that very few of them are liable to deportation? Will he consider an amendment of the law to permit the deportation of immigrants who have been resident in this country for five years and more?
    Mr. Brooke: If I remember rightly, my hon. Friend sought to introduce a
    1510
    Bill on that subject under the Ten Minute Rule some months ago, and the House did not give him leave to bring it in. Quite frankly, my difficulty is that after five years residence here an alien can apply for naturalisation in this county and, if he gets it, he is immune from deportation. I should feel some considerable concern if a Commonwealth citizen who had been here longer than five years found himself liable to deportation.
    Mr. Pannell: Is it not necessary to reduce the incidence of this crime, without such refinement of argument?
    Mr. Brooke: I do not think that this is a refinement of argument. I believe that when the Commonwealth Immigrants Act has been in operation for five years my hon. Friend's difficulty will be removed, because I think that most of these miscreants will have been deported before the end of the five years.

    Landlords, St. Pancras Area (Police Investigations)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of Sate for the Home Department if he will call for a report of the investigations recently conducted by the Metropolitan Police into the activities of a landlord or landlords owning properties in St. Panel as and adjacent boroughs; and if he will communicate its contents to the Minister of Housing and Local Government
    Mr. Brooke: I have already received a report on police investigations into allegations involving the activities of certain landlords in St. Pancras and neighbouring areas, and I have supplied a copy to my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
    Mr. Robinson: Is the Home Secretary aware that I am grateful for that reply? Has he noted that the police have been given information of at least 50 cases where persons, including my constituents, have lost deposits amounting to about £1,500 to this landlord, Sydney William Haines, and his two or three associates? If a prosecution is not possible under the existing law, will the right hon. Gentleman discuss with his right hon. Friend some way of closing the loopholes in the law in

    1511
    order to protect from this kind of extortion innocent persons who need accommodation?
    Mr. Brooke: I have received and read this report, which concerns my own constituency as well as that of the hon. Member and certain other London boroughs. I am sure that if the report is thought by the Commissioner to give ground for prosecution there will be a prosecution, but apart from that I am sure that the next necessary thing is for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to consider it in all its implications.

    Prisoners (Release on Licence)
    Mr. S. Silvermanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what medical examinations are made before a long-term prisoner is released on licence, particularly in cases of violent crime; and what information about such examinations is given to the Central After-Care Association.
    Mr. Brooke: The release on licence of a prisoner serving a life sentence is decided upon only after consideration of every aspect of his case, including medical reports. The Central After-Care Association is given an assessment, based on the latest available information, of his medical condition.
    Mr. Silverman: Is the attention of the after-care authorities drawn to any indications that there may be in the medical report that the released prisoner is likely to commit offences of a similar kind again? If not, ought not such information to be given?
    Mr. Brooke: If the Central After-Care Association, which does its work very well, is given an assessment of the medical condition of the person concerned and is supplied with all relevant information, we must then leave it to the Association to consider in what ways it should exercise such powers as are given to it.
    Mr. S. Silvermanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are taken to ensure that the police notify the After-Care Association and the prison authorities when a fresh charge is preferred against any person who has been released on licence following a long prison sentence.
    Mr. Abseasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what administrative arrangements are in existence to enable immediate communication to be made to a Secretary of State for a decision to be taken for recall under section 27(2) of the Prison Act, 1952, in the event of a prisoner released on licence being charged or convicted with a further crime; and whether he is satisfied that the present administrative arrangements are satisfactory.
    Mr. Brooke: It is normal practice for charges against a person subject to a life licence to be notified to my Department by the police and, upon the licensee's reception in prison, by the prison governor. The police also, in appropriate cases, notify the local associate of the Central After-Care Association.
    Mr. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that these arrangements are carried out with sufficient care and that mistakes and omissions by negligence do not occur? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of a recent case in which a man who had served a long sentence after being convicted of murder, sentenced to death and reprieved, committed an offence of violence and was put on probation for it and the information concerning him was never given to the After-Care Association nor to the prison authorities? Did not very tragic results follow from that omission? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider again whether the practice, which may be adequate enough in principle, is really carried out with meticulous care in cases of this kind?
    Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. I am not aware of cases of negligence or omission in this matter.
    Mr. Abse: If a man commits an offence when he is out on licence, what steps does the right hon. Gentleman take to see that he has this information immediately? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread public concern that, for example, in another case a man who had committed 15 previous offences of a psychopathic character was able to commit a murder? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public want to know what steps he takes if a man is charged with violence when he is out on licence to see that he has

    1513
    immediate personal knowledge so as to recall the prisoner from his licence?
    Mr. Brooke: I have already answered that question. I said that when a person is out on licence from a life sentence and he is charged with another offence, that is immediately notified to me by the police, and if he is received in prison it is also notified to me by the prison governor.
    Miss Bacon: If the Home Secretary is notified by the After-Care Association, what went wrong in that he did not recall this prisoner to prison?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady is asking me about a case of a man who lies under sentence of death. It is the tradition of the House that Ministers are not called upon to answer questions about personal cases of that kind in those circumstances.
    Mr. Silverman: On a point of order. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you heard that answer given by the Home Secretary. I submit that what the right hon. Gentleman says goes far beyond the practice of the House. It is perfectly true that we have by custom reached a position where a Minister is not asked Questions concerning the reprieve or the non-reprieve of a person lying under sentence of death, but we have never so far, I submit, decided that because there is a person lying under sentence of death no Question of general principle arising out of the circumstances of his case can be put to the Minister? Are you aware that such an interpretation enables the Home Secretary to evade responsibilities to the House which he has no right to evade?
    Mr. Thorpe: Further to and arising out of that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you give guidance to the House? Is it not right to say that the only matter which may not be questioned is the advice which the Home Secretary tenders to Her Majesty in the exercise of the prerogative of Mercy? That is a matter which may not be questioned or discussed until it has been resolved one way or another, but any other kindred matter not touching on the exercise of the Prerogative is certainly within the jurisdiction of the House.
    Mr. Speaker: I think that in the interests of the House and of progress
    1514
    with our business, I had better deal with the matter as far as I can now. The actual rule and practice of the House will be found in a Resolution of February, 1961. In broad terms it indicates that the circumstances upon which the exercise of the Prerogative depends are the things that are debarred. As for the rest, I hope that I shall be excused from commenting on the Home Secretary's answer, because the short answer is that if a Minister declines to answer I have no power to make him do so. In those circumstances, it would seem better to make progress with other Questions.
    Mr. Silverman: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the question which the right hon. Gentleman refused to answer on this ground did not mention anybody's name, did not mention conviction, or what should happen about the man, if anything? The question asked why, where a person convicted of a crime of violence had been released, and had committed two other or at least one crime while out on licence, the power given to the Home Secretary to recall him before he did further harm was not exercised? Why is it said that this is out of order?
    Mr. Speaker: Nobody said that it was out of order. Let us not confuse two things. Suppose that a question was submitted, either by way of a supplementary or by being tabled, the responsibility would rest on me to decide whether it was in order and I would apply the known rules. Different considerations apply to an answer, because if a Minister declines to answer I have no power to make him do so and therefore no point of order arises.
    Miss Bacon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary Question related to an occurrence before ever a murder was committed. If I heard the right hon. Gentleman aright, he said that he could not answer because it was not the custom to answer such questions. In the circumstances, will you rule whether or not the right hon. Gentleman would have been able to answer my question?
    Mr. Scholefield Allen rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that, in the general interest, the House will not

    1515
    on this matter use up all the time for Prime Minister's Questions. It is really no good seeking to make points of order to the Chair upon a Minister refusing to answer, because the Chair has no power to compel him.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (TECHNICAL COSTS OFFICERS)
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if he will co-ordinate the activities of the Minister of Aviation, the Minister of Defence and other Government Ministers involved in negotiation for large-scale contracts, with a view to establishing a training college for men wishing to enter the public service as technical costs officers.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I am not satisfied that the establishment of a special training college would be useful. The Ministry of Aviation and the Post Office which employ technical costs officers on a substantial scale look for recruits who have appropriate qualifications and practical experience; and, where appropriate, arrange for officers to attend technical colleges to study for higher qualifications. But, in general, the specialised experience needed can only be acquired on the job. Co-ordination between Departments already exists, and advice is available on request to other Ministries including the Defence Departments.
  Mr. Dalyell: Does that answer mean that the Prime Minister confirms that the Civil Service is short of technical costs officers; and, if he does not like the idea of a training college, what better plan has he?
  The Prime Minister: There are 45 officers attending technical colleges today, and there is a number also at the Hatfield College of Technology. I think this is the best way to proceed; but we are a bit short of recruits and we should like some more.

  URBAN DEVELOPMENT
  Mr. Longdenasked the Prime Minister what consideration Her Majesty's Government have given to the effect of the growth of population on the
  1516
  physical environment of the British Isles; what is their policy regarding distribution of population between urban and rural areas, and its density in each area; and what steps Her Majesty's Government will take to ensure that new urban development will conform to adequate aesthetic and functional standards.
  The Prime Minister: These matters are dealt with in the regional studies for the various areas of the country. The specific question of urban development has, of course, recently been debated.
  Mr. Longden: Will my right hon. Friend agree that, as we have been privileged to inherit one of the most beautiful islands in the world, we must, as trustees for posterity, try rather harder than we seem to be not to convert that inheritance into a legacy of ugliness? In view of the inevitable enormous increase in population and the hundreds of millions of £s which will have to be spent on towns and roads, would it not be a good thing to set up some kind of central council under a Cabinet Minister charged with the overall responsibility for our physical environment?
  The Prime Minister: We must certainly try to do better than we have in the past—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—to do better than all Governments and all parties have done in the past to achieve a better balance between country and town. If my hon. Friend would like to pursue this matter, I think that it would, perhaps, be better to do so after the plans for the south-east of England have been issued on 19th March.
  Mr. Woodburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Report of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of the Industrial Population published in 1940, which surveyed the whole of this problem and made recommendations but to which, with the exception of what was done under the Labour Government, nobody seems to have paid any attention?
  The Prime Minister: In all the recent plans we have had for development, we have taken this very seriously into account.
  The Earl of Dalkeith: Will my right hon. Friend give every encouragement he can to forestry as one of the best means

  1517
  of providing worth-while employment in rural areas and thereby halting the drift of population from the countryside to our already overcrowded towns?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I have very great sympathy with this. When I was in Scotland, as Minister of State, I did a great deal in the matter myself.

  NORTH VIET-NAM
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister, in view of the pledge of support he gave to President Johnson's policy of intervention in South Viet-Nam, what policy he stated in regard to North Viet-Nam.
  Mr. Rankinasked the Prime Minister, in view of his agreement with President Johnson on South Viet-Nam, what discussions he had with him about a similar arrangement for North Viet-Nam.
  The Prime Minister: I told the House on 3rd March, in reply to a Question from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), that the United States policy for which I reaffirmed support was to help the Republic of Viet-Nam defend its independence. I did not discuss the North.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the Americans are losing their war of intervention in South Viet-Nam and that the idea is under active consideration of invading North Viet-Nam as the only alternative to accepting defeat? Will he make clear that the Government will wholeheartedly oppose any suggestion of any attack on North Viet-Nam?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot accept the words "war of intervention" in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. This is American intervention at the request of the South Viet-Namese Government. The second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question escapes me for the moment.
  Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister—
  Mr. Zilliacus: May I repeat the last half of my supplementary question?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I called Mr. Rankin. We will try to get back to the
  1518
  hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zillicus) in a moment.
  Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has given complete support to American policy in South Viet-Nam, will he assure us that we are not thereby committed to support American policy in North Viet-Nam?
  The Prime Minister: That reminds me of the second part of the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Gorton. Mr. Rusk has made quite clear that the United States Government have not taken any such decision, so the question does not arise.
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: Has the Prime Minister noted, regarding the pledge of support from this country, that the Leader of the Opposition has just given an exactly similar pledge in America, which has much gratified the American administration?
  The Prime Minister: It is not for me to make the right hon. Gentleman's views clear.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman seems to think it becoming in a Prime Minister to repeat a completely false statement and to add some of his own to it, and since outside this House I intend to ask him to produce chapter and verse and timing for the allegation which he made this morning or withdraw his allegation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Cheating. Dirty politics."]—we can deal—[Laughter.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the House conducts a class in semaphore, we shall make very little progress.
  Mr. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman—I wanted him to be able to listen to this—now come back to the question of South Viet-Nam? Does he confirm that, last Saturday, the President of the United States said that no decision would be taken about future Viet-Nam policy until Mr. McNamara's visit to Saigon next week, but will he make clear, as others, including myself, have done, the advice which, I am sure, we would all want to give against those in Washington who are proposing an invasion of North Viet-Nam as a way of aiding the situation in South Viet-Nam?
  The Prime Minister: I do not know who the people are in Washington who

  1519
  —[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members opposite know who these people are in Washington who are proposing to invade North Viet-Nam. I do not. All I can say in reply to the right hon. Gentleman is that we have given no such support to any such idea.
  Mr. Wilson: That is gratifying. Would the right hon. Gentleman do better, in seeking information from Washington, to base his information on what his own Embassy can tell him and not rely on the Evening Standard?
  The Prime Minister: Perhaps to save the right hon. Gentleman the trouble of any—[Interruption.]—I think that the right hon. Gentleman wants to know my view. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman said in Washington. I dare say none of us will ever know. What did happen—the right hon. Gentleman was away and he may not have known about this—was that great headlines appeared to the effect that he had said something. What it was he must explain.
  Mr. Wilson: Would the Prime Minister ask his officers in the Embassy, who were present at all the statements which I made in Washington—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—certainly. Will he ask them the date on which I made the speech which this morning he alleged I made, and will he then find that he was totally wrong in what he said this morning and that no speech on Viet-Nam or any other question was made by me in Washington or anywhere else in the United States until after this particular he had come to the United Kingdom and been denied? In view of the fact that he said this morning that I made a speech, found it unpopular and retracted it, will the right hon. Gentleman now withdraw?
  The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman says that he did not say these things in a speech and I have insinuated that he did, of course I withdraw it, naturally. That is the thing to do. But we still have to have explained these extraordinary headlines which came to us—[Interruption.]
  Mr. W. Hamilton: On a point of order. Is it—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish to hear what is being addressed to me on a point of order.
  Mr. Hamilton: I wish to ask whether it is in order for the Prime Minister, or indeed any other Minister, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, or any other Member of the House, to deny or confirm headlines in a newspaper.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think that any point of order arises on that.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: I have not yet finished what I was saying. What was in order was matter arising out of some answers relating to South Viet-Nam. That was all that was about.
  Mr. Hamilton: I was simply relating my question to the remark of the Prime Minister when he asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to explain a headline in a newspaper. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, have repeatedly intervened when Members have been asked to confirm or deny newspaper reports, saying that this was not the function of any Member of the House.
  Mr. Speaker: This will sound funny, but it is none the less strictly accurate. That rule applies to Parliamentary Questions to Ministers but not to Ministers' answers. That is the fact.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. H. Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 9TH MARcH—Supply [11th Allotted day]: Committee.
Army Votes 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11 and Army Supplementary

Defence (Royal Ordnance Factories) Estimate,

Defence (Army) Purchasing (Repayment) Services Estimate.

Air Votes 1, 2, 7, 9 and Air Supplementary.

1521
Navy Votes, 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11.
It may be found to be generally convenient to devote two hours to each of the three Services.
Motions on the Local Government Orders.
Second Reading of the Licensing Bill [Lords], and the Television Bill [Lords], which are Consolidation Measures.
TUESDAY, 10TH MARCH—Second Reading of the Resale Prices Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
Lords Amendments to the Industrial Training Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 11TH MARCH—Supply [12th Allotted day]: Committee stage of the Civil Estimates and Defence (Central) Estimates, Vote on Account, 1964–65.
A debate will take place on the cost of living.
At 9.30 p.m. the Questions will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion, and on all outstanding Votes, under Standing Order No. 18.
Motion on the Secretary of State for Education and Science Order.
THURSDAY, 12TH MARCH—Remaining stages of the Police Bill.
FRIDAY, 13TH MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 16TH MARCH—The proposed business is Private Members' Motions until Seven o'clock.
Completion of the remaining stages of the Harbours Bill.
Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it may be optimistic to assume that the remaining stages of the Police Bill can be completed in the time he has given? Will he therefore approach this problem with some flexibility? If more time is required, will he be prepared to ensure that the House is given more time?
Secondly, in view of the representations which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has received from at least one quarter about which we know, and perhaps from some quarters about which we do not know, will he say why he is
1522
confining the debate on Tuesday to one day in view of the very considerable interest in the matter and concern that there should be an adequate debate on Second Reading?
Mr. Lloyd: I will consider what the right hon. Gentleman said in the first part of his question. There is, however, not much room for flexibility. I hope that the House will be able to succeed in its allotted time on Thursday. I will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Regarding the right hon. Gentleman's question on the Second Reading of the Resale Prices Bill, it is the Government's intention to propose that the Committee stage be taken on the Floor of the House. In those circumstances, the view which I take is that one day is appropriate for the Second Reading. If there is a desire for a possible extension of time, perhaps that can be discussed through the usual channels.
Mr. Wilson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, who, to my knowledge, has vast experience of the legislative process on the Finance Bill, must have appreciated by this time the difference between what is in order on Second Reading and the much more limited matter of what is in order on the Committee, Report and Third Reading stages. In view of the general debate which has gone on of what one might call Second Reading points throughout the country and in more than one party, does not he feel that a two-day debate on Second Reading is merited?
Mr. Lloyd: I think that two days on Second Reading are justified only when the Bill is going upstairs to a Standing Committee and when many hon. Members are prevented from having the opportunity of speaking on Second Reading or at any time during the Committee stage. If the Committee stage is to take place on the Floor of the House, it is reasonable to have a one-day debate with, as I say, a possible extension.
Mr. Renton: In view of the concern which was, I think, felt on both sides of the House about the matters raised in Question No. 2 to the Prime Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Long-den), I wonder whether my right hon.

1523
and learned Friend has seen Motion No. 17 which has been signed by 100 Members of the House asking the Government to do more to encourage emigration and whether Government time might be found for considering this matter.
[That this House welcomes the declared policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage emigration from the United Kingdom to various countries of the Commonwealth and calls upon the Government to implement that police more fully by spending a larger proportion of the sums voted by Parliament for assisted passages under the Commonwealth Settlement Act.]
Mr. Lloyd: I am afraid I can make no promise to my right hon. and learned Friend of Government time before Easter to discuss that matter.
Mr. Wade: When is there to be a debate on the White Paper on Monopolies, Mergers and Restrictive Practices? Is it intended that it should be debated at the same time as the Second Reading of the Resale Prices Bill on Tuesday? If so, surely a one-day debate will not be adequate.
Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that that would be the intention. The White Paper must be debated in due course and at a convenient time. When such a time would be is a matter for discussion through the usual channels.
Sir G. Nicholson: For Wednesday, my right hon. and learned Friend has announced a debate on the cost of living. Did he not say that a good deal of business would be set down beforehand? Does he expect it to be taken formally?
Mr. Lloyd: The business for Wednesday, 11th March, will be on the Vote on Account.
Sir G. Nicholson: How can my right hon. and learned Friend be certain that hon. Members will confine their speeches to that subject?
Mr. Lloyd: I certainly cannot be sure, but it is a matter of convention.
Mr. Wilson: Is the Leader of the House aware that we have had very much in mind the point which he has just made concerning the desirability of
1524
adequate time to debate these Supplementary Estimates, even though the debate on them is inevitably limited in scope? Is he aware that we intend to table what needs to be tabled for next week's debate in such a way as to provide the most adequate time for a full examination when we come to Report stage?
Mr. Jay: Is not the Leader of the House aware that it would be quite impossible to debate the Second Reading of the Resale Prices Bill next week without reference to the monopolies White Paper, which the Government have published today? Would it not be much more sensible and in everybody's interest to have two days and to debate them together?
Mr. Lloyd: I should not have thought that there would be sufficient time to consider the White Paper for that to take place next week.
Mr. Gardner: Has my right hon. and learned Friend now been able to give further thought to the suggestion contained in Motion No. 27 that opportunities be given at the discretion of the Chair for brief speeches during major debates?
[That this House would welcome the implementation of the unanimous recommendation of the Report from the Select Committee on Procedure 1959 that an hour be set aside, at the discretion of the Chair, for brief speeches on the occasions of major debates.]
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this Motion now has the support of 115 hon. Members, on both sides of the House? Can he allow time to debate this Motion or, alternatively, will he consider referring it to an appropriate Committee of the House?
Mr. Lloyd: The Motion was passed last week to set up the Select Committee on Procedure. I intended to suggest to the House that the matter should be referred to that Committee.
Dr. King: The Prime Minister has told us that on 19th March the South-Eastern Regional Development Report will be published. As this Report is not only of great importance to the South-East but is of national significance,

1525
will the Leader of the House consider the possibility some time in the future of debating that Report in the House?
Mr. Lloyd: Certainly.
Mr. Webster: May we have an extra day on defence this year so that we can discuss the future of the Royal Navy in view of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Lloyd: I think that my hon. Friend has had plenty of opportunities.
Miss Herbison: Since the Leader of the House must be aware of the great dissatisfaction on both sides about the working of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, will he give time for a debate upon its work? If he decides to give time, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that the Prime Minister takes part in the debate, since he is very much involved in these matters in Scotland, or will the Prime Minister be so engaged grovelling in the gutter that he cannot find time to do so? [Hon. Members: "Answer."]
Mr. Cole: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend—
Miss Herbison: May I have an answer, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: I saw no signs of answer. I called the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole).
Mr. Cole: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether, even though the White Paper on Monopolies, Mergers and Restrictive Practices has been produced only today, it might not be better in the public interest to debate this with the Resale Prices Bill on Tuesday and Wednesday? Will he, therefore, give facilities for the whole matter to be discussed on the Second Reading of the Bill, and will he give us time therefore?
Mr. Lloyd: I have considered that possibility. The appropriateness of references to the White Paper during the debate on Second Reading would be not for me but for Mr. Speaker. I should have thought that references must be in order to some extent. I still think it better to have one day, with
1526
a possible suspension, for the Second Reading of the Bill, and then to consider the possibility of a separate debate on the White Paper later.
Mr. Jeger: If I heard the Leader of the House aright, he has set down the Harbours Bill for further consideration at 7 p.m. on Monday, 16th March. Is he aware that the whole of yesterday was taken up with further consideration of that Bill and that we managed to dispose of only about half of the Government's Amendments? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose that we should complete the Bill on 16th March, or is he setting aside further time for Third Reading?
Mr. Lloyd: The Harbours Bill was not the only matter that we dealt with yesterday. We had quite a long discussion on another matter. I thought that fairly good progress was made yesterday and I hope that it will be possible to complete this on Monday week.
Mr. Popplewell: In view of the concern that is being felt in railway circles and towns about the Ministry of Transport refusal to allow the Railway Board to produce equipment for use on British Railways by privately-owned firms will the Leader of the House seriously consider giving Parliamentary time so that this extremely important matter might be adequately debated, if not next week, in the very near future?
Mr. Lloyd: I will, of course, consider any suggestion put forward by the hon. Member, but there is not very much Government time available between now and Easter.
Mr. Lubbock: With regard to Wednesday's business, are we to be allowed only half an hour to deal with the Motion on the Secretary of State for Education and Science Order, or can the debate continue after Ten o'clock?
Mr. Lloyd: It is exempted business.
Mr. Wigg: If I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman aright, he announced that on Monday there was to be a timetable arrangement as between the three Services. Will he be good enough to tell the House under what Standing Order he is operating in making that announcement?
Mr. Lloyd: It is customary to make that statement. In practice the arrangement is rarely adhered to, but I gather that the custom is to say what I have said.
Mr. Manuel: Is the Leader of the House aware of the Motion in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and myself dealing with the decision by the Minister of Aviation to withdraw certain S.A.S. services from the International Airport at Prestwick?
[That this House, realising the importance of Prestwick Airport and the part it could play in the development of the Scottish economy and the tourist industry, urges the Minister of Aviation to reconsider his decision to reduce the number of flights of Scandinavian Air Services to Prestwick and to consider plans which will safeguard the interests of Prestwick as an international airport.]
Is he further aware of the great agitation and concern in Scotland at the withdrawal of these services? Will he afford us time to debate this issue before it becomes an accomplished fact?
Mr. Lloyd: I was aware of the hon. Member's Motion. There is, I believe, a Question down by one of his hon. Friends on the matter. We had better await the answer to that Question.
Mr. W. Hamilton: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his answer to the suggestion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) to have a two-day debate next week coupling the Resale Prices Bill with the White Paper on Monopolies? Is he aware that his answer that we do not have sufficient time between now and next week adequately to consider these matters comes ill from him and from a Government which accepted the Robbins Report within 24 hours?
Mr. Lloyd: The circumstances may have been completely different. I have answered the hon. Member's Question already.
Mr. Warbey: What opportunity shall we have next week of debating the sordid and unequal bargain which the Prime Minister has entered into with President Johnson over Malaysia and Viet-Nam.
Mr. Lloyd: Of course, the hon. Member does not expect me to accept all that he says.
Mr. Rankin: Why not?
Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Member is asking whether there will be an opportunity for a debate on foreign affairs next week, the answer is "No".
Mr. Ross: Will the Leader of the House make time available next week for the Prime Minister to explain why he refuses to see a delegation of workers from the Post Office at a time of a pay claim and yet he receives a delegation from farmers in the middle of the Price Review?
Mr. Lloyd: That is not a question which arises on business.
Mr. Jay: As the Leader of the House said that it would not be possible for hon. Members to study the White Paper on monopolies before Tuesday, may I ask whether he is aware that it contains only seven pages and that it should be just as possible for hon. Members opposite to read it in five days as it is for hon. Members on this side?
Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps I might be daring and say that we are not all Fellows of All Souls.

CYPRUS (UNITED NATIONS PEACE-KEEPING FORCE AND MEDIATOR)
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on Cyprus.
As the House will know, the Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution on Cyprus yesterday. Part of 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 the force is to be established by the Secretary General, in consultation with the Governments of Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom. The Commander of the force is to be appointed by the Secretary General and to report to him. The force is to exist for three months, all costs pertaining to it being met in a

1529
manner to be agreed upon by the Governments providing the contingents and by the Government of Cyprus. The Secretary General may also accept voluntary contributions for this purpose.
The function of the force will be, in the interest of preserving international peace and security, to use its best efforts to prevent a recurrence of fighting and, as necessary, to contribute to the maintenance and restoration of law and order and a return to normal conditions.
The resolution also provides for the Secretary General to designate, in agreement with the Cyprus Government and the Governments of Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom, a mediator, who is to use his best endeavours in promoting a peaceful solution and an agreed settlement of the problems confronting Cyprus.
Since the Secretary General will now be immediately considering and discussing with all concerned the problems of the composition and direction of the force, as well as the appointment of the mediator, it would not be proper for me to anticipate the results of his efforts. All I need say is that we are most anxious that they should meet with success as soon as possible.
Her Majesty's Government greatly welcome these arrangements and look forward to their bringing peace to the island of Cyprus. I think, at the same time, the House will wish me to pay tribute to the British Forces who have for the last three months performed such magnificent service in the troubled conditions of the Island.
Mr. Gordon Walker: First, I should like to associate myself with what the hon. Gentleman said about the magnificent conduct of our troops in Cyprus. We are all very proud of them indeed.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware, first, that we greatly welcome the news of the decision of the Security Council? There are many of us who think that it might have come earlier if the Government had attempted to get this earlier instead of trying to get a N.A.T.O. force and so on. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps in the long run the most important feature of the decision is that for the first time a permanent member of the Security Council has been invited to participate in peace-keeping opera
1530
tions, and that this opens out very great prospects for this country as a world Power in peace-keeping, if, of course, we pursue the right kind of defence policy?
Mr. Thomas: With regard to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, it is, as has frequently been pointed out in the House, in accordance with United Nations Charter for the parties first to seek a solution by peaceful means of their own choice. Unfortunately, our efforts to promote a solution in accordance with the provisions of the Charter failed. We therefore took the matter to the Security Council. As to the second part of the supplementary question, I certainly agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Hastings: Would not my hon. Friend agree that three months is a very short time in the circumstances? Will there be provision for extending the period if necessary? Also, will the mediator be asked specifically to study the question of partition, and would not my hon. Friend feel that this, in some form, is likely to be the only possible long-term solution to the problem?
Mr. Thomas: With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the Security Council resolution prescribes a three months' period. If this has to be extended, it can be extended by a resolution of the Security Council. As to the second part of the supplementary question, I am afraid that I cannot anticipate what the rôle of the mediator will be.
Mr. Wade: Might I join in paying tribute to the British Forces in the island, and at the same time welcome the unanimity of the Security Council resolution? In order to remove misunderstandings, is the hon. Gentleman in a position to indicate the views of Her Majesty's Government on whether the decision of the Security Council affects, directly or indirectly, the London and Zurich Agreements guaranteeing the existing constitution and providing for the continuation of British bases in the island?
Mr. Thomas: No, Sir; it does not affect the treaty of guarantee in any way.
Mr. A. Henderson: Would it not help to remove the fears that exist in the

1531
island and greatly facilitate the tasks of the mediator and the United Nations peace force if the Cyprus Government were to stop any further distribution of arms, call in those that have been distributed and agree to place their augmented security force of 5,000 under United Nations command?
Mr. Thomas: As to the first two parts of that supplementary question, I would certainly agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. With regard to the last part, one would hope that a United Nations force, which would be created with the agreement of the Cyprus Government, would be one to which they would give their full co-operation.
Mr. Bottomley: Can the hon. Gentleman state whether the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries are to play a part in providing the force for the United Nations? Also, would he ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what consultations there have been with Commonwealth countries, and when?
Mr. Thomas: The countries which will take part in providing the force will be those which, after consultation with the Secretary-General, agree to take part, and certainly the United Kingdom expects that it will take part in the force.
Mr. F. M. Bennett: In his last statement on this matter, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations rightly deplored the import of arms, smuggled and otherwise, into the island. Can my hon. Friend say whether this traffic has slowed down or, better still, stopped altogether?
Mr. Thomas: I am afraid that I could not answer that question without notice.
Mr. Shinwell: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate what is to be the actual size of the forces that are to be contributed towards the peace-keeping force in Cyprus? How many troops will it consist of? Will there be any ancillary forces—aircraft and the like? Can he say what will be the actual contribution of British Forces to the peace-keeping force. If the hon. Gentleman is unable
1532
to reply to this Question—it is an important one; we ought to know exactly what contribution the United Kingdom is to make—will his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War be able to deal with it in the course of his statement on the Army Estimates this afternoon?
Mr. Thomas: No, Sir; I do not expect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will be able to do so. As I have said, the composition and the size of the force have to be established by the Secretary-General in consultation with the Governments of Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Therefore, it would be impossible to say what the size of the force should be until these consultations have taken place. One thing that we can say, and we have made it perfectly clear, is that we ourselves cannot continue to carry the burden indefinitely.
Sir J. Eden: Can my hon. Friend indicate how the force is to be paid for'?
Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir. The force is to be paid by the Governments concerned, and, also, the Secretary-General hopes to receive voluntary contributions.
Mr. Gordon Walker: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us—he was a little vague about it—how sure he is that British troops will take part in the peacekeeping operations? Are there firm assurances of this in the arrangements that have gone on behind the talking, or are we really not sure at all whether or not we shall be invited to take part?
Mr. Thomas: I hope that I did not give the impression that I was sure that British troops would take part. I said that I expected that British troops would take part. As I have said, the composition and size of the force have to be established by the Secretary-General after consultation with the countries that I have mentioned, and until those consultations have taken place it will be impossible to be emphatic.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this now.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [10TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]

  DEFENCE (ARMY) ESTIMATES, 1964–65

    VOTE A. NUMBER OF LAND FORCES
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 229,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.
    4.0 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): This is the fourth year in which I have been at one or other end of the Army Estimates debate. I have always previously said at some point, and always with the assent of the Committee, that however much we may argue across the Floor about what sort of Army we should have, or the way in which it is run, the House of Commons is behind the Army in wishing it well as it goes about its daily tasks up and down the world. This, I know, has never been more true than today, when the Army is hard at work, and much of it tough and testing work at that.
    I say this at the beginning of my speech because I want to end up this year with a word about the War Office itself. I hope the Committee will put up with this in the special circumstances of our approaching demise.
    This year I am bringing to the Committee Estimates for the Army totalling some £523 million. This is about £37 million up on the current year, 1963–64. As the Committee can see from the detailed breakdown by Votes, there are two main reasons for this increase—higher rates of pay and considerably increased expenditure on equipment. I shall be referring during my speech to some of the most important items, including the equipment.
    In any review of Army affairs today, it is clear that our chief preoccupation
    1534
    must be manpower. On 9th December, 1963, in the debate on the Army Act (Continuation) Order, I gave the House a fairly full account of the recent history of recruiting. We had a good recruiting year in 1961 and a remarkable one in 1962, and in those two years the other rank strength of the Army increased by over 20,000 to 150,430. This was not a bad result and the then Secretary of State, my predecessor, by his personal efforts made a notable contribution to it.
    Then came the extremely disappointing year 1963. Taking as the standard of comparison the month by month averages of recruits from civil life during the five-year period 1959–63, we fell from 91 per cent. of the average in January, 1963 to 65 per cent. in April, 1963. These averages provide a useful standard of comparison because, throughout this period, the main terms of engagement on offer have not changed. Gradually, as the summer went on, there came a slight improvement. Recruiting in the last four months of 1963 rose to 84 per cent. of the monthly average over this period in January this year it was 86 per cent. The figures for February, which I received only today, are well over 90 per cent. on the basis of the comparison I have been using. So, to some extent at least, the position has been restored.
    For this improvement we owe a great deal to the recount that the Army has given of itself in recent weeks. In the headlines and in the pictures of the Press and television the young men have been able to see for themselves what sort of people are in the modern Regular Army and what they have been doing and the efficient way in which they have been deployed and led. It is, first and foremost, the showing of our soldiers, that is now bringing would-be recruits to inquire at our information offices in greater numbers than we have seen since October 1962.
    This is encouraging, but we are not yet out of the wood. Recruiting is still the greatest of my worries—or, rather, the greatest of the challenges which confront us. We have not had a good year. From 1st January, 1963, to 1st February, 1964, the other rank strength rose by only 1,830 to 152,260 within

    1535
    a total Army strength of 171,588. We are still nearly 8,000 other ranks short.
    Bearing in mind the heavy commitments of the last few months, I would be foolish to pretend that these shortages are not a matter for concern Particularly unwelcome is the 9 per cent. shortage in the infantry. Overall, the position has improved a bit in the past year. The Royal Signals, the R.A.M.C. and the Army Catering Corps have been built up in strength. In the Royal Signals, the build-up in 1963 amounted to nearly a thousand men, though, of course, it will be some time before recent recruits are trained and can join their units. Over the Army as a whole, we have a much better balance.
    But we must get the build-up moving faster. This will not be easy. We have an increased run-out this year as a result of the 6-year engagement introduced in October, 1957. Even to maintain our present strength we must recruit something like 19.000 men from civil life—some 1,400 more than we recruited in 1963. But we have got to do a great deal better than this. We have got to make good the shortages and especially build up the Infantry.
    The basic theme of our recruiting efforts is to show the Army to the young men of today as it is. It is an Army with a vital rôle to fulfil, a rôle in peacetime never more clearly demonstated than during the past few months. It offers adventure, with a varied and continuing career, and it is an Army in which increasing efforts are being devoted to the welfare both of the soldier and his family.
    Our aim in recruiting is to let the Army speak for itself. Our youth teams—78 of them now and themselves examples of what is best in the modern Army—seek opportunities of meeting their contemporaries in civil life and telling them and showing them about life in the Army. Our advertising lays stress on the personal experiences of serving soldiers. During the summer, their efforts will be supplemented by recruiting teams from units in this country and Germany. Teams like these had a great success in 1962.
    This approach to recruitment has been devised as a result of much thought and thorough research. I am sure that this is the right approach, but, of course, there is one essential factor for its
    1536
    success. The Army must itself be satisfied with its lot. The maintenance of high morale and contentment among all ranks is the task I place at the very top of our priorities.
    Weighing up the prospects there is, on the debit side, the higher run-out of 6-year men. On the credit side, the Army is justifying itself in the country's eyes by its own achievements. The British soldier is getting himself a good Press, which is doing him justice. For this I am grateful. The pay review has just served to emphasise that the bread and butter side of soldiering compares well with civilian life, and there are larger numbers now entering the field of potential recruitment with the higher birth rate of 1946–48.
    Can we do anything to make the build-up of numbers certain this year instead of merely likely? A number of hon. Members have urged that we should make more use than we do of men from overseas in the Commonwealth, and I have already promised the Committee a fairly full explanation of how we stand on this question. In fact, we are already employing, colonial forces apart, a great many men recruited from overseas. They can be divided, broadly, into three groups.
    One is the troops who are recruited locally, and are normally used only for local service. These include locally enlisted personnel in both Hong Kong and Malaysia, and a substantial number of Maltese. They total about 7,000.
    Secondly, we have the forces who, though recruited locally, are used for service outside their recruiting areas. These include the Brigade of Gurkhas and that part of the Royal Malta Artillery which is in B.A.O.R.—a total of over 15,000. Both these categories are on special terms of service. Lastly, we do, of course, recruit men from overseas into normal units of the British Army—at present we have rather more than 2,000.
    Now what is it we really want? Basically, our problem is not to raise further units but to bring up to strength the units which we already possess. For this to be done effectively, it means increasing the numbers in the third group which I have mentioned; that is to say, those we enlist into normal units of the British Army at home.

    1537
    We already have a considerable number of overseas coloured men from the Commonwealth, many recruited in the overseas recruiting drive of 1961 and others recruited in this country. They have been a success. There is no colour bar in the British Army and no social tensions in the barrack room or among the families, such as we all know can exist—indeed, they do exist—in civilian communities in some places. But we have to keep an eye on this. Where there has been bother, in civilian society, it has arisen because the inflow of immigrants has exceeded the ability of the established community to assimilate them without friction. We dare not run the risk of such a situation in the Army. It would do a great deal of harm to the Army, and therefore we keep a watch on the rate of coloured recruiting, I believe rightly. Nevertheless, I think that we could, without undue risk, allow the present number of coloured soldiers in the Army to go up a bit. We can do this I believe without another recruiting drive overseas, which would be expensive, and without, of course, in any way lowering our standards. We shall be doing this during the coming year.
    I told the Committee before Christmas how we had expanded the output from junior soldiers' units of all kinds.
    Mr. R. T. Paget: As to that 2,000, is that coloured members of the British Army wherever recruited—that is, whether recruited here or in Jamaica, for instance—or is it only the ones who are recruited abroad?
    Mr. Ramsden: They are the persons I was talking about from overseas and the Commonwealth recruited here into units of the British Army.
    I was going on to talk about junior soldiers' units and was reminding the Committee that before Christmas I had said that we had expanded the output from these units from some 2,200 in 1959 to something near 5,000 in the coming year. These units produce soldiers of high quality and are at present over-subscribed. I should like to increase the output of these soldiers to 6,000 a year—that is, to get 1,000 more junior soldiers maturing each year to man's service.
    There are two main ways in which this might be done. One is by building another junior soldiers' unit or two. The
    1538
    other is by increasing the rate of through-put, that is to say, shortening the courses of these units. Building is a longish term job and new units would involve fairly heavy commitments in the way of high quality instructional staff. Moreover, as the time for a rise in the school leaving age approaches there will be a tendency for young people to stay longer at school and the effect of this will be for the courses so to speak to shorten themselves. This, therefore, seems the sensible direction to go in, and we are now doing the necessary planning.
    I would hope for a fairly steady rise in the output of boy soldiers towards the 6,000 figure. But this still does not provide for the young man who has been unable to join as a boy, or who at 17 is too old to join as a boy, but who has not yet reached the age of adult recruitment. Those who cannot now get accepted for junior soldier training have to hang about, as things are, until they are 17½ and can enlist as adults. There is a gap, so to speak, of at least six months, and often more, during which they either fill in time or abandon altogether the idea of joining the Army and find some other job.
    I think it would be sensible to reduce this gap so far as possible, and I have therefore decided that young men aged 17 to 17½ who have the consent of their parents may be enlisted. They will be paid at the late of 9s. 6d. a day until they reach the age of 17½. They will have to conform to adult selection standards and will be accommodated and trained in the same way as recruits of over 17½, but they will not be sent to join their units until they are 17½.
    Mr. George Wigg: At the moment the minimum age in the Army Act is 17½, except in such cases as may be prescribed. What is to happen? Will the right hon Gentleman introduce an amendment to the Army Act to reduce the minimum age to 17, or will he use the prescription get-out and find an outlet that way? Perhaps he will be good enough to tell the Committee.
    Mr. Ramsden: I have not brought the Act with me. I think that the hon. Gentleman has quoted it correctly. The minimum age is stated to be 17½. Exceptions may be prescribed, as they are at present in the case of the W.R.A.C.

    1539
    and the Gurkhas. In a Section, the number of which I cannot remember, interposed between those two provisions there is a provision for enlistment with the consent of the parent. It is under that provision that we now enlist young men into boys' service. It is under that provision that these young men will be enabled to join. We do not intend to prescribe under the Army Act in the sense the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
    Mr. Wigg: I do not want to harry the Minister on this point. Perhaps his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will make this clear later. Are we to have a half-way house? At the moment one understands the division between boy and man service and the reasons why the minimum age is there. Are we to have a kind of boy/man, although I hate to caricature it in that way? As he is introducing a special rate of pay, what is the chap to be?
    Mr. Ramsden: We are to have a halfway house, so to speak. The rate of pay of 9s. 6d. a day equates to the rate of pay being received by boys of comparable age in boys' units. The liability of those enlisted according to my announcement will be restricted in the sense that, until they reach the age of 17½, they will not go to Service units. I therefore think that this is a fair proposal.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: In other words, legally this category will be in the same position as boys under the Army Act have been previously?
    Mr. Ramsden: When my hon. Friend starts by saying "legally", he rings a bell of caution in my mind. As I understand it, I have described the position of these recruits under the Army Act correctly, I will check it and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will give the assurance that my hon. Friend wishes.
    Mr. Wigg: To try to get this absolutely right, this is under Section 2 of the Army Act. It means that, if the person offering to enlist is living with both his parents, then the consent of both parents is necessary. It is on that that the Minister intends to proceed. For practical purposes, these boys will get the rate of pay they would have got if they were boys in an absolute sense. This type of recruit will keep all the safeguards which apply
    1540
    to boys at present—that is to say, he cannot be posted until he really comes to man's service. It is a kind of half-way house. Am I not right?
    Mr. Ramsden: The hon. Gentleman is right.
    I have spent quite a long time on recruiting, indeed rather more than I had originally intended. I do not think the Committee will mind, because for the Army this is the oustanding problem, and we have got to get it right.
    How can we measure this task? As each recruiting year opens, a new age group comes into the field, a fresh batch of young men from among whom we have to find our recruits. In 1962 we got 17 out of every thousand in this first group, the year before 15, and this was in fact the average figure over the years 1958 to 1962. In 1963 we only got 12.
    Thus there were well over 2,000 potential recruits in this age group alone whom our efforts failed to reach. Of the older men, the later age groups, the proportions recruited by the end of 1962 were similar to the normal levels of recent years. Thus the potential field for recruitment over the whole field last year was not much below the normal, and certainly cannot be held to be a major factor in last year's fall in recruiting. Yet we did not get the men.
    They are still there and it is our job to see that we get them. It is a job which concerns not only the War Office and the recruiting organisation but every officer and non-commissioned officer throughout the Army—all the leaders. Because all of us, from the Army Council and Commanders-in-Chief downwards, must see that by the way we house, feed, equip, lead and generally administer the elder brothers of these men, who are already in the Army, we are offering a true prospectus of Army life to their juniors.
    I have said something about manpower and last week I spoke about its effect on what the Army was doing throughout the world and how we were discharging our commitments. Today, I have had my attention drawn to a report of a speech by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). I told him that I would refer to it. I do not know that the report gives an accurate representation of what he said, but he is reported

    1541
    as saying that units have been sent overseas ill equipped and hardly more than half strength. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman, as I said last week and as what I have said today has made clear, that there are shortages and, in particular, shortages in the infantry. There are battalions below peace establishment. But to say in the context of what the Army has been doing lately in Cyprus and the Far East that battalions are being sent abroad at little more than half strength and ill equipped is a travesty of the facts, and in a debate on the Army Estimates it is only right that I should say that to the Committee.
    Mr. George Brown: Is that all that the right hon. Gentleman has to say? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is enough for you."] One of the consequences of the behaviour of the Minister of Defence the other night is that the restraints which we on this side of the Committee have put upon ourselves now have to be reviewed. We have information, and the Secretary of State knows that we have information, about the size of the battalions in Cyprus. I said last night that some of them were there at little more than half strength. Not very long ago, the then Secretary of State for War said in the House of Commons that the peace-time establishment of these battalions was 635 and that in the conditions which they had experienced in Cyprus it would be much better if they were at an establishment of 700. If the Secretary of State wants to refute what I said last night, he will have to tell us what the size of battalions in Cyprus now is.
    Mr. Ramsden: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we make it a practice not to give the strength of these units when speaking here. What I am saying is that to speak of units at the numbers at which they stand when we have sent forces to Cyprus and the Far East as being at little more than half strength is an exaggeration, a travesty of the facts. The Committee must accept this from me. I say this in the full knowledge that the other night I gave the figure of 660 to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) as being the peace establishment of an infantry battalion. I explained last week that battalions in Cyprus and the Far East in the
    1542
    prevailing conditions had not been brought up to war establishment—
    Mr. Denis Healey: Peace establishment.
    Mr. Ramsden:—war establishment by the use of reservists. Therefore, we are taking this figure of 660 and it is not true in relation to that to say that we have been sending out units of little more than half strength.
    Mr. G. Brown: "We are taking this figure of 660", while the figure which the previous Secretary of State for War said was required in Cyprus was 700.
    Mr. Wigg: It was 774.
    Mr. Brown: That is even worse. If the present Secretary of State wants to say that the previous Secretary of State was wrong to say that it should be 774, that is up to him, but the figure of 774 was stated in the House of Commons. The present Secretary of State said here that because of recruiting shortages the great majority of infantry battalions were, in one degree or another, short of 660, not 774. I repeat, if the tactics of trickery are to be employed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, some of us will have to make clear what information we have.
    I assert that there are battalions in Cyprus not a lot more than half of 774, which was the figure at which the previous Secretary of State for War said they should stand, There are battalions in Cyprus which may be no more than certainly two-thirds of the figure which the right hon. Gentleman gave the other night as being the peace-time establishment. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that he refutes what I say unless he gives the figures and does not make an allegation. He should tell his colleagues not to play tricks and we will continue to be as reserved as we have been.
    Mr. Ramsden: It was the right hon. Gentleman, not I, who made the original allegation. I considered that it was not right that it should be said—
    Mr. Brown: What is the figure?
    Mr. Ramsden:—that we were sending battalions overseas at little more than half strength, because that is not true.
    Mr. Brown: It is true.
    Mr. Ramsden: It is not true in that relation to the figure of 660 which I gave to the hon. Member for Dudley. It is barely true—I will have to check it and I do not accept that it is true—against the figure of 774. As I explained, this has to be measured against two things. One is the circumstances in which the troops are being used—and I am sure that my right hon. Friend who is now the Minister of Agriculture was speaking about war-time conditions in Cyprus in 1959. The second is the task which it falls to those troops to do.
    When the right hon. Gentleman says that we are sending troops abroad at little more than half strength, he implies that we are calling upon soldiers to do jobs which they are not at a sufficient and proper strength to do, and it was this picture which I wished to have put into true perspective.
    Mr. G. Brown rose—
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Brown: Somebody has to withdraw. The right hon. Gentleman says that my statement last night was a travesty of the facts. He has just said that the figure I gave may be barely true of 774 and that he would have to check to find out. How can he assert that I have given a travesty of the facts when he has had to confess that he does not know whether what I said was actually true, barely true, or how far out? I do not want to give the figures and I do not want to force the right hon. Gentleman to give them, but until he is willing to give them, I have to say that I have information, and that he knows I have information, and that he knows that the figures are about what I say they are. He ought to withdraw his allegations about giving travesties of the facts. The soldiers over there know it and his own advisers know it. The only people he is trying to kid are the public outside. He accuses me of a travesty of the facts when he himself has to admit that what I have said may be barely true. That seems to be an absolute imposition on the Committee and in keeping with the line which hon. Members opposite are now following.
    Mr. Ramsden: I have certainly not admitted that what the right hon. Gentleman said may be barely true. He
    1544
    drew what in this context is a red herring across the trail by introducing the figure of 774. The figure I gave was the peacetime establishment of an infantry battalion, and it was in relation to that that I measured his remark. That was the impression made upon me and I thought it only proper to do my best to correct it.
    Mr. Wigg: May I try to get this right? I shall try to be as objective as I can and, as always, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to interrupt me if necessary. In the old Cyprus crisis, there were battalions at 635 and lower. On 3rd March, 1959, the then Secretary of State for War said that experience in Cyprus had shown that 635 was no good and that the figure required was 700. He said that we would raise the Army ceiling by 15,000, of whom 11,000 would go to increase the strength of units within fighting arms, and that of that 11,000, 7,440 would go to the infantry, raising the establishment of an infantry battalion to 774. I am sure that I take the right hon. Gentleman with me thus far.
    What happened afterwards was that the War Office, or the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors—I do not blame him personally—introduced a new and lower establishment, but never told the House of Commons. When I was doing these sums, I was working on the basis of the figure I had been given, which was 774. The right hon. Gentleman now says that the figure is 660—I make no complaint about it—which is lower than the figure which the then Secretary of State said was the right figure. I concede the point that the circumstances in Cyprus today are completely different from what they were then. But let us move away from Cyprus, because there are troops in semi-active conditions and I do not want in any way to jeopardise their security.
    Let us turn to the Staffords, who went into Uganda, and the Devons and Dorsets, who were brought to the alert. The Staffords went in 480 strong, minus a company, and plus a company of the Scots Guards. They went into conditions which they did not know they were going to meet. The Devons and Dorsets, who were brought to the alert, were 300 strong. I challenge the Minister on this: approaches were made, and

    1545
    it was seriously proposed—he knows that I know this—to take a company of the Coldstream Guards to bring them up to establishment. These are the objective facts. Personally, I do not think that anyone has any complaint, provided that the truth is told. The complaint is that the truth has not been told.
    Mr. Ramsden: I was very frank with the House the other night, and I will follow what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has said now. The Devons and Dorsets have not been sent overseas. They are in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Wigg: They were brought to the alert.
    Mr. Ramsden: The hon. Member can speculate about their future. They have not been sent overseas. In the debate last week he talked about the Staffords—about two companies having gone to Uganda with a company of the Scots Guards. If a battalion has a company detached, on duty, on board a frigate—and one company is probably all that a frigate can take—the battalion is left with two companies. If, within the theatre of that battalion, another job then arises which that battalion, less its one company, is called upon to do, it is sensible to reinforce it by another company from another unit. This was done in East Africa, and the operation was successfully conducted.
    Mr. G. Brown: It is still only 480 strong.
    Mr. Ramsden: I now come to equipment. The right hon. Member for Belper also referred to this. The equipment subheads of Vote 7 for fighting equipment total £100 million this year, an increase from £80 million last year and nearly £70 million the year before. This reflects the extent to which the equipment programme is gathering momentum. These increases will continue. Ministers of Defence for the Army of the future, whoever they may be, will no doubt dwell increasingly upon this Vote, as the volume of new equipment coming into service brings to fruition the planning and development of past years. I hope that they will remember to say this.
    Mr. Denis Healey: I am grateful for that reminder. Will the Secretary of State deal with the point raised
    1546
    in the debate, and which his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence totally dodged in his reply? Granted an increasing volume of equipment flowing to the Army and other Services in coming years, how does de Minister of Defence or the Secretary State for War propose to keep the total defence budget anything like within the limit proposed by the Chancellor in his Estimates of future income?
    Mr. Ramsden: As far as I am concerned, the increasing flow of this equipment has been foreseen for many years, and has been provided for successively in the Estimates, including those which we now have before us.
    Let us see what is happening about the equipment of the Infantry, who are in the thick of things at the moment. The new general purpose machine gun is already in service with a number of battalions in various parts of the world, including units in the Far East and in the Strategic Reserve. We made the first buy from the Belgians, who invented it. The Royal Ordnance Factories are making the rest and will start issues in about six months' time, first to the training organisation, then to battalions in B.A.O.R., with further issues to other theatres following. The point about this weapon is that it doubles the rôle of the light machine gun, the Bren, and the medium machine gun, the Vickers. It can do both jobs. This has been a real break-through in the fire power of the Infantry battalion. The many friends of the Vickers machine gun will note that it has outlived even the War Office.
    For anti-tank defence the Infantry battalions will start receiving new weapons during the year. First, there is the 84 mm. section and platoon antitank weapon, Carl Gustaf, which was developed in Sweden. The first 100 have already come, and issues will start soon to the training organisation and to Infantry battalions of the Strategic Reserve. This will be followed during the year by widespread issues to units in the Far East, in B.A.O.R. and other theatres. Here again, the greater part of the ammunition needed will be manufactured in our Royal Ordnance Factories.
    Then, there is the WOMBAT antitank gun, a development of MOBAT and British made. It is a 120 mm. gun,

    1547
    designed to be carried in the long Land Rover or the Armoured Personnel Carrier: it would normally be dismounted to fire, but could, if necessary, be fired from the Land Rover. It is lighter and more easily handled than MOBAT, and in addition mounts a 5" spotting rifle for greater accuracy. In the class of infantry anti-tank weapon, where we still rely on the well tried principle of putting a round up the spout, pointing it at the enemy and pulling the trigger, this is the latest thing. Beyond this we get into the field of wire guided weapons.
    Here, if it comes up to scratch in the final trials about to be held, Vigilant, the wire guided anti-tank missile developed by the British Aircraft Corporation, will shortly come into service as a company weapon. On present planning first issues will be to the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, 1st Battalion Cheshire Regiment and 1st Battalion Black Watch, all in B.A.O.R.
    These units will have the important task of assessing how this type of weapon can best be employed alongside the more traditional forms of anti-tank defence. This will be interesting, because aiming a gun and pulling a trigger is a very different technique from guiding one of these missiles steadily all the way to its target in the heat of action.
    Perhaps I may digress here, since it is not strictly an Infantry weapon, to say a word about the heavy wire guided anti-tank weapon Malkara, which was the pioneer in this field.
    Mr. Paget: I hope that the hon. Gentleman can say a little more about the Vigilant. I was a little surprised when he referred to its coming into service if it passes its tests satisfactorily. I saw it in operation two years ago, and I was then under the impression that it had passed its tests.
    Mr. Ramsden: No, Sir. When we established the need for this weapon, and its development had reached a certain stage and we contemplated a buy, in order to save time—among other things—we negotiated a contract with the firm into which was written the requirement that this weapon should come up to certain closely defined
    1548
    standards, especially relating to reliability. It is to this contract, upon which the eventual purchase depends, that the tests of which I am speaking are related, and we very much hope that the weapon will do what is expected of it. If that happens the purchase will proceed.
    I had begun to refer to the Malkara. It has been issued to the Cyclops squadron of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, a unit of the Strategic Reserve, and was tried out under operational conditions in Exercise Triplex West last October. We ran into a number of teething troubles, which are being put right, and on the whole our experience was encouraging for the future of this sort of weapon generally. The fact that we have it in service means there is now, for the first time, a heavy anti-tank weapon on an armoured vehicle which is airportable. It can be flown somewhere and be ready to knock out armour when it arrives.
    A further addition to the striking power of the infantry will be provided by the introduction of the 81 mm. mortar which has now completed its user and troop trials and is in prodcution. A start will be made with its deployment during the year, when it will be issued to a number of infantry battalions in B.A.O.R., and to infantry, parachute and R.M. commando units in the Middle East, Far East and Strategic Reserve.
    Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned difficulties in connection with the Malkara. In paragraph 24 of last year's Estimates he said that deliveries of Malkara would be completed. Is that so, or has there been some hold up?
    Mr. Ramsden: No, Sir. Deliveries on the scale which were contemplated for this squadron have been completed. This is a first generation weapon, in the sense that there is another type of this wire guided weapon to follow, and that is now under development.
    I was going to say that all this adds up to an impressive and immediate increase to the hitting power of the Infantryman. To move him around the battlefield we shall be getting this year the tracked armoured personnel

    1549
    carrier. This vehicle is primarily designed to carry a section of ten men, a commander and driver under good armoured protection, including top cover, over almost any type of ground. It will go mainly to infantry battalions in B.A.O.R. Production reaches full bore during the year and so far deliveries are well up to programme. After first issues to the School of Infantry for training, on present plans the 1st Battalion Royal Trish Fusiliers will get their vehicles in the early summer, and will be followed during the year by the 1st Royal Warwickshire Fusiliers and the 1st Battalion Black Watch.
    We have also been paying a great deal of attention to the personal equipment of the fighting soldier. It makes a great difference to the life of the infantryman if he can sleep reasonably dry. So it is with special satisfaction that I can say that issues of a damp proof sleeping hag to units of the British Army in B.A.O.R. will start next month to be followed by issues to units of the Strategic Reserve. This should be as much of a comfort on training in the wet autumns of Germany as it would be on operations. Similarly, lightweight sleeping kit, developed by the Australians, will be issued to units in the jungle later this year.
    I have concentrated on the infantry this year, but before I leave equipment I must say a word about Chieftain. Its troop trials were satisfactory and two production lines are being set up. In July last year we put on a demonstration on the range at Kirkcudbright to representatives of N.A.T.O. and Commonwealth countries. I thought that the atmosphere was like the July sales at Newmarket. We were confident we had a future winner, a real thoroughbred. The buyers stood around like buyers do, anxious to crab. Altogether, it was not the most impressionable of audiences. But when the tank's phenomenal gun destroyed a target that looked no bigger than a pin's head at the first shot at a hitherto unheard of range there was a spontaneous outburst of clapping.
    The day produced another and unexpected object-lesson. When the tank crews lined up afterwards—they were men of the R.A.C., not specially selected—someone asked them how long
    1550
    they had been serving. None had less than five years and some over nine. This too, in a gathering which included the commanders of many short-service conscript armies, was not without its effect.
    Mr. Shinwell: I read in the Press recently that there was considerable difficulty in persuading foreign buyers of arms from the United Kingdom to purchase Chieftain tanks. I am a little troubled about that. Is it true?
    Mr. Ramsden: My experience, and I am sure that it is the right hon. Gentleman's, is that it is nearly always difficult to persuade foreign buyers to purchase any equipment from any country but their own. We are doing our best, of course, with the Chieftain tank. My hon. Friend will say more about that when he winds up. In this case, we have the advantage that what we have to sell is an absolutely first-rate and unrivalled piece of equipment of its kind.
    I was coming on to married quarters. Today, I wish to refer particularly to Rhine Amy. We have nearly a third of our At my in Germany and hon. Members who have visited Rhine Army know what a source of anxiety the shortage of accommodation there has been to us, and how often it has contributed to our losing good men.
    Things are now beginning to look a good deal better. The current programme set out to cover a deficiency of 11,000 against a total requirement of 23,000 homes; by the end of last year 3,100 had been handed over by the end of this year it should be up to 7,500, reaching 9,500 by the end of 1965. On top of these figures there are 200 caravans in use in B.A.O.R. We also hope to have 300 mobile homes available by mid-summer, and all units do, of course, make great efforts on their own account, including some most ingenious improvisations from within their own resources and inside their own barrack areas. There are still some difficult places, but the accommodation position in B.A.O.R. is at last taking a real turn for the better.
    Mrs. Eirene White: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the difference between a caravan and a

    1551
    mobile home, and why the number of these vehicles cannot be much more rapidly speeded up? I am thinking of the wives and families of the men concerned.
    Mr. Ramsden: The difference between a caravan and a mobile home is that the caravan has wheels of its own and it can "up stick" and be towed to another site. A mobile home looks rather like a caravan, but provides rather better living accommodation. It is a recent development and it is transported on a flat to the site it will eventually occupy. We have to relate the numbers of these which we provide to the programme which we have in hand for accommodation of other kinds.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Has my right hon. Friend looked into the substantial new developments which there have been in establishing prefabricated wooden houses, which have improved their standards in recent years?
    Mr. Ramsden: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works, who does the housing for us, will, I am sure, take note of what my hon. Friend has said.
    I want to say a word about other overseas theatres. At the moment, we are building married quarters in Gibraltar, in one of the Sovereign Base areas in Cyprus, in Aden, and in Hong Kong. We have in addition recently arranged for a further 540 soldiers quarters to be provided by a local developer in Singapore. These will be adjacent to our main barrack areas and will replace the scattered hirings we have at present. When all these quarters are completed we hope that they will, with the hirings we already have or can obtain, meet our requirements for married accommodation in those garrisons, under present plans for accompanied service; small adjustments may, however, be necessary, from time to time.
    I want now to say something about the Territorial Army, and if I do not speak at great length it is because we have already had a debate covering some of this ground, and because I do not want to keep the Committee too long. I certainly hope that we shall hear from other Members of the Committee on this subject.
    1552
    It might serve as a lead-in if I recalled briefly to the Committee the latest news, so to speak, on the Territorial Army. They are recruiting well and are up from 107,800 in February, 1963, to 110,900 this year.
    I announced in January developments in two of the rôles of the Territorial Army. Some units are to have fire-fighting training which is designed to equip them better for their home defence rôle. More Territorial Army units than heretofore will be required on mobilisation to supply individual reinforcements to units of Rhine Army when, after 1965, part-time National Service men are no longer available for this purpose.
    I have seen a lot of the Territorial Army during the past few years, and I believe that there is still a good deal of misunderstanding about it, and not only outside its ranks. The reason for that is this. The Territorial Army is organised and trained on the plan of a field Army of the old style, into divisions, brigades, units of all arms and a support echelon, and so forth. That is how it is organised, and that is how we see it training.
    Yet, when we think about the way in which the Territorial Army would be likely to go to war—some of it to provide "Ever-readies", some to reinforce B.A.O.R.—some to act at home in support of the civil power, a rather different picture emerges from the one of a large field Army slowly built up to war efficiency and mobilised for war in the old style. There is a paradox here. I believe that it is sometimes not realised how fast the Territorial Army has moved with the times.
    What is the point of organising and training the Territorial Army in one way if it is really more likely to have to be used in a different way? There are, I suggest, four good and sound answers to this question. First, there is the question of training. Since we have to train men of all arms for the oversea reinforcement rôle, we must have the equivalent arms and services in the Territorial Army and they are best organised on the Regular Army pattern of brigades and divisions.
    Secondly, the one rôle of the Territorial Army is to provide a framework on which general preparation for war can be built up, and it follows that it must

    1553
    be organised on the normal Army pattern if it is to be capable of fulfilling this rôle. Thirdly, the provision of divisional and brigade headquarters fits into the pattern of regional and sub-regional organisation for the administration of the country in emergency, and hence is the best method of ensuring proper support by the home Army to the civil Power.
    Finally, and this is the vital factor, the existing organisation works well and suits especially the local affiliation and local loyalties upon which the traditions of the Territorial Army are built.
    I have spent a lot of time on this, including a year on a committee during which we tested out the existing organisation of the Territorial Army against any way anyone could think of doing the job better. But, for the reasons I have given, we came to the conclusion that the basic principles of the Territorial Army organisation are sound, and will meet the needs of the future.
    What are we asking them to do? First, to provide T.A. emergency reservists. The idea of a few men from each unit going off by themselves to do a job alongside Regulars in the Regular Army is a new one, but the T.A. has taken it in its stride, it is raising and training "Ever-readies", and I was particularly glad to agree recently that the T.A.E.R. should, in fact, be raised more on a sub-unit basis than as parties of specialists, because this will fit in better with the whole atmosphere of the T.A.; and we shall, of course, encourage links between the T.A. and their affiliated Regular units.
    Next, we are asking the T.A. to supply increased numbers of reinforcements for B.A.O.R. Here again, we shall not want, at any rate from the teeth arms, whole units in this rôle. But we can promise the T.A. that if and when they have to do this job for B.A.O.R. those who go from a unit will be called up together and will go overseas together, with their friends. We cannot guarantee that they will be employed as a sub-unit when they arrive. It must be left to the receiving unit to fit in its reinforcements in the way it thinks best. There are, of course, problems over equipment and clothing. To equip and clothe the whole of the T.A with all the same modern equipment, held on the same scales as the Regular Army, would add up to a colossal bill.
    1554
    What we have to do is, first, to see that the T A. as a whole get adequate and sufficiently modern equipment to train with realistically—not necessarily the newest Army equipment, but good, and enough of it. Secondly, to see that those who may find themselves in Regular units are trained in the equipment they will find there, and that their personal equipment and clothing is right for the job. Exactly how this will be done is now being worked out, through commands, in consultation with the T.A. It is a big job, but we are determined to find the right answer. And the object of the whole exercise, as I believe the T.A. appreciates is that it should continue to have a more and more positive rôle in support of the Regular Army in as many as possible of the different aspects of modern war.
    I told the Committee that I would end up with a word or two about the War Office. As regards this part of my speech, I have done something which is usually unwise. I have not taken any advice front the Department. If I had it would probably have preferred me to say nothing, but I think that this would be wrong. The War Office has been going for quite a long time and its passing from the contemporary scene deserves a brief comment.
    There is a much quoted sentence to the effect that "there is an ineptitude about the War Office which it has never quite lost". It is not true, but one sees what is meant and I am sure that there are many in the Army, and perhaps out of the Army, who would endorse it heartily. However, the fact remains that few soldiers destined for high distinction have escaped at least one tour of duty at the War Office, enduring its frustrations, absorbing its lessons and learning how to use to good purpose this delicate and intricately attuned machine.
    But the soldiers—and they would be the first to admit it—still more the politicians, are mere transient birds of passage in the War Office compared with the band of Permanent civil servants who are interwoven with the military at all levels and in all branches, and who have served the Army not just so to speak man and boy, but often father and son, or father and son-in-law. I say to the Committee, after quite a long spell in the Department as these things

    1555
    go, that it would be difficult to find in any concern of the size of ours anywhere a more devoted, more tolerant, more efficient or more human lot of people; and I say this advisedly, because their work reaches out far beyond the Army itself and touches the life of this country at many points—in education, housing, factories, industrial relations, exports, research, estate management, pensions, and claims for compensation. The list is endless. In all these fields, administration cannot be successfully carried on without a kind of fingertip sensitivity to human feelings and human needs.
    The War Office, in short, is a very nice place to be in, and those who have made it so over the years will be sad when it is no more. One of the most distinguished of them, who was himself both Permanent Under-Secretary and later a war-time Secretary of State, once wrote these words, "From top to bottom, soldier and civilian alike, the War Office has one main aim—to see that the needs of the Army are met". These are good words. I quote them as a fitting close to this chapter. But they will also stand, the Army may be assured, at the beginning of the next.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. R. T. Paget: If I may, I would add one word to complement what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the War Office. It is "modesty". Unlike the Admiralty, it has not claimed that the morale of the Service depends upon its continued existence or the continued existence of that name. In point of fact, of course, the ordinary man in both Services, subject to be himself not being allowed to suggest new names—of which he could suggest several rude ones—could not care less what they are called; and this is unjust because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the War Office has performed a signal, though not generally realised or acknowledged, service to the men in the field.
    I would also say that relatively, at any rate, we have heard a very much better story from the right hon. Gentleman than we heard from his two colleagues. Perhaps that is not a very high compliment. But we have not heard from him a tale of vast new and expensive ships which are unmanned, or of transport urgently required and
    1556
    not provided, because of nuclear follies. The War Office has very much the best record of the Services in its contribution to the real needs both of the country and the alliance for two reasons. One is continuity.
    Prior to the right hon. Gentleman taking office, we had two Ministers of War. I am not saying that they were great Ministers. I do not think that, in a curious way, the Government have produced great Ministers. If, for instance, one compares the kind of effect which "Ernie" Bevin had on the Foreign Office; which Aneurin Bevan had on the Ministry of Health, or even my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) had on the Home Office, this has not been a Government of great Ministers. Nevertheless, in the defence field at least the War Office has been the right Department.
    As Ministers, Lord Head and "Jack" Profumo served the Army well and, broadly speaking, upon the right lines; or at least as much on the right lines as they were allowed to do by a vacillating and altering set of Ministers of Defence. Because I regretted—though sitting on this side of the Committee—the disaster which befell the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in a personal matter, I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman pay a tribute to that predecessor. It is one to which I should like to add my voice.
    The second reason why I think the War Office story has been superior is that it has not been "mucked about" by this deterrent nonsense. It has a real job to do. It has gone for that job, thought how to perform it, and that job has not involved posturing in a pretence. For these two reasons I think that we can congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on a relatively better story, but, of course, it is far from perfect. It would be extremely difficult to be doing worse than his two colleagues.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that manpower is one of the key questions we have to consider. Frankly, 8,000 short in peace time would not be too bad, but it is not just 8,000 short, it is 8,000 short after having juggled the establishments. They were based on battalions of 776. When the men did not become available the establishments

    1557
    were juggled and became 660. It is on the 660 basis that we are 8,000 short. I suggest that on the present order of battle the shortage is nearer to 20,000 than 8,000. If we wish to continue without an Army reorganisation and maintain the present order of battle up to the establishment required for semi-war, semi-peace-time occupations such as Cyprus and Uganda, the type of intervention with which the Army has to deal, the shortage we have to think of is something nearer to 20,000.
    Another aspect gives me a little anxiety. That is the degree to which we are dependent on the Gurkhas. I should be the last to make any kind of criticism of that great corps. I am more than delighted with the proposal to keep the third brigade in being. This is immensely to be welcomed. I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies he will say something further on that, because I think it of the highest importance that all three Brigades of Gurkhas should know that there is continuity. This is particularly important for the British officer corps. We should remember that the Gurkhas are not only Nepalese: they have a British officer corps of the most dedicated and splendid officers.
    It has always been the greatest possible difficulty to get into that corps. Pressure of recruitment and the range of choice which enables them to choose only the very best has been going because the future has been uncertain. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be in a position to reassure would-be Gurkha officers that this corps is going on. I have to express a little anxiety about the degree of dependence we have to put on three brigades whose homeland is so subject to Chinese pressure. Can we always be sure that they will be there or that we could in decency even ask them to be there in face of great pressures which might be placed on them? Although we may put total faith in their courage, we cannot put all that faith and certainty in the presence.
    Faced with those difficulties, how are we to deal with the recruitment problem? My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and others, including the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), whose
    1558
    opinion I greatly respect and whose sincerity I do not question, believe in selective service. I reject that solution. I do so mainly because I do not think it would be acceptable to the British people. It is acceptable to the American people. Ii has been the custom there and, when something has been the custom, when they have had it for years, it may be acceptable. The British people, so far as I understand them—I make no exaggerated claims for that—are a people who take perhaps almost to an exaggerated degree the idea of fairness, the idea that it is all right if it is fair for all, but it is intolerable if one person is picked out. That, I believe, is a peculiarly British characteristic.
    I believe that the level of resentment in the men who came out through the ballot for the Army when their friends did not would be different in comparison with the level of resentment which occurs in America. It is not resented there, but a chance press gang here, which is contrary to our custom, would create quite a different level of feeling. That different level of feeling would have two different effects. First, we would have to bend in some measure to the storm. We would have to grant them terms which both in time and money would be quite uneconomic.
    I do not think that we could possibly impose on them a length of time—which certainly should not be less than three years and probably four years—which would be economic from the service point of view. I do not think that we could put more than 18 months on them, and 18 months means only six months' remunerative service. In fact, it is a great deal less because from that six months wt have to subtract all the people who are servicing and training them; and we should have to pay them at Regular rates.
    I think that the effect of injecting people who so bitterly resented it, who thought that they had such a bad deal, would destroy the new volunteer morale we have created. We should have to resort to wholly uneconomic numbers for the men we required, we would injure Regular recruiting and destroy morale For these reasons I do not think that selective service is a runner to meet our difficulty.

    1559
    I turn, therefore, to recruitment. I am all in favour, and accept the suggestion, of lowering the age to 17. Boys are maturing much younger nowadays.
    We need to do something to refertilise what has been our most fertile sphere of recruitment—the Service family. Not only the best recruits but, in the old days, certainly a very high proportion of recruits came from Service families. I do not only mean officer families, but families of all ranks who, generation after generation, sent their boys into the Service with which they had connections and in this case we are talking of the Army.
    We will succeed in recruiting from Service families if we take certain steps. I have not been able to get any figures to illustrate this argument although I have asked for them. My impression is that the proportion of young men coming from Service families is today much smaller than it used to be because the Service families all have older relatives who feel that they were cheated by the Army and who are right in so feeling.
    Those men were enlisted on terms which involved a pension, which was part of the remuneration for which they bargained with the Government. That Government are not fulfilling their obligations because when they control the coinage they cannot morally fulfil their obligations to individuals who did service with money, the purchasing power of which has been taken away. These elderly people, at the age when they are most helpless, have been suffering a steady deterioration of their standard of living.
    There is not much connection between the absolute level of the standard of living and a man or family's happiness, provided there is a margin above subsistence, and I do not think that the rich are happier than the poor. However, I am certain that a declining standard of living, with everything having to go down on what one is used to, is a miserable thing, in the same way as a rising standard of living, even if it is a modest one, is a happy thing. What the Government have been imposing on these old servants of the nation has been a steadily declining standard of living.
    How can we expect their younger relatives to join the Army while this is
    1560
    happening to them, particularly when the unfairness of it all is so clear? A major retiring today, perhaps at the age of 48, perhaps even younger, with a full earning capacity and a good leaving gratuity, receives twice, sometimes nearly three times, the pension of his older relation who needs it more because he cannot earn, who has rendered the same service, but who retired earlier. Flagrant unfairness like this must bite into them.
    I have with me a number of letters giving pathetic instances, not only of the men but of their wives and widows. It must be remembered that these widows are the grandmothers, aunts and great aunts of the boys we want to recruit from the Service families. One letter is from a major's widow who, at the age of 75, is on National Assistance. Another is from a colonel's widow in similar circumstances. One after another of these letters reveal the anxiety these people are suffering. This affects not merely officers, but N.C.O.s and warrant officers, all of whom are treated in the same way. It is utterly unfair.
    The honest solution would be to pay pensions at the purchasing value of the £ at the time the bargain was made. I agree, however, that that would be too expensive. Nevertheless, what we can do—and this would be less expensive—is to accept the principle of one pension for one service regardless of when it was rendered. That principle should be adopted. Perhaps I have no particular high personal ambition. I do not flatter myself that I have any great ability for a great rôle. None the less, if, next year. I find myself at the Dispatch Box with the opportunity to announce the adoption by the new Government of the principle of one pension for one service, whenever it was rendered, I shall feel satisfied that my career has been worth while. There is nothing nearer to my heart than this. It is justice and real good sense and I believe that it would make a major contribution to our recruitment problem.
    The provision of housing is near to the heart of every young man going into marriage or recently married. Is it possible to provide a system of lending and repayment which will enable a man reasonably to buy a house during his 22 years of service; enable him to go into the Army and receive a loan sufficient to allow him to buy a house for

    1561
    which he will pay during those 22 years by a deduction which will leave him something reasonable? That would mean a level of cut-rate interest, but I do not believe that it would be an unreasonable one.
    Would be possible to say to such a man, "Provided that you build your house within certain areas where we need houses then, when you are away, perhaps in Germany or the Far East, where married quarters are available, we will undertake to rent your house for the furnished accommodation we require so that during that period your interest and repayment rates, and perhaps a little more, will be paid"? If a scheme of that sort could be introduced it would be found attractive to many men. It is just one of the ideas I have in mind when all hon. Members aer pooling their ideas to improve the position.
    The next major subject with which I wish to deal is colonial recruiting. The right hon. Gentleman told us about local enlistment and he spoke of people of colonial origin who have joined British units in the ordinary way. I do not dissent at all from his remarks. From my visits to various Army stations I have found his comments to be true. Nowhere have I found any colour prejudice. I equally agree that it is a matter of proportion and that it is also a matter of the background of the coloured soldier. If he has been to Britain, perhaps born and brought up here, with an English background, English schooling, English dietary habits, and so on, there is no difficulty in absorbing him I do not suggest that one could recruit people with a quite different background and inject them into the Army merely as ordinary members of units. I suggest, however, that there should be a third or fourth category; men locally enlisted on terms locally negotiated, but available for Service anywhere, not as teeth arms, or as entire fighting units, such as the Gurkhas, but as units which could render a manifold service, a service which the Army requires at various levels of organisation.
    As I have said before, we should study the German organisation during the last war. The Germans succeeded in providing a very formidable and remarkable military effort. None of their units was anything like wholly German. Rommel's panzer divisions, possibly the most for
    1562
    midable military machine that was seen, were up to 40 per cent. Russian. They consisted of people conscripted from areas over-run but, by an intelligent sub-division of the functions within the units, it was possible to make these separate people—often not speaking German at all—capable of rendering the services required.
    I have a strong feeling that with Hong Kong, Singapore, Malta and the West Indies available to us it would be more than possible to arrange units of this sort. They might be divided right down to strong sections attached to battalions, with much larger sections attached to brigade and divisional rear areas, able to do a whole series of jobs, and to take over from the others. This would need some fairly radical reorganisation, but it is something that requires examination.
    It is certain that we could not have people more naturally talented in a technical and mechanical sense than the Chinese of Singapore and Hong Kong. They service locally a great part of the Army's mechanical transport, and if they be a security risk I should have thought that they would be a far greater security risk employed locally than abroad. The kind of jobs which the locally enlisted do in a particular area should be extended generally.
    The rôle of supporting the civil power, of assisting the police, is no more a job of the Army than it is a job of the Navy or of the Air Force, and those two other Services ought to take a fairer share of it. I am glad to see that the Royal Air Force Regiment has done very well in Cyprus. The right hon. Gentleman told us in the defence debate that every frigate could put ashore a platoon to support the civil power, but I think that one might tell them to pull their socks up, and put ashore two platoons. A little pressure there would be desirable. Places like British Guiana seem to be more suitable as a naval commitment in support of the civil power than an Army one.
    We have not heard very much about our reserves. We have peace-time and war-time establishments, but do we not have something that is between the two? Have we not jobs like Cyprus, for which a full war establishment is not necessary, but for which an inadequate peace establishment is insufficient? I understood that the "Ever-readies" were designed

    1563
    for just this rôle, and I am a little surprised that they have not been used. It is true that their recruiting has been most disappointing—it has reached only about one-third of what was hoped—but, at the same time, 5,000 is a quite formidable number.
    Apart from this reserve, which I thought was devoted rather to that special rôle, there is the question of coming up to war establishment. Is the Minister satisfied that he has the reserves, that they know where they have to go, that they have the necessary warrants, etc., and that he can bring his forces up to war establishment if required? The right hon. Gentleman nods. I am glad to note that.
    On the equipment side, I want to talk particularly about helicopters, because wherever I have been the Army's great demand has been for "choppers" I believe that the "chopper" is not only the command vehicle of the Army of the future, but its assault vehicle, too. We have seen the Carl Gustaf and the Vigilant coming along, as well as the Malkara, and I very much doubt whether "thick skins" will be any defence much longer.
    Troops will have to rely for their security on their nippiness, their mobility, much more than on the thickness of their armour. The anti-tank weapon seems to have advanced so much more quickly and to have been disseminated so much faster at so much lower levels than has the tank. Therefore, in the sort of "fire brigade" war, and probably even in larger engagements, more and more will we find that it is the "chopper" that is both the command vehicle and the assault vehicle of the Army, and the "chopper" needs to be developed.
    We have heard that there are 150 light "choppers" ordered—this is all that the Army provides for itself. We still have not heard whether it is to be the Hiller or the Bell—I expected that announcement today. Frankly, I express no preference between the two. The Bell is said to be more efficient at heights, so it would be better in Aden, or where one has to work in mountain country. I am told that the Hiller has the superiority at low levels. The one thing that I do ask is that the Army
    1564
    should be given the best vehicle obtainable at the right price; and that this should be the test.
    I wish, of course, that there were a good home-made, home-designed helicopter—I would much rather see our energies directed in that direction rather than to the nuclear field, because I believe it to be more important and more remunerative—but, as we do not have the home-made article, let us by all means buy the foreign article. Let us buy the best, and let us have it produced where we can get the best deliveries at the right price from the most reliable and experienced company. Do not let us allow ourselves to be converted into a soup kitchen for an indigent aircraft industry. Our job is to get the right arms for the soldiers, not simply to support local manufacturers.
    As for other vehicles, the Hughes helicopter is a good deal cheaper. I am told that it just covers requirements and additions could not be made to it. I am not certain that I do not regard that as an advantage. The extent to which a perfectly good weapon or vehicle, like the Champion, is found and then people hang more and more things on to it until it becomes a disaster has happened far too often. If we have something to which nothing extra can be added perhaps it is all the better. At any rate it is cheaper.
    Why not have both the Hiller and the Bell. We need 150 helicopters. They will cost about £2¼ million, which is about one-twelfth of the refit cost of the "Eagle". Which is better for our needs? Applying the same argument that is going on to the slightly bigger "choppers" we come to the Scout and the Alouette. The Scout has not proved as reliable as the Alouette and it costs nearly twice as much. I should prefer to see us having double the number of Alouettes. Higher still in the range, the Government should have a look at the troop-moving helicopters. We could make a whole division airborne for the cost of a single Polaris submarine, and which, in the world of the real tasks that we are facing, is the more valuable?
    Next is the question of procurement and delivery. We still have no transistorised communications. We are not even developing towards them. The

    1565
    system of procurement is such that no weapon can reach delivery under 10 years of the time that the requirement is put out. I cannot believe that this is right. Nor do I believe that we have to treat the modern soldier as a sort of juvenile delinquent intent on destroying every article that is given to him, with the result that it is necessary that everything should be built on a basis of indestructibility at the hands of its user regardless of the weight that the soldier has to carry. If we had to carry a little less weight, and he produced less of a repercussion when he dropped his equipment, he might be more careful with it and have more affection for it.
    Most of these men have transistor radios of their own which they can carry in their vest pockets. Yet the suggestion is resisted that a transistorised radio properly prepared and fitted to the wavelengths is perfectly suitable for receiving short-wave communications. I have seen it worked by bookmakers. It is also now possible to have very small and light transmitters, but the moment these suggestions are submitted to the War Office the reply is "A man can break this". Weight is added and added to provide indestructibility and such is the load that the poor soldier has a natural hatred for the equipment before he starts humping it about.
    I was glad to hear about the introduction of the sleeping bag. I suggested this in my speech on the Estimates in 1946. It was one which had been used in the Arctic, was well proved, extremely light and shaped to the body. Eventually, these things get through to the War Office, but it takes a very long time for such a simple thing as this to get round. Now, at last, it has come.
    As for bases, what is the position in Nairobi? Here there is the curious dichotomy between two Departments. We had the War Office building a permanent base while the Commonwealth Relations and Colonial Office were creating a situation in which the base could not be used. It may be that with new negotiations it will be possible to stay there with new requirements on some new basis.
    Is not almost the same thing happening in Aden? When I was there it seemed to me that two quite inconsistent policies were being followed—the
    1566
    Colonial Office apparently extremely anxious to see how quickly we could go and the War Office digging itself in for keeps. If we do not have a base in Aden it seems to me that we are out of the Middle East and the Gulf. I do not say that this is a good or a bad thing. It may well be that it would be better if we simply took the position that we are entitled to the courtesy due from a seller to a buyer and that who never has these areas will have to sell the oil and it is no longer a munition of war. I do not know, but as between the Departments one wants a decision.
    I tried to make the point when I was in Singapore that its value to us is the moral value of being able to protect Malaysia. We do not want Singapore for any other reason. We are there to help and protect the Malaysians. Whilst there is that need we will stay there, but it is an altruistic mission.
    It is Hong Kong that makes the least sense to me. Nobody suggests for a moment that the Army is there to defend Hong Kong from outside invasion. I do not think that anyone has suggested that for a very long time. The Army is entirely committed to internal security, and it is very unlikely that one would have an invasion without an internal security situation having been created first. When I was there, the water supply was on for four hours very fourth day. More than half of that water came from China. The Chinese were at great pains to let us have as much as they possibly could afford, even at the expense of their own requirements. But surely Hong Kong is in a situation in which we hold on diplomatically in so far as it serves—and it does serve—the interests of both sides. This is something to be recognised.
    Hong Kong is an enormously rich community. I was told that capital was expected to multiply itself at least three times a year. I have never seen boom conditions like those prevailing there. Supporting the police is not the function of the soldier on a long-term basis. Occasionally, he may have that unpleasant task to do, but to maintain him permanently as a second row policeman is neither economical nor the reasonable thing to do. Surely Hong Kong should be required to raise the necessary police force which is needed as its secondary

    1567
    force. Here, the War Office should have something to say.
    I turn now to the rôle of the Army generally. In B.A.O.R., we have seen a shifting situation. In other years, I have put this as the first responsibility of the Army and the priority rôle, but I think that the situation has changed. One expected that, as the nuclear stalemate developed, the nuclear protection would go with the strategic deterrent and, unless there were conventional means to meet conventional attack, the situation would become exceedingly dangerous. I think that that was a state of affairs which we all feared we should never be in a position to meet, but it certainly seems now that the danger has greatly receded.
    It has receded for two reasons. First, the nuclear stalemate never really came about. The Russian advance in nuclear capacity did not occur as had been forecast. The missile gap which the Americans were so terrified of in 1959 and 1960 just did not materialise. In fact, the gap between American capacity and Russian capacity has enlarged enormously. The margin of American superiority is much bigger than it ever was.
    This has two different effects. First, the fact that the Russians did not maximise their effort to catch up with the Americans in this field is very good evidence of their intentions. Secondly, from all our intelligence reports it seem clear that their Army is neither organised nor disposed for an invasion westward. It seems that the pressing dangers which one feared some years ago are not present at least in the same degree now. I should say, therefor, that B.A.O.R. can now be recognised and used as a part of our disposable reserve. We are entitled so to use it within our treaty obligations so long as the troops are only temporarily called upon. This, I think, need not now cause us so much anxiety.
    However, I do not want it to be thought for a moment from what I have said that I am underrating the importance of our military presence in Germany. If Europe is to have any coherence, the sort of coherence and stability upon which both the long-term and short-term peace of the area depend,
    1568
    it must have a common task for which it binds itself together. This task must be defence. All history tells us that unity depends upon coherence resulting from the common task of defence. It must not be neglected. It must be real. B.A.O.R. must be a force which we can be proud of, equipped to show that we mean it and to show our sincerity in the alliance, for in this real unity of Europe, whatever other people may say, whatever posturings General de Gaulle may make, Britain is the real leader. This is one of our historic and important tasks.
    Apart from that, there is the rôle in the world. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have all in their time, I believe, paid lip-service to this great rôle, the idea of a law of the world and of that law being enforced by a peacemaking authority bearing arms for the purpose. This is a great and wonderful conception, yet, when my right hon. Friend proceeds to say that, perhaps, the Royal Navy—and I add the Army—might contribute to this great rôle, just because it is election year a scream is made, appealing to the chauvinistic and jingoistic instincts of the Daily Express and its friends among the party opposite suggesting that we want to give away the British Navy.
    I hope that hon. Members opposite are proud of their friends and proud of their Prime Minister who has been prepared to act as barker for the headlines of the Beaverbrook Press which he has not had the honesty to check by reports from his own Embassy.
    But, having said that, I regard as the first rôle of the Army as well as of the Navy to act as midwife in a world in which struggling new nations are seeking to be born and, in all the stresses of the birth of new nations, trying to find a place in peace and to make adjustments which this unnatural, unstable but most dynamic set of relationships which we call peace demands, providing the opportunity and the time for the adjustments to be made.
    This is the great service which we can render. The two giants have neutralised each other. For the first time, we are accepted, perhaps not only because we went to Kuwait at a critical moment of its birth, but because we left, because we have gone to East Africa and we have left, and, perhaps, because we

    1569
    are now seen in Cyprus as a Power that can work because its disinterestedness is recognised.
    I find this the proudest, most benefical service which can be rendered to the world and humanity—the keeping of the peace of the world. It is the proudest task since the Fall of Rome. If it has come to us, I for my part am very proud of it. I am very proud indeed that my son has chosen the Army for his service, if that be its rôle.
    5.48 p.m.
    Sir Richard Glyn: I begin by joining in the tribute paid by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to my right hon. Friend for the masterly way in which he presented the Estimates. Both sides of the House very much appreciated the clear and helpful way in which he put them before us. Both sides of the House join in the tribute which the hon. and learned Gentleman paid to our Armed Forces and take great pride in the efficiency with which they put down, almost simultaneously, three dangerous mutinies in Tanganyika, Uganda and Kenya.
    We also very greatly appreciate the efficiency and eternal good humour with which they have dealt with the dangerous situation in Cyprus and the gallantry and efficiency wth which they have, for a long time, sustained the democratic Government of Malaysia against aggresion which is nonetheless serious for being unofficial.
    It was the great speed with which they moved in Tanganyika, Uganda and Kenya which enabled them to perform these difficult tasks with almost no casualties, and with no British casualties at all. This ranks as a very great feat of arms. In congratulating the units which took part and the planners who arranged it, we must not forget Transport Command, which made these movements possible.
    I now turn to recruiting, which is a very serious problem. We sometimes use a figure of 180,000 as a target. I believe that it is more correctly described as a ceiling, hut, however one looks at it, I think that we should all like to attain it. I hope that with a few years' more successful recruiting we shall have attained it and will then be able to be even more selective in the standard of
    1570
    recruits which are accepted. I am well aware that a large number of men are turned away as it is, but I should like to see the standard of our voluntary Army made even higher and progressively higher. When I was in B.A.O.R. recently I was glad to hear that the wastage of new intake from this country through men proving to be unsatisfactory was less than 1 per cent. I thought that that was a very encouraging figure.
    I am sure that the factors which affect recruiting are, first, the successful use of our Army, of which we have had some good examples—I am sure that that helps a lot—and, secondly, good pay and allowances. The Army is in the process of having an increase. Another factor, in particular, is accommodation because an ever-increasing proportion of our Army is married. The proportion of married soldiers is higher than would ever have been believed before the war.
    The provision of adequate married accommodation is a problem in this country, which must not be overlooked, and also in many countries overseas in some of which our security of tenure is doubtful. I understand the difficulty in weighing the natural desire of the Army to provide good married accommodation and the consideration of how wise it is to build permanent buildings in an area where we may not remain throughout their lifetime.
    I wonder whether sufficient attention has been paid to the possibility of transportable prefabricated buildings. In Bahrein, about a year ago, I saw some excellent Shipston buildings—they were bungalows really—which had been moved from Ceylon and re-erected there. They were some of the best married accommodation. I looked at a number of them. The only complaint which I heard was from a sergeant's wife, who said that the accommodation was a little bigger than she needed. This is a complaint which one does not often hear about the Army's married accommodation.
    These buildings have been moved, and they could be moved again. I suggest that they might be considered for overseas stations, although possibly they cost a fraction more than a permanent building. As they are good enough to move to any other station overseas or even to a station in this country for

    1571
    permanent use they should be considered.
    I was glad to hear the good news about Territorial Army recruiting. This is the reserve Army with which I have been associated for all my adult life. This recruiting has been achieved almost entirely by what I would describe as "unit enterprise", and at very little public cost. This satisfactory recruiting for the Territorial Army is not an expensive item in the Army's budget. No one can ever be sure what is the future rôle of the Territorial Army. I can well remember what happened when the Territorial Army was doubled. Each unit was divided into two. This was planned in 1937 and was achieved in 1938.
    Every commanding officer reported in writing—and it was accepted—that this convulsion would mean that no Territorial Army unit could be fit for service for a minimum of three years. In fact, a very great number of them were fighting within two years. This is an example of the proposition that we can never be sure for what we may have to use the Territorial Army. We Territorials have had a good deal of experience of this. Anyone who ventured definitely to say what use would be made of the Territorial Army in a future war would be taking a risk.
    I think that it is still possible that the Territorial Army may fight as units in certain circumstances, not, perhaps, in a general war in Europe. However, when we think of our commitments all over the world and the number of Regular units which have been employed in stopping brush fires catching, what happens when we withdraw the Regular units? At present, we have a little in hand, but a situation could arise in which it might be necessary to embody the Territorial Army. I know perfectly well that if many of the better and more enthusiastic Territorial Army brigades were given the opportunity of raising volunteers to go overseas they would lose no time in taking it. This was done in the Boer War quite successfully, and it might have to be done again.
    I particularly welcome the reference to close liaison with affiliated Regular units. This is a most important point,
    1572
    which I raised two years ago. I am delighted to see the good results which seem to have arisen from it.
    I was glad to hear the hon. and learned Member for Northampton say that he thought that the War Office had the best record of the three Services. However, he went on to say one or two things with which I did not fully agree. He referred to shortages, which he thought, might amount to nearly 20,000. With his legal knowledge, which I can claim only to a limited degree, he will know that figures can be presented in a number of ways, but we can, perhaps, agree that the permitted ceiling of the British Army and the Gurkhas was first announced at 190,000. Then the Gurkhas were allowed an extension. If we allow for 15,000 Gurkhas, the number of men in the British Army plus the Gurkhas must be well over 185,000. This means that the gap would be well under 10,000 and nothing like 20,000.
    Mr. Paget: I said that I thought that we were probably not far short of a shortage of 20,000 if we maintained our existing order of battle. If our units were manned up to the level necessary for our existing commitments, about 20,000 more men would be needed. There may have to be a reorganisation of field units.
    Sir Richard Glyn: I think that I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman, but there is a 180,000 ceiling on the number that the British Army is allowed to reach. Were we to attempt to reach the establishment which the hon. and learned Member suggests we should go miles over that ceiling. Therefore, there can be no possibility of reaching it in peace time. We are not allowed to do so, even if we could. In talking about an establishment, we must talk about a peace time establishment.
    It is this use of the other establishment which has caused some of the rather unfortunate confusion about the extent to which we are below establishment. We are below establishment. We have been told that in some cases the infantry are 9 per cent. below establishment. However, a deficiency of 9 per cent. in an establishment of 660 is about 60 ment. This is different from a deficiency of several hundreds in a battalion establishment, as was said in the defence

    1573
    debate. Now that this question of establishment has been cleared up, I hope that such alarmist suggestions will not be made in future. It does not help the Army that they should be.
    As to selective service, I am in broad agreement with the hon. and learned Member. I was interested in his comment that three years' conscription was the least that was of practical use. That is the view taken by the Russians, and they are probably right. I agree that anyone who recommends a return to conscription must go for not less than 2½ years if the country is to receive anything like value. Those who are in favour of conscription or selective service, no matter by what name it is called, must face this fact.
    As to Service families, I could not agree more with what the hon. and learned Member said and the need for pensions. I do not doubt that, with his eagle eye, the hon. and learned Member has noted on the Order Paper Motion No. 48. of which I am one of the sponsors, which has now been signed by about 100 hon. Members from both sides.
    [That this House, bearing in mind that on 1st January, 1963, the fifth and the largest and most comprehensive of any of the post-war series of Conservative Pensions (Increase) Acts came into effect, and in view of the fact that the recent welcome improvement in the position of some service widows has further emphasised that the rates of public service and armed forces pensions are no longer regarded as being immutable, calls upon Her Majestys Government to review the present system under which these pensions and retired pay are determined, with a view to introducing a new procedure which would finally correct the many anomalies which still persist and reduce the disparity now apparent between the oldest and the latest agreed rates.]
    I have not yet noticed the hon. and learned Member's name to the Motion, although, no doubt, after today, he will lose no time in adding his name to the others, the intention of the Motion being to correct the existing anomalies in Service and other pensions. I look forward to the hon. and learned Member's valued reinforcement on this Motion.
    Mr. Paget: Much as I agree with it, my name can never appear on Motions.
    Sir Richard Glyn: I will not comment on that beyond saying that I notice that the hon. and learned Member's name has not yet appeared on it.
    I also have visited Hong Kong, as the hon. and learned Member has done, and I know what is done with civilians in the way of using them for a number of purposes, perhaps rather more by the Navy than by the Army. The difficulty with the hon. and learned Member's interesting suggestion is that the services given by those civilians are not particularly those required in the Far East. It would not be sound policy for British units to become accustomed to certain duties being carried out in the Far East by locally enlisted Chinese, who would have to be left behind when the units moved. When that happened, the units would suddenly find themselves with nobody accustomed to carrying out those services in a different climate and in different circumstances. A British unit must be viable anywhere.
    If the suggestion is that the Chinese should accompany units, this possibility has been investigated but in most cases the Chinese are wholly unwilling to do so. The hon. and learned Member may be aware that the Navy has experienced this difficulty with Chinese laundrymen. There are difficulties in persuading Chinese to leave their homes for very long.
    What tin; hon. and learned Gentleman said about B.A.O.R. now being available as a potential temporary reserve appears to mark a complete change in official Or position policy with regard to B.A.O.R. One of the objects of this debate is to enable the Opposition to state their policy; this is important, and the country needs to know it. The hon. and learned Member's suggestion, coming as a complete contradiction to what he has said on the Army Estimates in the last two years—that B.A.O.R. is now available to be drawn upon as a reserve—seems to me to be a striking change of policy. I will deal presently with the earlier policy statements.
    Although I accept that B.A.O.R. could be used as a reserve, we have other reserves which were referred to

    1575
    by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence in the defence debate. We have in the United Kingdom a brigade group with elements of all supporting arms and a headquarters which is available immediately, besides the Strategic Reserve. We have a British component in the Commonwealth Brigade at Terrendah Camp, which I visited recently. This is, perhaps, rather less readily available, but, none the less, it comprises a battalion and a battery in a high state of training.
    The hon. and learned Member spoke about the policy of keeping troops in Hong Kong. I suggest that they serve a useful rôle there as a Far East reserve which could be made use of quickly in an emergency in that part of the world. We have the historical precedent of what happened in Korea. It is interesting to find—I have just been looking it up—that at the time of Korea, when the British Army was more than double its present size, the total reinforcement which could be guaranteed by the then British Government, in 1950, was one brigade group. This is striking.
    The facts are that on 28th June, 1950, the then Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, offered British help. This took the form of naval vessels which were placed under American command. On 26th July, he announced that the 29th Infantry Brigade Group would be sent to Korea, where the need for ground troops had become acute. On 19th August, he ordered two battalions to Korea from Hong Kong. This, apparently, followed a personal appeal by General MacArthur, who was in serious difficulty. The two battalions from Hong Kong reached Pusan on 28th August. They were without artillery or anti-tank guns of any kind or workshops, all of which had to be loaned by the Americans, and it was not until November that the 29th Infantry Brigade Group, which had been promised on 26th July, reached Korea from this country.
    That record makes it clear how very much better off we are today even with so many of our forces deployed all over the world. With an infantry brigade group here complete and available, and Transport Command to carry them, we are altogether better placed to deal with an emergency than we were in the sum
    1576
    mer of 1950, when our Army, on paper, was well over 400,000 men. This also shows the importance of Hong Kong as a centre at which to hold reserves for the Far East.
    To return to the question of policy for B.A.O.R., over the last two years I have understood that the Opposition claimed to have an alternative and different policy with regard to B.A.O.R. and concerning the general deployment of the Army. In last year's defence debate, the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) stated in answer to a question that the policy of the Opposition was to take tactical nuclear weapons entirely away from B.A.O.R.
    I will leave the nuclear side for a moment. In the debate on the 1962 Army Estimates, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton said that Socialist policy was to increase B.A.O.R. strength to 80,000. The hon. and learned Member and I had a little discussion about this. He expected to find the extra 28,000 or so by withdrawing troops from outposts, by which he meant what, we call, I think, garrisons in overseas bases. There were then about 40,000 men in this category and I pointed out to the hon. and learned Member that he would be withdrawing nearly three-quarters of them.
    Mr. Denis Healey: If the hon. Member looks at HANSARD, I think that he will find that he is wrong in attributing to me the view that we should take all tactical atomic weapons away from B.A.O.R. What I have often said is that they should have been taken out of the front line. I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw that statement.
    Sir Richard Glyn: I have taken it directly from HANSARD. If it is not perfectly correct, I will, of course, accept the hon. Member's statement. He was asked three questions in one. His answer to the last two was "Yes" and he went on to dispute the first.
    The second question was whether his policy was to withdraw nuclear tactical weapons from B.A.O.R. It may be that there was some slight misunderstanding about this, but what I have said has been taken from the HANSARD which I have referred to today.
    Mr. Frederick Mulley: Would the hon. Gentleman give the date of the reference?
    Sir Richard Glyn: I do not have it with me, but I will ensure that the date is given to the hon. Gentleman. If that is not the official Socialist policy, it is nice to know it.
    But we had the statement in 1962 of the Socialist policy to increase the B.A.O.R. to 80,000 men. With the supporting arms, it would not be very much less than 80,000. This was again stated by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton last year. He said that the numbers required would be found by withdrawals from Cyprus and other bases in the Middle and Far East. Today, he has not spoken of withdrawal from Cyprus, or the Middle or Far East, but has talked of B.A.O.R. as a potential source of reserves. This is a very marked change in Opposition policy with regard to B.A.O.R. and the deployment of the Army.
    In this year of all years it is absolutely necessary that the public and the House of Commons should know precisely the official Socialist policy in this regard. Have they an alternative policy? Do they accept the Government's policy? If they have an alternative policy, what is it? It is right that we should know.
    I will say no more because many other hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that the hon. Gentleman who winds up for the Opposition will make it clear whether there has been a change of Socialist policy about Army deployment, and if there is, tell us what it is, and if there has not been a change, I hope he will confirm that it is as it was announced in the last two Army Estimates' debates.
    6.12 p.m.
    Mr. George Wigg: I offer my congratulations to the Secretary of State for War on his speech. It was a clear-cut account of Army policy. The Army is fortunate to have him as a Minister, for he fights well for the Army's cause, and at the moment the Army needs somebody to fight effectively on its behalf. Certainly as far as I am concerned—I think the right hon. Gentleman knows this—I will do anything I can to help him with the
    1578
    execution of his recruiting policy, with which originally I did not agree, or in any other matter. My voice—indeed, my actions—will support him so far as they are of any use in the carrying out of a policy which will enable the Army to I do its job.
    Having offered a note of congratulation. I now turn to a word of apology. I had a Question tabled yesterday. In all the years I have been in the House I have never missed a Question, but on occasions I have to sleep and I have other things to do, plus the fact that I have had a fairly busy week, and thus I was faced with the problem that I have never been able to solve, namely that of being in two places at once. So unfortunately, I missed the Question. I regret this because I had tabled it because it was important that the Secretary of State should be given an opportunity of replying in the terms that he did. Hs reply, I am glad to say, acquits the Army of accusations of neglecting its responsibilities.
    I have uttered a word of congratulation and a word of apology, and having done the polite thing, I now turn to other things which I want to say.
    The hon Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) spoke very agreeably. He, too, is interested in the wellbeing of the Army. But his information is, perhaps, a little academic, and he is a little inclined, naturally, to accept what is told him not only because it is agreeable from the Army's point of view, but perhaps because, just as a coincidence, it happens to support the cause of the Conservative Party. My spectacles are not quite so rosily tinted. I bring to bear the microscope of objectivity. I can fairly claim that. In all my speeches I have not cared very much at whom I happened to be mortaring.
    Sir Eric Errington: The hon. Gentleman might take a telescope to look at things objectively, not a microscope.
    Mr. Wigg: I was not aware that I was looking at the hon. Gentleman, but if he tells me that in relation to objectivity the distance has to be measured in light years, I will not dissent.
    The hon. Member for Dorset, North has fallen for a little piece of War Office propaganda when he talks about our

    1579
    reserves. It is very easy to come here and say that we have a brigade group with all elements at our disposal as though it was a ready-made force. What is it? The 51st Brigade, which was part of one of the right hon. Gentleman's strong punches, is no more; it has gone to the Far East. The Gurkhas have gone with it. That Brigade, for practical purposes—I do not know whether the Royal Scots are back in the country—has disappeared. The 16th Parachute Brigade Headquarters, an elite formation if ever there was one, is in Cyprus. At any rate, one battalion is in Bahrain and one in Cyprus, and that one is getting ready to relieve the battalion in Bahrain.
    That leaves the 19th Brigade. How does the right hon. Gentleman get the units to cheer him up? He does it by keeping the Buffs which were earmarked for the Caribbean and holding them in 19th Brigade, and then he brings back the 2nd Green Jackets from the Caribbean and then he has his two Infantry Battalions for 19th Brigade. I do not complain but it is true. I do not charge the right hon. Gentleman with dishonesty. Whatever the public relations department of the Ministry of Defence does, I am acquitting the right hon. Gentleman of responsibility. It is true that the 19th Brigade is here as a balanced force in reserve. But how has it been done? It has been done by the old device of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
    There is something in this that the hon. Member for Dorset, North does not understand. He is impressed by all this, and when he repeats the story to his constituents, backed by his great authority they, of course, accept it. But the story as it appears in the Pentagon or the war rooms of the Kremlin looks a bit different. They see the 19th Brigade, but they also see the gaps from where the units that comprise it have come. The Americans have a name for this technique; they call it "The Double Count".
    Mr. Ramsden: The hon. Gentleman talked about robbing Peter to pay Paul. He must be more precise about it.
    Mr. Wigg: If one has two battalions in the Caribbean—I believe they were the Grenadiers and the Green Jackets—
    1580
    and then he fails to replace the Green Jackets with the Buffs and then cuts down by one battalion in the Caribbean, irrespective of the needs, either one of two things must be true. Either one did not need two battalions there to start with, or the situation has changed.
    Mr. Ramsden indicated assent.
    Mr. Wigg: Ah, hon. Members will see how astute I am. I gave the right hon. Gentleman a bolt hole. This convinces me that he is not quite speaking the truth. No: I withdraw that. I will say instead that he is putting a little gloss on it. The advantage of reading The Winslow Boy is that one learns always to leave two exits and, leaving the light on one exit, then see which exit the victim goes for. The right hon. Gentleman has gone straight for the most convenient exit; he has gone for the bolt hole that the situation has changed.
    I am prepared to believe that the situation has changed. But the situation does not always change to suit the Government. The laws of probability are against it always happening that a changed situation always occurs on terms which are acceptable to the Government. Let us start the story by taking as objective a view as possible by remembering that the order of battle originally required a figure of 220,000. If any hon. Gentleman doubts this let him read the speeches of a former Conservative Minister of Defence and Secretary of State for War, who said that the Government's original figure in 1957 of 165,000 was an actuarial figure which the Government might be able to recruit. Since then we have had statement after statement—I can give hon. Gentlemen opposite a list as long as my arm—putting the minimum requirement at 180,000.
    One hundred and eighty thousand men are required to meet the immediate order of battle. If the Government continue the increasing commitment with a strength below that figure something must give. The right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) told us, during the debate on the Queen's Speech in 1961, what the position was then and it has not improved. He made a perfectly honest and honourable statement. He said that he would make no pretence but admit that the Army was out of balance. If an army is out of balance

    1581
    it cannot fight. One can improvise and get away with it—for a while. The Government have got away with it so far because we have not met a serious enough challenge. But is the Secretary of State sure that he will always continue to get away with it?
    Sir Richard Glyn: The hon. Gentleman has touched briefly on five or more subjects since the two on which I wished to interrupt. I do not know whether he meant to but that is the case. What we were talking about was whether or not a brigade group in hand was available. I suggest that where a unit is does not make all that much difference. Troops can be moved fast these days. The essential question is whether the unit is committed or not.
    Moving units from place to place does not mean that they are committed. There is the question of whether there is a brigade group in hand. I maintain that there is. The hon. Member writes in an order of battle for me and then says that it is wrong. I have not urged and would not urge any order of battle.
    Mr. Wigg: I agree that the 19th Brigade exists and that, therefore, what the Secretary of State said was true. I am pointing out how the right hon. Gentleman got it. The hon. Member for Dorset, North says that it does not matter. I have great respect for him and I do not want to be impertinent. But does he really say that it does not matter where the units are? Does not he understand that when a unit occupies our rôle the Government make some attempt—often ineffectively—to keep it somewhere near its proper strength?
    For example, the Inniskilling Fusiliers were, until recently, at Gravesend. Great political capital was made—and we on this side of the Committee accepted it—of the announcement that the Supreme Allied Commander was to form a mobile "fire brigade". We allocated this battalion and this aroused almost the same sort of cheers we hear when the Prime Minister comes forward with one of his usually nonsensical announcements.
    It was a grand idea for a British battalion to be put into the N.A.T.O. "fire brigade". It was the genesis of an idea now to be applied in Cyprus.
    1582
    Here was to be part of an international force. Its strength, we were told, was 900. But that was not so. There were the elements of a regimental group—or, rather, like the one that was sent to the Cameroons It was a balanced force but its strength was not 900 men. It was an infantry battalion 450 strong plus services.
    The kind of claim made about the N.A.T.O. mobile battalion may impress the 1922 Committee, but it does not impress the Americans, nor will it deter the Russians. If the Government are thinking in terms of the Alliance, what impression will it make to put the Staffords into Kenya 480 strong or earmark the Devons for an active rôle at 300 strong" The argument has been raging in this Committee all week. What is at issue is that the prestige and authority of the country depend upon the effective strength of our conventional forces and not upon a non-existent nuclear deterrent. What impresses is the strength of our battalions and their effectiveness on the ground.
    If, therefore, the Government in order to strengthen 19th Brigade, leave a hole in the Caribbean or take a battalion out of Germany, it might impress the Primrose League or the ward parties in the constituencies of hon. Members opposite. But President Johnson, General Lemnitzer and Mr. Khrushchev will be unimpressed, for their intelligence services will tell them the truth.
    The Government in the last few weeks have carried out an operation of not telling the British public the truth about the strength of our committed units. It is a confidence trick but it has only worked on hon. Members opposite. One of the necessities for being a successful confidence trickster is that one must "con" oneself successfully, and that is what the Government have done. The Government have "conned" themselves into believing that the country has the strength they claim in terms of troops and their effectiveness.
    I am convinced that here we reach the reason why the Americans pull their punches and do not back us in Malaysia. I do not claim to be a foreign affairs expert. I do believe, however, that the Americans, broadly speaking, are in complete sympathy and harmony with us over the difficulties we face in the

    1583
    Far East because they believe that this is an area which must be stabilised if the Western World is to maintain its authority.
    It may well be that the State Department holds the view that Dr. Sukarno should stay because, if he goes, someone worse will follow. We may hold the view that if he goes someone better will follow. But what the Americans are afraid of is that, if they back us with enthusiasm in Borneo, they will be left to carry the "can" for us. For we have 6,000 troops there to cover a frontier stretching 1,000 miles.
    Again, we may ask why the Australians are not alongside us in Borneo. After all, on paper this looks like a vital commitment for them. But I am told by a very good authority, although I have not yet been able to check the Australian papers, that they are saying that Britain will hold Borneo to the last Australian. It seems that Australia is afraid to commit herself in Borneo because she may find herself left alone there in the end.
    We have not the strength to maintain our position at every point to which we are committed by Government policy. The hon. Member for Dorset, North asked my right hon. and hon. Friends where they stand. They must answer for themselves. I will tell him where I stand. The decision to return to the Regular engagement in 1957 was taken for political reasons. It has not worked.
    When I protested then, the charge was made that I favoured conscription. The same charge was made against my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). In 1952 he and I raised the issue of getting rid of National Service and laid down certain conditions which should be met in order to get an all-Regular Army. We argued then, as we argued many times later, that, if we had an all-Regular Army, it must be based on long-service engagements. I fought that battle from 1951 onwards, and in 1957 the Government changed their mind and introduced the long-service engagement.
    The Government thus moved towards laying the foundation upon which one could build a Regular Army. But what has happened? They also planned and hoped that from 1957 till now—and this
    1584
    was constantly claimed—our commitments would hive off. But the opposite has happened: they have increased. Does any hon. Member think that our commitments during the next six months will get less? All the time they are tending to increase.
    Therefore, the Labour Party, either in Opposition or when it becomes the Government, must face the situation with which it finds itself. Up to the present, the Government have maintained their position not through the working of a volunteer army but through the remnants of conscription. In 1962 they maintained the position because National Service men were held back for an extra six months. That was the point of the Army Reserve Act, 1962. They have the power now to recall National Service men. They can call 100,000 men back without notice. The Secretary of State of the day spelt it out with absolute honesty. He said:
    "The Clause gives the Secretary of State power to bring them back for a period not exceeding six months. If we had to do this we should select individuals to fill vacancies in corps and by the categories of which the Army was short at the time. The sort of tension we must plan for often builds up suddenly, as it did last summer. It follows that it might well be impossible to give advance notice to those who would then have to be recalled."—[OFFICIAL RE PORT, 27th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 50–51.]
    By whatever name that is called, it is still selective service and the Government are using compulsion. It is that power which allows the Government to sleep easily. But they are afraid of the political consequences of using their reserves, as has been shown. In the Cyprus situation, with our battalions at their present strength, the "Ever-readies" should have been called up. These men were recruited and paid high bounties for that purpose.
    I have friends in the Territorial Army and I am told that the Secretary of State provisionally took the decision to call back the "Ever-readies". They were, indeed, brought to a state of readiness. As it happened, he and I dined in successive weeks with the same unit and the officers there talked to both of us. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to deny what I am saying then I will give way.
    Mr. Ramsden: No units were brought to a state of readiness.
    Mr. Wigg: Then all I can say is that, after his dinner, he gave them a different impression from the one that he now gives me. However, the right hon. Gentleman did not fetch the "Ever-readies" back. Why not? He has been honest with us. It was because he was afraid of the international repercussions. Yet these 5,000 men were needed. They are being paid a bounty of £150 each to stand by. But, when things get a bit "dicey", he cannot use them because there might be repercussions.
    This gives a clue to the future. We are all in this together. We all have a direct interest in this, even my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). We must do all we can to help recruit for the Army. We must assist by our actions and voices. We must do all we can to help the Secretary of State get his recruits. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington agrees.
    Now that we have set ourselves on this path, we must all, on both sides of the Committee, quite apart from political considerations, help the recruiting policy to succeed. But we have the right to ask, in return, for a clear statement of what Government policy is. With respect, I now ask the Secretary of State what Government policy is—not now, but what it will be in 1965—because at the end of 1965, the 1962 Reserve Act will have gone and all we will be left with will be Class A of the Army Reserve and Class I of the Army Emergency Reserve, plus the "Ever-readies."
    I should like to see an all-party approach to this. For I wonder whether the time has not come to put teeth into the Territorial Army. I wonder whether we should not now contemplate that call-up after Proclamation belongs to the days before 1914.
    After 1965 if a really serious crisis arose, the Secretary of State would have to rely on Class B of the Army Reserve, the Army Emergency Reserve and the T.A. But if he cannot call up the "Ever-readies" because of international repercussions, surely how much more afraid will he be if he has to make a Proclamation to call up those reserve elements? I wonder, therefore, whether the time has not come when the whole of Class B should be liable to recall
    1586
    without proclamation. This is one of the practical things that I hope might emerge from a discussion of the reserve problem.
    I am appalled by the standard of equipment of the Territorial Army. Has not the time come to consider the position of the Territorial Associations, strong, local bodies, which have done good work, but do they work well now? I suggest that, perhaps, in return for giving first-class equipment, we might get a category of men—like the Army Emergency Reserve—who would accept liability for immediate service in an emergency either as individuals or in units. In return, I repeat, they should get up-to-date training and equipment Indeed, I wonder whether the time has not come to have a smaller, more compact, highly trained and better equipped Territorial Army, with perhaps greater financial inducements and accepting a liability to recall without proclamation.
    Mr. Shinwell: I agree that we have to look ahead and think in terms of building up conventional forces and that a responsibility rests upon those of us who are opposed to what is called the independent nuclear deterrent and who prefer conventional forces, but it seems to me, without going too far in the direction that my hon. Friend wants, that we might begin by considering the rôle of the "Ever-readies". I recall, as no doubt does my hon. Friend, that when the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor introduced the "Ever-ready" scheme there was great enthusiasm and it was thought apropos the name given to these Territorials that they might be used in the event of an emergency.
    Mr. Wigg: I agree. I remember the enthusiasm. Indeed, I can give the HANSARD references, and I have for reference the papers giving details of the new scheme.
    Obviously, I do not know the answers to these questions. What I am saying is that it is no good saying that we have formations here and there which we might be able to use. We have to look at the picture as a whole. We ought to pool our knowledge and experience in order to try to find a solution to our reserve problem. I have concluded that in the situation in which we now find ourselves, with the rôle of our reserves,

    1587
    costing us a fairly considerable sum of money, with a liability for recall only after Proclamation, we seem to be legislating for a situation which is not likely to arise. Much more likely is the situation described by the then Secretary of State for War at the end of 1961—the situation which comes up suddenly and in which chaps have to be found very quickly. The right hon. Gentleman can do that at the moment through a pre-Proclamation call-up, and he should look at the extension of that principle.
    I remain unrepentant in my views on manpower. I believe that I was absolutely right and that the Government have taken unjustifiable risks, risks whose price has to be paid not by them but by the troops. I am delighted that things have gone so well. Please God, they may never have to pay the price. I say that for personal reasons, because I should like to make a bet that I have more relatives in the ranks of the Regular Army than any other hon. Member. So I am talking about things in which I am personally interested.
    I want now to refer to equipment. This is a matter of paramount importance. I am very glad that the Minister of Defence has now come in, because it is the double talk about which I complain so bitterly. Let me give an example which occurred on television last night. I understand perfectly well the argument for the TSR2 as the Canberra replacement. This was an aircraft which was wanted by the Army and, I think, still is.
    I am not now arguing the merits of the TSR2. I am saying that a modern reconnaissance aircraft was required by the Army to do a job, and if the Army was to have Blue Water, it had to have TSR2 and also what is now known as the HS681. They were esssential requirements for the Army. Originally the case for the TSR2 was the case of the Canberra replacement.
    Suddenly, in the course of development, it occurred to somebody for political reasons—and let me acquit the Minister of Defence, for I believe that the Minister of Aviation was the villain of the piece—to promote the TSR2 as an essential part of the nuclear strike force. It was to be an essential part of the country's capacity to use the nuclear
    1588
    bomb. It was so presented to the public. Last November, we had rows in which the Minister of Aviation and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) were allied in which, I am very glad to say, I took a prominent part. For example, we had an Adjournment debate on the issue which came to a sudden end.
    The truth is that the Government say two distinctly different things. Let me say, in passing, that I am not against the Army having a long-range reconnaissance aircraft. On 3rd March, the Secretary of State for Air interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) and said:
    "The figure of the deterrent in general…does not include the TSR2, because the TSR2 is not part of the deterrent, although it has a deterrent bonus."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1964; Vol. 690, c. 1163.]
    In other words, it is not part of the deterrent.
    In all the controversy with the Minister of Aviation and his accolyte the hon. Member for Kidderminster we were told exactly the opposite. When we nailed the Secretary of State for Air down and he had to meet the argument across the Floor of the Chamber, and had reached the limits of his manoeuvring, and when he was forced, with his head banging up against a brick wall, to contradict the Minister of Aviation he was forced to tell the truth—an unusual experience for hon. Members opposite, who are usually far too slippery for that. We had driven the Secretary of State for Air right into a corner and he had to say that the TSR2 was not part of the deterrent.
    The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that it is the Army Estimates which we are debating.
    Mr. Wigg: Yes, Sir William, but the original case for the TSR2 was that it was a Canberra replacement, and the case that I am putting is that it is still a Canberra replacement and that it is still necessary to have a reconnaissance aircraft, and I wish to say why.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) referred to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation and indicated that he thought that it was unusual

    1589
    for him to tell the truth. Those were his words. Is that in order?
    The Chairman: It would not be in order, but I had not taken it that way. The Committee knows what is in order and what is not.
    Mr. Wigg: Thank you, Sir William. My point is that we believed that the TSR2 was built to fulfil its original rôle, that of an aircraft for the Army. That is what the Secretary of State was saying.
    Last night on B.B.C.—and I have made my protest to the B.B.C.—we got another story. I have no doubt where it originated—in the public relations department of the Ministry of Defence. But the important thing is, what the public was told. This was on two programmes, the T.V. news and the radio news, and on T.V. it was done with a high degree of drama. There was a picture on television of the TSR2 being conveyed along the road with a wing uncovered but other parts all covered up which, it was said, were the secret parts. These were the words used:
    "TSR2 is now expected to make its maiden flight in early summer, then join the R.A.F.'s nuclear strike force."
    Which is it—nuclear, or a weapon for the Army?
    This is how the controversy about this country's Armed Forces is being carried on—double talk all the time. This afternoon we dragged out the facts about strengths. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War is a highly intelligent man and he knows the truth of what I am saying. He knows it in his heart. He has the dilemma that he has to provide an Army to fulfil two rôles. One is the rôle in Europe, and the other rôle is that of the Far East and Cyprus and the Arabian Peninsula. Of course, the cost is enormous and he has to say one thing here and one there, one thing tonight and another thing on another day. What has been said about the TSR2 is a graphic example.
    I will not strain your generosity too much, Sir William. Let us return to the picture of what the Army needs. The Army was to have Blue Water. This was a British weapon, a very formidable weapon, and the Army was also to have the TSR2 and the AW681. The American tactical weapons were to be
    1590
    phased out. Since that time the Americans have installed Sergeant in place of Corporal and are withdrawing that weapon. The Germans have Sergeant and as long ago as 1961 the Americans agreed to supply them with Pershing, a weapon far beyond the capacity of any of the American weapons supplied to us. So the British Army is left right out on the end of the limb. The weapon around which the Rhine Army was to be built and around which the whole concept of aircraft for the Army, both reconnaissance and fighter, was to be built was Blue Water.
    I say at once that I am not a nuclear purist. I am a pragmatist, facing the world as I find it. But if the case for Blue Water was as overwhelming as I believe it was established to be, why did we cancel it? When we cancelled it, why did not the Secretary of State for War tell us what was to happen to Corporal and Honest John and the atomic artillery? Is the Rhine Army to be landed with those weapons for ever and a day? Are we to have a situation in the Rhine Army in which its strength is run down while the Germans build up to 12 full divisions alongside British troops, Germans equipped with the best weapons which the Americans can provide? What is our prestige in the councils of Europe if that happens?
    I have the greatest sympathy with the Secretary of State for War in an impossible task. Now perhaps hon. Members opposite will understand why all this week I have raised my voice in protest, not for personal reasons but on behalf of the Army, not that I think that the Army has called me to this fight and cannot do without me but that I owe everything to the Army and acknowledge it and that I am here today trying to pay back part of my debt.
    The Royal Air Force has a very powerful lobby in the aircraft manufacturers, and the Navy has a powerful lobby both in the House of Commons and in the shipbuilding industry. The Army has nothing but the voice of the right hon. Gentleman, and he is in as weak a political position as he could be. He is an honourable, straightforward and able man, but Blue Water was cancelled and there is no replacement for

    1591
    the obsolescent American equipment and our troops are sent to Cyprus and Africa under strength. All sides pay tribute to the Army's work—with our lips; what about our actions? How many hon. Members have joined with me in protesting against sending our troops in units which are under strength? What the Government do is to try to put the best face on it that they can, and when it comes to a public relations exercise, they are absolutely first class.
    I acquit the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence. We have had a showdown this week and I have pulled out some of his tail feathers and I suppose that he thinks that he has got hold of some of mine. We will call that quits. He is not ultimately responsible for the condition of the country's defences. The person responsible is the Prime Minister. The man who has thrown the cause back by many years is the Prime Minister. At the time when this Prime Minister took office there was a build-up—it was certainly in the mind of his predecessor—towards attempting to elevate defence above party. Hon. Members may laugh and jeer, but I at least have tried to do just that. One of the first things the present Prime Minister said was that he would take defence into the cockpit of politics, and he has done just that. As I have said many times, there can be only one loser—the strength of the Services and the prestige of the country. I have a report, which I will read, of what this incompetent squalid little creature was saying at a lunch outside the House today.
    The Chairman: Order. Did I understand the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) to use the words "incompetent and squalid little creature" of a right hon. Gentleman, a Member of the House of Commons?
    Mr. Wigg: I used those words, yes, but I was using them in relation to a speech which he made outside the House of Commons.
    The Chairman: If those words were used in referring to an hon. or right hon. Member, they must be withdrawn, and I call upon the hon. Member to withdraw them forthwith.
    Mr. Paget: Which of those words do you hold to be unparliamentary, Sir William? I understand that "little" is both accurate and Parliamentary. Surely "squalid" is equally accurate and Parliamentary, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's performance.
    The Chairman: I hold the total expression to be unparliamentary, and I ask the hon. Member for Dudley to withdraw it.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Further to that point of order. I was in the House yesterday evening, Sir William, when an hon. Member opposite referred to my hon. Friend as a slimy liar. He was not called upon to withdraw that remark. In view of what took place last night, I cannot see how my hon. Friend can be called upon to withdraw an accurate and impeccable phrase.
    The Chairman: What happened yesterday has nothing to do with the situation with which I am now dealing. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the expression he used.
    Mr. Wigg: As always, Sir William, I defer to the Chair. I withdraw that expression. Whether I shall make a submission as to the validity of your Ruling at some other time is another matter. There are clear rules distinguishing what is said in the House and what is said outside it. I will read what was said today. The Prime Minister, talking of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Oppositon in connection with a discussion on television, on a major matter of defence, said:
    "I am perfectly willing to confront Mr. Wilson on television. But when I want to, I shall send for him."
    What arrogance! What an insulting assumption! Is that the true language of the democrat? I am asked to defer to the rules of the Committee and to show respect for a man who holds the pre-eminent political position in this country and who, in order to make a squalid party point, uses that sort of language in respect of a Parliamentary opponent.
    I suggest that I am entitled to describe that action and those words as squalid. The thought behind it is squalid. The presentation is disgraceful. Relating this to the question of defence, the most

    1593
    insulting thing that I can say of him is that the Prime Minister believes what he says. He really believes what he says about the deterrent, and about this country's strength. I can say—and if I am offensive, by heaven, I am trying to be—that this man believes every word of it. By saying it, and demonstrating that that is what he believes. and by saying the kind of thing that he has done of my right hon. Friend, he shows beyond question that he is not fit to blacken the boots of the dirtiest private that ever took the Queen's shilling.
    6.54 p.m.
    Mr. Clive Bossom: I shall not begin by trying to be offensive. Last year in the Army Estimates debate the TSR2 was discussed by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), and I followed him on that occasion. I shall certainly not follow that argument today. He put some queries to my right hon. Friend this evening about the Army's order of battle and establishments, and I am confident that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to answer them later on.
    I do not agree with the hon. Member that President Johnson and Mr. Khrushchev would not be impressed with what the British Army has managed to do in the past three months. I think that they would be very impressed. The hon. Member also mentioned Australia. I was there about six months ago, and I would have thought that the 10½ million Australians were in a very difficult position at the moment in respect of Borneo, because they have 100 million Indonesians breathing down their necks, and they do not want to give President Sukarno any reason to start something.
    I also want to pay tribute to the Army. It has done a magnificent job in the last few months. It has been able to answer every call, and it has done everything that has been asked of it. Every peace-keeping operation has been speedily and competently carried out, and it is worth pointing out to critical hon. Members opposite that there was still a small force available in the United Kingdom even after all those troops had left our shores. Our "mobile fire brigades" went out to
    1594
    all those brush-fires and managed to stop them all from spreading.
    It is easy for hon. Members opposite to say that we need more troops, better equipment and improved mobility. That will always be the case. But they should have to put forward many more helpful and useful suggestions about the way in which they would recruit and obtain these additional troops. I agree with much of what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) about Service families and better married quarters. As for better equipment, it was announced by my right hon. Friend this afternoon that new equipment is continually coming out. In respect of mobility, for efficiency, speed and safety it would have been difficult to beat Transport Command. It was certainly spot-on throughout all these emergencies. However, I agree that we need many more helicopters in some theatres of war.
    I welcome the new joining age, but we must employ new methods to bridge the gap between a boy's leaving school at the age of 16 and his being able to join up at the age of 17. Last year I put forward some ideas for helping mustard-keen, would-be recruits. One idea was that there should be a special "Army class" in secondary and technical schools Another was that we should have special training companies at depôts. The new joining age will greatly assist us, but there is still a gap of nearly a year, during which time we shall lose potential recruits.
    Now I want to say a word about the Army cadet force. This country is indebted to the present cadet force officers and instructors, especially for the way in which they have kept the force so active and enthusiastic, with their very limited resources. I feel that the time has come when more financial help should be given. Many of these boys could be potential recruits for the Regular Army, and it is imperative that they should be given the right idea about the Army while they are in the cadet force.
    I understand that there is no shortage of boys who are willing to join but that many more adult leaders are required. There is also a shortage of modern·22 rifles and wet weather clothing, and a growing shortage of United Kingdom camps. I therefore hope that my right

    1595
    hon. Friend will try to do more to help the force. What it really needs is more financial assistance.
    We have talked a lot about Commonwealth recruiting. I trust that the Government will retain the eight battalions of Gurkhas, all at maximum strength, at all times. In the past I have pressed for a new agreement with Nepal, to go over the 15,000 figure. At the moment, let us recruit every Gurkha that we are allowed to, because the Gurkhas have proved that they are worth their weight in gold in the past few months. I hope that we shall also make more use of Jamaicans in this country. I welcome the policy, announced this afternoon, of allowing more Commonwealth recruits to join the Army, and I foresee no problems, provided these recruits are evenly spread over various regiments. Trouble will arise only if there are too many of them in one unit.
    I realise that it is not the present policy to start new units, but I have recently been to Fiji and have seen what a magnificent bearing the local police have. I am wondering if we could not once more investigate the possibility of recruiting one Fiji battalion. It could be employed locally, or at any rate only in the Far East. These fine warriors would be best kept in one regiment. They had a battalion a few years ago. They would be a valuable asset, and would be very proud to serve the British Army.
    The hon. and learned Member for Northampton suggested that we should recruit Chinese from Hong Kong and Singapore as mechanics. I served in Hong Kong for two years and I agree that they make excellent mechanics and are very useful as Bechelon personnel. But there is always the security problem because, as I found from experience, most of these Chinese have relatives in Red China, and therefore it is only safe, I think, to have them in Hong Kong or Singapore where they have their own families. I would be loath to take them outside those two areas.
    At home I hope that we can again step up television advertising for recruiting. We must continue to show short films like we had last year which concentrate on adventure and tough inter-Service training, especially in places like
    1596
    North Africa, Canada and Australia, as they all go to prove that the Army moves around the world. I think that at the end of every film there should be the slogan, "The Army will also prepare you for a civilian life by teaching you a trade". We have not impressed that enough on young men in the past.
    In April, the three Services will literally come under one roof, and I am sure that the Army would benefit if the three Services had combined recruiting centres also under one roof. As soon as buildings become available we should press forward with such a scheme.
    This brings me to actual service. I am not quite sure that we have the length of service, the terms and the conditions right. I do not believe that enough experiment has been tried out in alternative forms of engagement. I am sure that young, unmarried men would be willing to take on a short engagement, say, for a period of four years at a lower rate of pay than the ordinary soldier who might join up for a six or nine years' engagement on the condition that at the end of his service he would be given a large tax-free gratuity. This would help to launch him in civilian life. He would have a lump sum to put down towards a house, or a small business. I think that this type of "austerity engagement" should be tried out, or anyhow looked into much more closely. Again, I think that the man should end up his training with a short trade course so as partly to equip him to face civilian life.
    I now turn to equipment. It was most heartening to hear the announcement this afternoon of the new equipment that is becoming available. But I think that we must continue to impress upon the designers that equipment must not be allowed to become too complicated, too sophisticated and too heavy because the emergencies in Borneo and East Africa have proved that mobility and flexibility are still of paramount importance. It also means that side arms must be light, tough and easy to maintain. The Americans have been experimenting on a light Armalite rifle which has a plastic butt and high velocity and which is ideal for jungle warfare. Our own S.L.R. self-loading rifle, although extremely accurate, is inclined to be too heavy for jungle warfare. I think that we should further experiment

    1597
    on the light Armalite rifle to see if we cannot produce a similar weapon for jungle patrols.
    Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: On a point of order, Sir William. I do not know whether it is for recruiting purposes for the brain drain, but is it in order for an hon. Member to fill in a passport application form during the debate. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) seems to be doing that.
    The Chairman: I had assumed that if hon. Members had documents they were notes for a future speech or that they were checking what they had already said. It would certainly be out of order to deal with things outwith the business of this Committee.
    Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Bossom) a question?
    The Chairman: Is it a point of order?
    Mr. Shinwell: No. It is arising out of his speech. I hope that I have his consent to make an interjection. I am very interested in what he has been saying and I agree with most of it—the need for more men, the building-up of the Commonwealth units, better equipment and the like. Has he calculated what the additional cost will be as a result of all this, and does he imagine that we can afford to spend many millions more on conventional forces and equipment and still go on spending, as is stated, 10 per cent. on nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Bossom: I would put it this way to the right hon. Gentleman. I feel that most of the things that I have suggested will not be much more expensive. Different types of weapons and things like that I do not think will be a vast expense. These are ideas which I am suggesting to the Committee to try to make the Army more efficient, but I do not think that the cost would be very much more.
    Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Sir William. It would, of course, be out of order for me to fill in a passport form while I was in Committee. I was not filling in a passport form; I was reading a passport form because in view of the Government's defence policy it seemed to me that I ought to make quite sure
    1598
    that my Passport is renewed so that I can get out while the going is good.
    Mr. Bossom: That is very encouraging if the hon. Gentleman really means that he is going to get out.
    There is another side of Army life which we have not touched on at all, but I do not think that it should be overlooked. It is leisure time and entertainment it the Army. In the past two years I have been fortunate enough to visit nearly all the stations in the Middle East and Far East. I should like to congratulate the Army Kinema Corporation on the job it is doing. It usually shows film; seven days a week and changes the programme twice a week. The cinemas are certainly well patronised and very popular. Could not the Combined Service Entertainment Committee explore ways and means of getting more live shows? Of course they will have no appeal whatever to the young and sophisticated Service man and his family unless they are absolutely first-class and the artists are stars. I am aware of the heavy expense of this and the difficulty of getting these people but I understand that no stars have visited B.A.O.R. since 1959. I know that in the Middle East lately there were some top recording stars such as Edna Savage, Dickie Valentine, Ruby Murray and David Whitfield, and I believe at the end of this month the highly amusing dual artist whom children love as Mr. Pastry and the grown-ups enjoy watching as Richard Hearn performing the Lancers, is going to Cyprus. But I feel that the troops in Germany need some type of light entertainment and if big stars could be persuaded to go out it would be a great help. I hope that the Beatles will be able to accept the invitation, which has lately been sent to them, to visit units in Berlin, and I only pray that no overzealous R.S.M. marches them off to have their hair cut, because that really would cause a major incident in Berlin. What would provide a tremendous morale booster would be to provide television for B.A.O.R.
    When I visited units in Germany I was told of this need for television programmes. Few British families there speak German and even though they may have a German television set they do not understand the programmes. Such

    1599
    coverage in the evenings would be greatly appreciated. I fully appreciate the technical problems and the expense which would be involved, but as B.A.O.R. is today considered to be a home station I think it would make a tremendous difference to families in the Army and in the Royal Air Force stationed in Germany. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give further information on this subject.
    Last year the former Secretry of State for War announced that German lessons would be given to members of units before they were posted to B.A.O.R. and that this would be followed by six-week courses when they arrived in Germany. This has worked out well. At least we have managed to break down the idea that all foreigners must learn English and that we need never learn any foreign language. Let us go a step further and give an inducement to officers and other ranks to learn the languages of other N.A.T.O. countries. I think that a knowledge of Italian would be useful and to be able to speak French would be a useful accomplishment in most parts of the Middle East. I know that there are good pay awards for interpreters, but I should like to see a lump sum paid to personnel who passed a fairly stiff examination and who were reasonably fluent in a foreign languge such as French or even Malay.
    I have made various suggestions to the Committee and I hope that some will prove constructive and will be followed up.
    7.12 p.m.
    Mr. F. H. Hayman: I hope that the Committee will excuse me if I touch on an entirely new subject, which is very local. I do not wish to trespass unnecessarily upon the time of the Committee but I feel that a document which has come into the possession of every hon. and right hon. Member—The Misuse of a National Park; Military Training on Dartmoor is well worth consideration. It was prepared by the Dartmoor Preservation Association and I must declare an interest in that I am a member of that Association. The document sets out a problem in connection with the Army and the defence of this country which we all ought seriously to consider.
    1600
    The document was produced under the marvellous inspiration and leadership of the Association's chairman, Lady Sylvia Sayer, who was born and bred of Dartmoor stock. Her husband is a retired naval officer, a gallant officer of the finest type, Vice-Admiral Sir Guy Sayer. Her son is a naval officer. Her father was a general. She comes from the type of Service family to which reference was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) so that whatever Lady Sayer stands up for, at least she is through and through indoctrinated with the whole tradition of a Service family and she is a patriot of unquestioned type and ability.
    I beg hon. and right hon. Members to read this publication which is fully documented, and I would be prepared to say that not one statement in it is likely to be refuted by the War Office. Dartmoor is about 30 miles wide from north to south and 20 miles from east to west. It has a mean altitude of 1,700 feet. Most of the real moorland is almost uninhabited. Most of the moor north of the Moretonhampstead-Tavistock Road is in the hands of the War Department. A good chunk of southern Dartmoor has been given over as a training ground for the Marines. What is left is supposed to be a National Park. Even that is frequently trespassed over by the Armed Forces so that to call Dartmoor a National Park is something of a misnomer. It is, first and foremost, a training ground for the Armed Forces of the Crown. To that extent a mockery is made of the term "National Park" and all that the expression is supposed to stand for. The War Office leases or owns training areas and ranges in the United Kingdom totalling 337,000 acres, or at least it did last summer, when the then Minister supplied me with the figures. The War Department controls 16,000 acres of Dartmoor's National Park against a total of 337,000 acres in the United Kingdom.
    Hon. Members will readily see that Dartmoor represents less than 5 per cent. of the total area of land held in the United Kingdom by the War Office. I think that we must ask ourselves whether the War Department is making the best use of these 337,000 acres. I wonder. It is a great deal of land. In addition, the Royal Air Force has large areas of

    1601
    land, and the Admiralty has other land, although much less. Splitting up the 337,000 acres we find that in Wales there are 46,000 acres, but in England no fewer than 272,000. I suggest that that is a quite disproportionate amount of land in a comparatively small country to be at the disposal of the War Office. In Scotland the figure is 15,000 acres, less than the Army holds in Dartmoor.
    Last Autumn the Minister visited Dartmoor and we were grateful to him for coming to see for himself what things are like there. Fortunately, or unfortunately, it rained heavily the whole of the day of his visit, and so the Minister was able to get a taste of the moor in its natural state. I hope that he learned some useful lessons. I understand on very good authority that he nearly stumbled over an unexploded bomb.
    That is one of the dangers arising from the use of Dartmoor National Park by the Army. Unfortunately, about five years ago a lad of 16, walking on the moor with his father, also stumbled on an unexploded bomb. He lost his life. I do not want the Secretary of State to lose his life or to be injured, but I hope that it was a salutary experience for him and that it will cause him to listen to the appeals of those of us who have a real love of Dartmoor.
    The area is full of prehistoric monuments. There is a picture on the back of this booklet of a splendid menhir, which has been there for probably thousands of years. It is pock-marked with shots from mortars and other weapons. Dartmoor is used more and more by youth for all kinds of open-air adventure and training. Thank goodness for that. Such experiences saved my life when I was young. I hope that they have helped me throughout life to have a sane and balanced outlook, although I think sometimes hon. Members opposite doubt that. Certainly I have derived the greatest pleasure from it.
    I wish to make a short quotation from a speech by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh when he addressed the Central Council of Physical Recreation on 23rd May, 1963. He said:
    "We go to all sorts of lengths to preserve cathedrals, castles, houses, pictures, and all kinds of an-made works of art. Surely we should at least do the same for the works of nature? We need only to take a little trouble to stop the absent-minded destruction of our
    1602
    national heritage. Some may say that this is all sentimental rubbish. … That way lies the affluent concrete jungle."
    What is needed is for the War Department seriously to consider this problem and face the fact that sooner or later it will be compelled to withdraw from this National Park and to draw up a plan for a phased withdrawal. I feel almost at the end of my patience in appealing to successive Ministers to do just that. I appeal to the Committee to give consideration to what is contained in this booklet and to support me in my appeal that full consideration should be given to a phased withdrawal from Dartmoor. It is the only part of South-West England where we have some real natural wilderness left. Even that is bisected 133 two arterial roads, one running north and south and the other east and west.
    When the House passed the National Parks Act after the war it meant business. The National Parks should be a reality. We are getting to a time when there will be more leisure available for everyone. Someone has already referred to that aspect in connection with the Army. This can be a reality in the National Parks. I believe in open-air recreation. There can be nothing better for the youth of our land.
    The Secretary of State said today that politicians were transient occupants of chairs in the War Office but civil servants remained. The House of Commons will have to take care that those civil servants are brought to a state in which they have to take decisions of their Ministers to see that Dartmoor is restored to the people. The people of this land fought in two world wars against an implacable enemy. I ask that we should permit the ordinary people to enjoy their birthright, Dartmoor.
    7.25 p.m.
    Sir Eric Errington: I prefer not to follow the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) on the question of Dartmoor and its use for military purposes. I represent a constituency which is used for military purposes, but not in quite the same way as the constituency of the hon. Member.
    I wish to bring one or two matters of general importance to the notice of the

    1603
    Committee and two matters of not such importance but which affect the morale of our soldiers. I first ask the Under-Secretary what has happened in regard to what I may describe as the two-tier method of officer service.
    It may be remembered that in the Grigg Report it was said, when dealing with the pattern of officers' careers:
    "in so far as it is possible, officers should be employed to ages which are normal for retirement outside. This means keeping them until something like sixty. We have been told that it is quite impracticable to manage this, but it is something which virtually every other large employer in the country does."
    The Report goes on to say:
    "The difficulties over the retention to sixty of officers in the fighting arms are obvious enough, but the possibility of manning the administrative branches by officers transferred from more active employment in their thirties or early forties seems to us never to have been explored with sufficient vigour."
    I think that everyone will agree with that. It is a matter of congratulation for the War Office that the standard and number of officers coming into the Services from Sandhurst and Mons is first-class.
    I should like to feel that this procedure—which was initiated with some degree of opposition—on the proposals of the Grigg Report is working well. Is is difficult for a man who has given good service as an officer to find himself having reached what one can consider as his "ceiling". If at the same time he is getting increased pay with changed responsibilities it may well be that this does not produce a very happy situation. I have hopes, however, that it will be successful, because I believe that it is an incentive to a whole life career instead of breaking off at a comparatively early age.
    Another matter of general interest that I wish to raise is the question of men who have served their time in the Army and who for one reason or another, are going back to civilian life. I congratulate the War Office on the circular it sent out giving soldiers information about the way in which they can lay aside a certain amount of money with a view to purchasing a house. I understand that that has been successful in some cases, but it does not quite go all the way.
    The problem, which is extremely inhibiting, arises because those who
    1604
    come out of the Services often have no rights in obtaining houses from local authorities. I hasten to add that the local authorities in my constituency, which in many ways, bear the brunt of some of the discharges from the Services, are extremely helpful, although there is always a limitation on what they can do because of the number of houses available.
    I recall that five or six years ago a communication was addressed by the Secretary of State for War, through the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, to local authorities indicating that an arrangement should be made to meet the situation of those coming out of the Services and requiring accommodation in civilian life. Despite the considerable efforts that have been made to provide accommodation, there are occasions when it is impossible to do so. In some circumstances the Army requires houses to accommodate Servicemen posted to the area and it seems that, sometimes, the local authority concerned is unable to do anything about it.
    If a document of the kind I have mentioned was sent to local authorities expressing the Ministry's desire that they should consider, whatever the difficulties, the position of those who have left the Army, and are in desperate need of accommodation, a great deal might be achieved. To many people who have given good service the present position is most unsatisfactory and is worrying to them.
    About two and a half years ago some officers were shot out of Ghana, if I may use that metaphor. They certainly had to leave at 12 hours' notice. They were put to considerable expense and difficulty and since then they have been trying to get some recompense for their losses. I have previously asked Questions about this, and I am happy to say that the Treasury is now considering, thanks to the efforts of the Under-Secretary, the reimbursement of these officers for their losses. Two and a half years is a devil of a long time for these soldiers to have been out of pocket, particularly since their expense was incurred through no fault of their own.
    I hope that the Treasury, which for some time has operated a strong rearguard action in this respect, will now take more forward action with Ghana

    1605
    and say that these payments must be dealt with by that country, particularly since this country is having to reimburse these officers for their losses. It should be made clear to Commonwealth countries in no uncertain terms—in almost impolite terms, in fact—that they are responsible in these cases. I do not know whether this will arise in connection with Uganda or Zanzibar, but wherever it arises it should not take two and a half years for an officer to be reimbursed for these sort of losses.
    While I join in paying tribute to what is being done about this matter now, I hope that it will be kept carefully under consideration, that the Treasury will see that the Army pays up quickly, and that the country does not lose on this rather shocking conduct to our officers.
    I have a rather technical but important matter to raise and though the Under-Secretary has agreed to meet me to discuss it it is of sufficient general interest to mention to hon. Members. This is the case of a lady who has, unfortunately, fallen out with her husband. The husband refuses to live with her, but insists on retaining the children. The lady approched me and asked me to find out why her husband could draw the marriage and children's allowance yet not keep his wife. Since what was happening did not seem a particularly good proposition to me, I thought that the matter could be dealt with by withdrawing the marriage allowance.
    I suggested that to the Secretary of State, who was then the Under-Secretary, and asked him what could be done. I pointed out that the lady was penniless, was in Singapore and that the officer concerned was living with somebody else and with the children of the marriage. I received a letter from the then Under-Secretary saying:
    "An officer claims marriage allowance at his discretion and he is entitled to receive it so long as he expends it either on his wife or children."
    The letter went on:
    "In this case although, according to Mrs. X, her husband is not supporting her, he appears to be supporting his children and, on that account, is entitled to receive the allowance. We cannot, therefore, withdraw it from him".
    In this case the officer was drawing the marriage allowance because he was keeping the two children, but while he was also drawing the children's allow
    1606
    ance he was not paying anything towards his wife's expenses.
    Section 151(1) of the Army Act, 195, states:
    "… Where the Army Council or an officer authorised by them are satisfied that an officer … of the regular forces is neglecting, without reasonable cause, to maintain his wife or any child of his under the age of sixteen the Army Council or officer may order such sum to be deducted from his pay and appropriated towards the maintenance of his wife or child as the Army Council or officer think fit."
    For a reason that I cannot quite follow, the powers that be have read that subsection as meaning that the officer can keep his children without doing anything about the keep of his wife.
    The result in the case of which I speak is very tragic. The lady is out in Singapore. She is, of course, British. She cannot get back. Divorce proceedings are pending, and the whole thing is extremely unsatisfactory. I do not know what the true legal position is, but I should have thought that on the ground of common sense this lady would be properly entitled to the marriage allowance as long as her husband was drawing it.
    I am sorry to have taken the time of the House to deal with matters that appear to be of small importance opposed to the larger issues with which we have been regaled—that is the only word I car use—by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). Quite frankly I believe that it is wonderful what our Services can do. We have never had enough soldiers at any time in our history and I do not suppose we ever shall, but the great thing about the Army is that it always rises to the occasion and I believe that it will continue to do that.
    I am no Cassandra, and no prophet of doom. I have relatives in the Service, and the more I see of it the more I am satisfied that we have as fine a Service as we have ever had. I wish that the number of those in it was higher, but we must not lower standards. Whatever happens, I believe that the Service will acquit itself with honour.
    7.42 p.m.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I can quite understand the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) saying that the Army will always rise to the occasion. I only wish that this House

    1607
    would do the same when it discusses Army Estimates to the very substantial sum of over £520 million. There are very few hon. Members present. Out of respect to the Under-Secretary of State, I would say that the attendance at the kirk is very small indeed. We know that the attendance at these assemblies varies. As the Scottish verse says:
    "The wee kirk, the free kirk,
    The kirk without the steeple,
    The auld kirk, the cold kirk,
    The kirk without the people."
    Here we have the kirk without the people. I only hope that the hon. Gentleman will have a much more enthusiastic congregation when he winds up the debate.
    Recruiting was the burden of the Secretary of State's opening remarks. The right hon. Gentleman always treats us with a great deal of courtesy, even though we may sometimes be rather rude to him; I was once very rude to him, and I have regretted it ever since. But although the Minister gave us figures, he never really got to grips with the real recruiting situation, and never got down to the causes of the decline in recruiting.
    Yesterday, I asked him questions about the recruiting position in Scotland. If I was correct in gathering from his reply that the position there is better than it is in England, I can only say that the situation in many parts of England must be very bad indeed. I asked for recruiting figures, in what I thought were typical counties in Scotland, for January of this year, last year and the year before. I was told that in my own county 13 recruits had joined the Army in January, 1962, 10 had joined in January, 1963, and six had joined in January of this year. The figure of six for January of this year covers five constituencies, including my own, Kilmarnock, and Ayr—a real cross-section of Scottish life. The figure for January, 1964, is half that for January 1962, and the average works out at about 1·2 per constituency, which seems to be a very low peace-time figure.
    The reply I got yesterday seemed to suggest that recruiting in Ayrshire had been rather successful in past years. I think that it was based on a reply I
    1608
    received some few years ago, when the figure in my constituency rose from one to two—or two to four—and I was congratulated on a 50 per cent. increase. I cannot claim credit for that. I am not anti-recruiting, I do not go out of my way to attack the Army. If any of my constituents wish to join the Army I give them every assistance.
    Although I hold views that are not in accordance with the policy of the Government, I do not take what some hon. Members would call an anti-patriotic attitude towards the Army. I remember that on one occasion one of my constituents asked me how he could join a particular regiment. I gave him full information, and went out of my way to find out about the pay, and all the rest of it. I am sorry to say that he bought himself out of the Army a very few months later.
    My constituency is not a pacifist constituency in the sense that my pacifist views would not be shared by a large number of people. Hon. Members regard me, a pacifist, as something worse than a Communist, and Communists associate themselves with the Conservatives in dissociating themselves from the pacifists. Marshal Malinovsky would certainly not approve of me. I certainly do not influence my constituency in this connection.
    I turn to other constituencies, where there are very orthodox people who believe that the Army is synonymous with patriotism. I find that in Perthshire in January, 1962, 16 men joined the Army. In January, 1963, there were nine and in January, 1964, there were four. This coincides with a time when there is supposed to be a tremendously patriotic upsurge in Perthshire, led by the Prime Minister who, for some reason or other, thinks that if there is a super-patriotic or chauvinistic mood in the country the Conservative Party will be able to cash in on it. But in Perthshire, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's eloquence, recruiting has gone down from nine to four. I should like the Under-Secretary to explain these figures.
    In Argyllshire, in January, 1962, one person joined the Army. Two joined in January, 1963. This was a sudden increase of 100 per cent. I do not know whether the Minister congratulated his

    1609
    right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland when the one became two, but after the two in 1963 the figure in 1964 was nil. One cannot have any argument about that. I do not know how the percentage calculation would go on a nil.
    Yesterday, I suggested some reasons for this situation, but I should like to have some explanation why, in Argyllshire, nobody joined the Army. [An HON. MEMBER: "Too cold."] It may have been, but if people join the Army they will have to fight in the cold.
    Mr. Ramsden: As the Committee is probably composed, at least on the benches opposite, primarily of Scotsmen at the moment, and as I know how proud they are, rightly, of their military tradition, I should say, in relation to Perthshire and Argyllshire, that the Highland Brigade, which recruits in those districts, is fully up to strength and, indeed, is a little over.
    Mr. Hughes: That is not a sufficient explanation, because during these months the right hon. Gentleman has been carrying on an active recruiting campaign in Argyllshire and Perthshire and, indeed, all over Scotland. In that case, he can be accused of wasting the country's money in carrying on a propaganda campaign for regiments which are already full up, but there are other regiments. If there was this tremendous reserve of fighting tenacity in Argyllshire and Perthshire it should certainly be represented in these rather strange recruiting figures.
    Mr. Archie Manuel: This is an interesting point and the Minister's reply has been equally interesting. Can we ascertain the percentage of the Highland Regiment actually recruited from the counties which have been mentioned? There has been some resentment because there are incorporated in the Highland Regiment people from outwith the country.
    Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend knows the Highlands much better than I do and in time he may be able to explain why Argyllshire and Perthshire are reluctant to come forward to redress the balance in other parts of the country. These are very pugnacious parts. Was it not in Argyll or very near it that the
    1610
    massacre of Glencoe took place? They have had the clan tradition and they have had this tremendous pugnacity through the centuries. Now they ate less pugnacious and less interested in solving the Minister's recruiting problem than they have ever been in their history.
    Talking about Argyll, I would point out that the most persistant advocate of selective National Service in the House of Commons during recent debates has been the hon. Member for Bute and North Aryshire (Sir Fitzroy Maclean). He is working in a sort of conspiracy with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) to advocate selective service as a solution to our promlem, and he lives in Argyll. Yet the total of recruits who joined to support the hon. Member was nil.
    I am sorry that the hon. Member is not present to help us arrive at an explanation of this. The fact remains that it is an extraordinary state of affairs. I should like a survey or Gallup poll to be conducted on why these people do not join the Army. There was a theory, and I used to think there was something in it, that in a time of unemployment people were driven into the Army by hunger and the fact that in the Army there was a prospect of a living, but Scotland is one of the black unemployment spots of Britain and last year the position was specially bad.
    Mr. Manuel: Over 7 per cent.
    Mr. Hughes: Yet with all that unemployment and poverty the young men said, "No, thank you, we would rather live on meagre unemployment pay than join the Army." I cannot supply all the answers in this respect, except to say that it may be that there is a different attitude towards the whole question of war. In Perthshire, for example, after listening to one of the Prime Minister's speeches that we must rely on the independent nuclear deterrent and that after his vi' it to Moscow we are past the brink and the cold war is over, a young man in Perthshire might ask, "Why should I join the Army for 10, 15 to 20 years?". The younger people do not understand why they should join the Army in these days and they are not coming forward as the Minister wishes to see them to swell the recruiting figures.

    1611
    One of the keynotes of the Minister's speech was that a young man should join the Army for the sake of adventure. This is also the keynote of a great deal of his recruiting literature. In that well-printed document Soldiers of the Queen, we are told over and over again that the great point about the Army is that there the young man can find adventure. That may be right, but a man can get adventure at home.
    There is adventure in London in the police force. What with train robberies and the expectation that there is nowadays that every Friday we shall hear on the wireless that there has been another armed robbery in London, there is plenty of adventure in the police force at home. There is no need to go to Cyprus, Borneo or Germany for the sake of adventure.
    We have heard a good deal about Cyprus. It has been emphasised that the soldier goes to Cyprus as part of a police operation. There are soldiers who regard the police as an inferior sort of body. When the first lot of soldiers were flown out to Cyprus, a sergeant who was interviewed said that he was enjoying the life in Cyprus very much, but was doing the job of—I shall not repeat the adjective—an "adjectival copper". That attitude seems rather strange to me, if the idea is that the Army is to be a police force in different parts of the world.
    Somehow or other, inculcated in the rather curious mixture which makes Army recruiting propaganda, the wrong ideas have been put into the soldier's heads. It is wrong to think that the policeman is an inferior sort of person because he is not dressed in khaki.
    There is a new conception of what the task of an Army should be in Cyprus now. We are told that we must hand the problem of Cyprus over to the United Nations. There is the new concept of the Army, the idea that there can be a sort of international police force and that Cyprus is not the job of the British soldier. I can quite understand that. The rôle of the British soldier is changing. Now that the United Nations is coming on to the scene and taking over these trouble spots, the Minister ought to be asking for fewer soldiers, not for more. But he wants more. In Cyprus,
    1612
    we are to have soldiers from many European nations. As the rôle of the United Nations grows and the concept of an international police force comes nearer to fruition, fewer British soldiers than ever before will be required.
    I cannot see how any young man is likely to be attracted into the Army by the thought that he may go to Borneo. The climate in Borneo is not very salubrious. It is difficult to understand exactly what purpose the ordinary young man in Argyll has in going to Borneo. He is offered adventure in Cyprus, in Borneo, and, of course, in Germany and Berlin.
    The argument used by the Soviet Government is that Berlin should be handed over to the United Nations forces. If this were done, there would be less need for British soldiers there. If we are to have approval of the idea of the United Nations and not the British Army taking over trouble spots, the next step in Government policy—there is time enough before the General Election—should be to see that we hand over our responsibilities in Berlin to the United Nations. This would help to solve the problem of that city.
    A very large part of our Army is locked up in Western Germany. It was very interesting to hear my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), in what I thought was the best speech I have ever heard him make from the Dispatch Box, say that Western Germany was no longer a trouble spot, or, at least, that he would regard the Army there as a potential reserve from which we could take soldiers and dispatch them to other parts of the world. To me, this is a very reasonable idea. Of course, it will be flouted by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, who is always telling us that we must increase our strength in Western Germany. I was very glad to hear my hon. and learned Friend lay it down quite clearly that Western Germany was no longer one of the places where we needed to concentrate a large number of British troops.
    This is the opinion of Lord Montgomery, too. He is the man who knows most about Germany. He has been deputy commander of N.A.T.O. He has stated quite clearly that we no longer require a large number of soldiers,

    1613
    50,000 or more, to be kept in Western Germany, and that they could very well be used somewhere else. When Lord Montgomery talks like that—he has been in charge of the Western armies and he knows more about the workings of N.A.T.O. than anyone else—we should examine the question without prejudice.
    I cannot see what the Army is doing in Western Germany if adventure is the idea. As far as I can understand, it is one of the most monotonous places in the world for the British soldier. The monotony is so bad that our soldiers fight with the civil population whom they are there to protect. I cannot understand why the Government rigidly adhere to this large number of soldiers in Western Germany. If we were prepared to cut the commitment, the Minister's problem would be largely solved.
    I was glad to hear my hon. and learned Friend come out strongly against not only National Service as such, but selective service as well. His arguments were quite convincing to me when he said that selective service was a most unfair kind of National Service. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley was not here, because he has been a supporter of selective service. I await with interest his answer to the arguments advanced by my hon. and learned Friend.
    It is now crystal clear—we have had it twice emphasised from the Front Bench—that the Labour Party will be entirely against conscription either as National Service or as selective service. This will be part of the election programme of the Labour Party. It is also the programme of the Conservative Party.
    The last speech which I heard Mr. Profumo make from that Box was a very logical and convincing speech against conscription. Therefore, at the General Election, the two major parties will be saying to the young people, "We are against conscripting you. We are against any form of national service". That is very good. But then we hear that after the election, when one of the parties is in power, there is to be some kind of gentlemen's agreement, as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Dudley calls it, under which the two parties will unite in imposing some kind of selective service on the people.
    1614
    To use a phrase which frequently crops up in the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, that will be "welshing" on the people. I do not know why he uses the word "welshing". I have remonstrated with him about it before. I objected once before to his using the word "welshing". I did my best to "scotch" him on it.
    I do not think that it would do any harm if the Under-Secretary, in his speech tonight, came out with the emphatic affirmation that we are not going back to National Service. If the Government are not going back to National Service they must face the possibility of cutting the commitments. They must cut the commitments in such places as Hong Kong. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton spoke rather-enthusiastically about Hong Kong because, I believe, his grandfather was Governor of Hong Kong. He pointed out that, very obligingly, the Chinese supplied water for four days of the week. The water comes from the mainland. If the Chinese wanted to make things difficult for us in Hong Kong, all that they would have to do would be to turn off the water tap. There is no sign that the Chinese want to capture Hong Kong.
    On the other hand, the Chinese know that Hong Kong is a centre from which they trade with the outside world, and that, sooner or later—perhaps it will not be very many years now—the agreement on Hong Kong will lapse and that we will haw, no moral, international or any other kind of authority to remain there. If the Government want to solve their problem and to bring home the soldiers in Hong Kong all that they have to do is to have a slightly more conciliatory pokey with the Government of China. We may not like the ideology of the Chinese Government, but to talk about going to war with a nation which has a population of 600 or 700 million is a complete absurdity and a military impossibility. It would be a gesture in improving our relations with this large potential market if we said to the Chinese Government, "We are prepared to take away our soldiers". I believe that that would result in a greater understanding with the Government of China and would help to ease the situation in that part of the world.

    1615
    If the Minister is out to increase recruiting in the present condition of this country, there is only a limited supply of manpower which can be drawn upon. In this very expensively illustrated magazine Soldiers of the Queen there is a list of different trades which one can learn in the modern Army. We are told, "If you want to be a plumber, the Army will welcome you". I do not want to see the plumbers going into the Army. I do not want to see the joiners, quantity surveyors, electricians, and so on, going into the Army. If men in these trades are taken away from the home front, it will add to our housing problem. I want to see the electricians, plumbers, quantity surveyors and all the other people mentioned specially in this brochure out of the Army and working on the home front.
    We must make greater progress on the home front. If Glasgow is to have its slums for another 20 years this will help to foster Communism in this country. Therefore, I want to de-modernise the Army in such a way that it will result in all these different people working on the housing schemes, hospitals, roads, universities, and all the constructive activity needed if the parties are to carry out the promises which they make to the electorate. In trying to mechanise the Army, the Minister is attracting from British industry the key people needed if we are to modernise our factories. In trying to attract key people from British industry the Minister is creating difficulties for industry.
    The Government must make up their mind to have a smaller and less expensive Army. The idea that we must have a large Army, as we had in the First and Second World Wars, must disappear. I see no possibility of the Minister solving his manpower problem. The propaganda appeal has gone. As long as we have the present outlook of the younger generation, the psychological appeal to join the Army has gone, too. That is the inevitable conclusion which must be drawn from the Minister's figures.
    I believe that the basic idea is all wrong. The idea is that we must be prepared for a war with the Soviet Union. I do not believe that the Soviet Union wants to attack us. What it wants
    1616
    is friendly relations with the people of this country in order to attract to Russia the products of industry which it needs. Sooner or later we shall have to accept the view that we need a smaller and less expensive Army. If the Prime Minister's argument that the cold war is over and that we need to divert our national energies to more productive things is right, there is no real excuse for increasing the Army's strength.
    Speaking on television, in Moscow, to the Russian people, the Prime Minister said, "Would it not be a good thing if we could halve our defence expenditure and devote to housing, education, and all the other things the money we are spending on armaments?" He was practising on the Russians his General Election speeches.
    Mr. John McCann: Serves them right.
    Mr. Hughes: What I cannot understand is that if the cold war is over and if we are to have all the wonderful things as a result of the Test-Ban Treaty about which the Prime Minister spoke, the Government should not be coming forward this year with a big increase in the defence Estimates. This year the figure is up to £2,000 million and nobody knows what it will be like next year.
    If the Prime Minister had accomplished anything in the way of a major break-through in international diplomacy, we should this year have had a reduction, not an increase. I do not believe that we will get any fundamental change in these huge Estimates until we change our foreign policy, and we will know that our foreign policy has been changed when we see drastic reductions in the Estimates the last of which is presented to the House of Commons tonight.
    8.20 p.m.
    Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: The House of Commons always enjoys listening, even somewhat at length, to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). He knows, and we know, that there is an unbridgeable gap between his individualistic views, which we all respect, and those of a large number of other hon. Members, on both sides of the Committee.

    1617
    The hon. Member will forgive me if I do not propose to follow him in detail, particularly as he started with a reference to the Scots, and it is always a prickly subject to teach the Scots. I am perhaps a little closer to it than they may realise, because my Dutch forebear got here in the army in a year of glorious history for the English—1745. He was employed in the N.A.T.O. of those days in suppressing the Scottish uprising of that year, which is why the Scots have been cowed and submissive ever since.
    To pass from that uncontroversial statement to the Army Estimates, I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is not present. I do not think that he will accuse me of discourtesy if, in his absence, I refer to his speech, because I have been present throughout almost the entire debate and the hon. and learned Member is obviously detained elsewhere.
    I thought it surprising that in opening the debate for the Opposition, the hon. and learned Member made so little reference to the actions to which British forces have recently been committed, with particular reference to East Africa. I refreshed my memory this morning with the hon. and learned Member's speech in speaking for the Opposition on Thursday, 14th March, a year ago. The burden of his message to the House of Commons on that occasion was that Germany was the vital point of defence. He asked whether we were not progressively supporting interests which were not really germane to the use of force. Let me quote his exact words:
    "Are we not progressively supporting interests which, in so far as they still exist, are not the sort of interests which can be maintained by force? They rest upon such things as the memories of honest administration in India, the good will of trade associations in Malaysia, a reputation for honest dealing in Hong Kong, and 'know-how' in the oilfields. It is these intangibles which are our interests in this area, and they are not supportable by force."
    That was the hon. and learned Member this time last year.
    We now meet one year later. I do not remember that in Uganda, when we were appealed to, we replied, "You must rest upon the memories of our honest administration in Uganda". I do not remember that when we were asked back, in physical terms, into Kenya, we said, "Oh, no. You must
    1618
    rest upon your memories of our honest dealings with you". We were required to go back in force, which exactly disproves the argument with which the hon and learned Member concluded his speech to the Committee this time last year.
    Mr. Cyril Bence: Really.
    Mr. John Morris: In fairness to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who is not able to be here at this moment, will the hon. Member complete the quotation? My hon. and learned Friend was arguing as to the order of priorities. He was finding it difficult to maintain force everywhere. The thesis of his remarks was this:
    " … is not the force with which we pretend to support them becoming a sham which would dissolve in a moment if it met any solid and determined opposition? We cannot be strong everywhere."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1963; Vol. 673, c. 1586–7.]
    That was the point that my hon. and learned Friend was making. In fairness to him, the hon. Member might have included the rest of the quotation.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I certainly do not want to give any unfair excerpts from last year's speech by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, whose absence I regret as much as does his hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. J. Morris). I was proceeding, without the hon. Member's assistance, to exactly that second half of the quotation, because the burden of the second half of the argument was that the force with which we pretended to assist those interests was a sham. That has been sharply disproved in the year since we last discussed the Estimates.
    The fact is that for as long as we can foresee—and one would obviously dearly like it to be otherwise—we will be required to intervene effectively and swiftly with conventional forces, certainly in an increasing rather than a decreasing measure. I very much doubt whether when we were discussing the Estimates this time last year we would have believed that one year later our forces would have been committed in Malaysia, Cyprus, Uganda, Tanganyika and Kenya. One wonders sometimes where else they may require to be deployed.

    1619
    That means that we must look closely, and at times critically, at their numbers and equipment and their ability to move. Overwhelmingly, the lesson since we met a year ago is that the reason why our forces did not meet opposition was their ability to move fast. This is the lesson and we will forget it at our peril. I want to say a few words about it presently.
    First, however, I should like to raise one or two questions about training, starting with the vital matter of the training of officers. I begin by referring to Sandhurst. On page 33 of the Memorandum there are set out in paragraph 129 disturbing figures, at least so far as they refer to the past, of the number of United Kingdom cadets entering the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst. It states clearly that in January, 1963, the number was 402 compared with 439 a year before. To be fair, it goes on to make clear that there was a low entry in January last year and a record intake in September of 263, with a full entry in January this year.
    It seems from these figures—perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will confirm this—that the trough at Sandhurst has been overcome. If so, this is very encouraging. In the recent past I have been one of those who have more than once drawn attention to the problem of numbers and standards at Sandhurst. It is encouraging to read in the same paragraph that half the entry in September had two or more A-levels. But are we satisfied, I wonder, that we have the course at Sandhurst right? It is a very difficult matter to get right.
    As we heard earlier, the Royal Air Force has been reconstructing its course at Cranwell. I see the appalling problem of getting into two short years a semi-university course and the preparation for a military career, but my impression is that Sandhurst has been moving over quite considerably, as has Cranwell, to the academic rather than the purely military, and I should have thought that this was a tendency to be welcomed.
    I also wonder whether we have made sufficient of, and given sufficient publicity to, the remarkable advantage at Sandhurst—as elsewhere, but we are today taking the Army Estimates—of being able, if one is able enough, to go
    1620
    on to a university. I recently had in the House a group of cadets who were watching our proceedings prior to going for a three-year arts course at Oxford. This is a facility which is absolutely novel in Army terms. I am sure it will pay a very rich dividend, but I am not sure that we have made enough of it.
    I also draw attention to a contribution that Sandhurst and the Army Staff College at Camberley and the Army generally make in a field which I do not think the nation appreciates sufficiently—the training of people from overseas. It is a major contribution, particularly to Commonwealth countries, that there should be young cadets at Sandhurst, more senior officers at Camberley and attachments throughout the British Army—all done, I believe, superbly well. I am impressed beyond measure by the way in which the directing staff at Camberley take enormous trouble to ensure that their Commonwealth and other visitors are made welcome, taken into other people's houses and looked after properly during their period. This is a very great contribution to race relations. Nevertheless, it makes one wonder whether we are still generally recruiting enough.
    I turn to an aspect of recruiting dealt with in paragraph 135 of the Memorandum—the recruiting of boys. The remarkable feature about this Report is that it is possible for my right hon. Friend to say that there do not appear to be any problems in obtaining enough boys of the required standard. I understood him to say that he proposed to take the figure up to an entry of 6,000. I am sure that this is a very good field for Army recruitment. Like many other hon. Members, I have had the advantage of seeing junior leader units, Army apprentice units, and so on, and I have often urged on the Government Front Bench that we should extend entry into the Army by this means. It is an excellent way of cementing young people into the Army. It is a very fine source of recruitment, and I still do not believe that we are expanding the figures as much as we should.
    Coming to the whole problem of training, I notice how very wide an area the Army has been using—quite rightly, I think. For example, we are told that exercises have been held in the last

    1621
    year in France, Germany, North Africa, Cyprus, Aden, Canada and Australia. That is extremely wise, but we are also warned that the most important factor has been the continuing emphasis on air mobility training.
    Here, much reference has already been made to the helicopter. I have not the detailed knowledge of these machines that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton has, but I remember an agreeable day when he and I were guests of the Army Air Corps, when I was fascinated by the use of ground—rather like that of a bird—which the intelligent helicopter pilot develops. Here one comes at once to the conflict.
    I tie up with something said earlier by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman). If we are to have these highly mobile forces, which both sides regard as essential, we must make training facilities available. We cannot expect to be able to deploy a "fire brigade" really swiftly with untrained personnel. But the problem is that modern equipment is, by its nature, particularly disturbing to the peace and quiet of the countryside. This conflict will get not better but worse.
    We had a very moving plea from the hon. Member for Falmouth and Cam-borne on behalf of Dartmoor, and, as it happens—I think that he knows this—there are not just one but two members of the Dartmoor Preservation Association in this Committee. I am the other, and I feel deeply about the beauty of that countryside, which I have known all my life. But I am equally quite certain that for people like him and me to take a limited view of the problem is not to match up to it in the 1960s.
    I prefer to say that, in a perfect world, I should like to see the Army evacuate Dartmoor as a training area. I am certain that my right hon. Friend, as a countryman himself and whose visit was much appreciated, would agree. But when I went there recently to see the training area for myself again, I was very impressed with the care with which the Army authorities were seeking to preserve the countryside and not to do more harm than absolutely necessary.
    I am well aware that the Preservation Association does not feel that enough is done, but my impression is that, as
    1622
    far as good will can achieve it, the Army is seeking to be a very civilised occupant of this training area. That said, it really is a very small area for so large a training commitment. It is inevitable that youg men—and most of them are young—who have no pretentions to the enjoyment of antiquities will do damage from time to time in such an area.
    For instance, some one uninitiated could easily overlook a cistvaen—which, for the benefit of HANSARD, is an ancient burial ground. I am sure that all hon. Members will know cistvaens when they see them. It is very understandable, however irritating it may be from the point of view of antiquarians, that from time to time damage of this kind done. Incidentally, that makes none the less important the efforts of the Army authorities to try and ensure that such damage, if ever it must occur, is kept to the absolute minimum.
    My own feeling about this differs only slightly from that of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, whose loyalty to the area is respected on both sides of the Committee. I do not believe that we can look at training areas merely individually, nor do I think we can look at them merely from the point of view of one Service. Training is increasingly becoming a matter of inter-Service co-operation, preparation and training. Therefore, we should consider our training areas from an all-Service point of view and not just from an Army point of view.
    If I had any hopes on the subject of training areas generally it would be far more that we should set in train an inquiry into the use by all the Forces of all training areas in this country and, indeed, the facilities available outside, rather than merely concentrate on the Army's use of one particular training centre. I very much hope that this will come about in due course.
    I propose to say no more, because many other hon. Members wish to intervene. One of the great problems of the Committee and of the House of Commons generally in recent months has been that, far from getting shorter, our speeches have become longer, longer and longer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not think I have trespassed unduly, but there are others who, though

    1623
    not necessarily today, have certainly gone on for an inordinately long time. I prefer to put my point across simply. It is that there are inadequacies in the training and equipment of the Service we are discussing tonight, but if ever a Service was able to come before the Committee having demonstrated to the world since we last discussed its affairs on the Estimates its ability to perform the functions for which it was created it is, I believe, the Army of today.
    8.42 p.m.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: I thought that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) was greatly over-elaborate in his effort to score a point off my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), whom I now see in his place.
    I do not think that many of us anywhere in the House of Commons foresaw a year ago, the kind of situations in which the British Army would be called upon to act as it has done recently in East Africa. The truth is that the remarkable call that came to the British Army in East Africa, which was responded to so well, came precisely for the reasons my hon. and learned Friend gave—because of the kind of reputation for good administration, fair dealing, and so on, that we had established during our period as the colonial Power in that area. It is also true that these calls on the Army have very considerably strained its resources.
    I agree with the tribute the hon. Member for Wokingham paid to the Army in the operations which it has been carrying out. It has been a remarkable development in the kind of rôle that British armed forces may well be asked to play in the world we live in today. We are only beginning to appreciate the full, and in many ways rather revolutionary, political significance of what happened in Kuwait in the summer of 1961, when, shortly after its independence, Kuwait called on British troops, which had just left, to come back to defend its security.
    I do not propose to talk about the military significance of that operation, on which I am not qualified to comment. The fact that British troops
    1624
    were called in to an Arab country so newly independent was a remarkable phenomenon. The British troops operated with great success in terms of preserving the political independence of Kuwait. One reason why they were called in was the confidence in the minds of the rulers of Kuwait that the troops called in would also leave when requested.
    This has been the same sort of situation which we have had in recent weeks in the East African territories. I am not sure that there are so many other countries of our size who would be invited in by new African nations with the confidence that, when they were asked to go again, they would.
    There are two outstanding features of these new kinds of operations which the British Army has been called upon to perform. First, there is the very great political significance of the fact that these new nations in Africa, struggling against a tremendous poverty of trained manpower of all sorts, should have the political confidence to ask us to come in to help to preserve their law and order and stability. This is of considerable importance in a number of areas.
    Secondly, there is the remarkable skill with which the troops have performed what are immensely delicate operations, and I echo the tributes of many hon. Members, on both sides of the Committee, to the way in which they have carried out these extremely difficult duties. In British Guiana, for instance, in a situation far from easy, the mere presence of these troops and the way in which they have performed their duties has won them immense friendship from all sections of the community there, and that ought to be said.
    I should like to draw from these remarkable events the lesson that British forces may have an important rôle to play in future as part of an international peace-keeping force. Yesterday, I had the privilege of chairing a meeting in a Committee Room for the Foreign Minister of Denmark, Mr. Per Haekkerup. He had come to explain the striking initiative which the three Nordic countries—Norway, Denmark and Sweden—have taken in the recruitment of volunteers for an international peace force under the United Nations.

    1625
    Mr. Haekkerup explained that these three countries are not simply making speeches about it, but were getting down to the practical difficulties of this concept. Each, after coming to agreement, is putting legislation through its own Parliament to enable its Service men, after completing their period of National Service, to register as volunteers ready to be on call at the request of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. This is a fairly modest proposal. I think that the number of troops involved is less than 4,000, but these are small countries.
    The point I want to make is that if these three Scandinavian countries can get together to take this important initiative, I would have thought that Britain, with the Commonwealth countries associated with her, might have thought of trying to take a similar co-operative initiative. The British troops who have done so well in the difficult circumstances in East Africa might have found things even easier if they had been part of a Commonwealth force.
    The Commonwealth is potentially a very important element in the modern world. It is a multi-racial community of nations. If we could build a multiracial Commonwealth force around the basis of the British Army, which has established its right in recent events to operate as part of an international police force, and put it at the disposal of the United Nations when required, this would be the kind of lead which we could usefully make from this country.
    That was the first point which I wanted to make in the debate. There is an increasing interest in all sorts of influential quarters in the idea of an international peace-keeping force. The Foreign Secretary made a speech about it at the Disarmament Conference in Geneva a week or so ago, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has been talking in similar terms during his recent visit to the United States. I hope that all these speeches will be followed by a positive initiative from this country.
    Having made those comments about the tremendous possibilities of the British Army's peace-keeping rôle in the world, I turn to the less glorious campaign that the War Office has been conducting in the neighbourhood of my constituency during the past year. Like
    1626
    the hon. Member for Wokingham, I want to refer to the question of the Army's training arrangements, and to what might be called in my area the battle of the Monifieth Beach. I want to take up with the Ministers concerned the question of the restrictions upon access which now forms the subject of discussions between the War Department and local authorities, and to ask the Ministers to reconsider the matter.
    The area to which I am referring is a rather beautiful and relatively unspoilt stretch of sea links, which runs along the north coast of the Firth of Tay between the Burgh of Monifieth and the burn called the Barry Burn. I immediately declare my strong personal interest in the matter, because my home lies on the edge of this area. I was brought up there, kind when I am in my constituency this is where I still live. In many ways this is the most important of the natural parks which are available to my constituents in the industrial City of Dundee.
    During the last six or eight months both the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan)—in whose constituency this area is—and I have been making representations to Ministers about the proposal to erect a fence across the middle of this area, which is now used by the War Department for training pure poses. The proposal is that the fence should run right down to the high tide mark on the shore. The original suggestion was that the cost of this fence should be borne by the local burgh council—a small burgh which does not have the resources to meet this sort of cost. Since I entered into correspondence with Ministers on this matter the proposal has been altered, to the extent that no final decision has been taken on the question of who will receive the bill for the building of the fence.
    It is the fence itself to which I wish to raise strong objections. Why has this proposal suddenly been put forward? I believe that the reason is that a year or two ago there was a fatal accident in another part of the War Department's land in this general area. That accident naturally caused local anxiety—but it occurred some miles away, in an area which is not used by the public for recreational purposes. I feel that the people in the War Office have used

    1627
    this fatal accident as an excuse unreasonably to extend restrictions in the area.
    The danger area where the fatal accident occurred—there was an explosion of material which had been left behind—is to be fenced off. There is no disagreement on anybody's part about that. But I hope that the Ministers will consider the geography of the area, because I believe that they are being misled about local conditions. The area to which I refer is a different one. It lies to the east of the burgh boundary of Monifieth, and is bordered by the natural barrier of a stream, which runs on the west side of the encampment area. It is, therefore, very easy to cut off from public access the area where the real danger to human life exists.
    I gather from the Answer which the Minister was kind enough to give me today that the part that I am talking about has been in the possession of the War Department since 1892. To the best of my knowledge it has been completely open to public access since 1892 and has remained open during two world wars. I can well remember swimming and walking in this area while on leave during the last war, and I find it appalling that an area that could remain open during war time—and this was beach open to invasion by the Germans—should now be partially closed after 20 years of peace.
    I ought to make it clear that in this case I do not think that there is any kind of conflict between civilian use of this area for recreation purposes and military use for training as there is on Dartmoor, which was mentioned in the debate. In this case, I would have thought that it was rather the reverse. Until the War Department proposed this quite unnecessary fence I would have said that it helped the public to enjoy the natural amenities and that the sea links have remained unspoiled. I suspect that if the links had not been in the hands of the War Department they would have been converted into another golf course, of which we have a number in that area.
    I yield to no one in my love of golf courses, but I think that the Secretary of State ought to know that it is much more dangerous to go picnicking,
    1628
    bathing, or walking on a golf course than it is to do those things at present on War Department land. It is also, I think, rather more agreeable to do these things on War Department land.
    I return to the very odd question of why the War Department wants to erect a fence in this area, which has been open to anyone since 1892. The Secretary of State told me today that the practice has been that when firing is in progress on the ranges there sentries are posted to restrict access by the public. The posting of these sentries and their vigilance had successfully prevented any member of the public being injured whilst firing was in progress and I would have thought that arrangements which have worked so well all these years might now reasonably have been preserved.
    I have tried, in correspondence with the Minister, to find out exactly the reason for this fence, and a variety of reasons has been given to me. To begin with, it was said that it was a cattle fence, although no one has seen any cattle around that part for a long time. This, therefore, puzzled us locally. Then it was said that the fence was to prevent the encroachment of Monifieth rubbish dump on to the War Department's ranges. It is an open question wether the Monifieth disposal department or the War Department produces the most rubbish in the area. The reason given is itself rubbish. The proposed fence would be quite a bit away from the rubbish disposal area belonging to the Monifieth Town Council. Finally, there is the question why this fence is to run right down to the high-water mark on the beach. I had a curious observation from the Under-Secretary tary, who has gone to immense trouble about this. He said that it would preserve access to the foreshore. It seems strange that access should be preserved by running a fence down to the high-water mark.
    In some local negotiations it has been argued that the fence was needed to run on to the beach because there was trouble over children climbing on to the sand dunes and breaking down, or causing damage to, some of the War Department buildings on the edge of the dunes. I do not think that the person who produced that reason could have

    1629
    known the area at all. It is a pity if children are to be prevented from climbing round some of the finest dunes on the East Coast of Scotland. The truth is that each winter produces great changes in the level of the highwater mark in this area. There are a number of ruins of War Department premises to mark the fact that the forces of nature are a great deal more destructive than anything that the children of my constituents are likely to do.
    I asked the Secretary of State to tell me how often the land is used for firing practice. I fully accept the need for the Army, to which I paid tribute earlier, to be trained in its job. The answer which I got from the Minister was the one I had expected. Last year the land was used on 55 days and on an average, five hours a day. That is 55 days out of 365 and for five hours out of 24. It seems a pity that in view of this limited use of the ranges there should be any question of physical restriction of access. If the fence goes up it is not quite clear how much freedom there will be to get through the gate on to the road. It is ridiculous to spend money building a fence which has not been required in exactly the same sort of circumstances during all the years which have passed. Certainly, it would be quite wrong to impose the charge for such a fence on the rates of a very small burgh.
    I began by saying that I thought the public image of the Army in Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika and Cyprus was a splendid one and did Britain immense credit throughout the world. I plead with the Secretary of State in respect of the smaller issue which I have raised in the second half of my speech, and in view of the splendid public image which the Army presents all over the world, not to spoil that image in Dundee.
    9.2 p.m.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) who made an important point when he emphasised the immense political significance of the reception which the Army has received in its activities in the last few months. I am sure that he was right to remind the House of the importance of this fact. He has my sympathy regarding his dealings with
    1630
    the War Department over the sand dunes near his home. I have always found the War Office Ministers among the most helpful on the Treasury Bench, but there are occasions when I could wish that the War Office, as a Department, was a little more flexible in its approach to problem; of the kind raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, East.
    I take part in this debate on the Army with some humility because there are many other hon. Members capable of speaking on that subject much more forcibly and with greater authority than I. I wish particularly to welcome what was said on the question of recruitment by my right hon. Friend in his admirable speech It seems to me that the publicity element in recruiting is by no means everything. It is important, but one should not place too much emphasis upon it. Equal emphasis should be placed on making the Army a worthwhile and attractive career.
    I am not really convinced—I say this with some humility—that the spirit in the Army is as good as it is in the other two Services. I say that despite the excellent interventions there have been in the last few months. I still feel there is far too much "bull" in the Army. There is not in some regiments the same degree of flexibility between officers and other ranks as exists in the other two Services. Particularly in some regiments there are far too many servants, far too many batmen, far too much pomp and far too much luxury. The atmosphere in which some of these regiments exist bears little relation to modern civilian life in the 1960s. I know my right hon. Friend is conscious of the dangers of this exaggerated position, but it is of great importance that there should not be as great a gap as exists today in some regiments in the Army between the lower ranks and officers. The examples both of the R.A.F. and the Royal Navy might well be taken in some Army regiments today.
    I want to deal with two matters into which my right hon. Friend might look by way of improving the human conditions which exist in the Army today. I am conscious in raising this that both are essentially small points, but they are circumstances which to the people concerned are of very great importance.

    1631
    These are questions which arise when a Service man is killed overseas while serving with Her Majesty's Forces.
    Mr. Bence: Some years ago I paid a visit to Osnaubrück, Dissen and Bielefeld in Germany and met a number of non-commissioned officers and ranks in the Royal Engineers. I was surprised at the friendliness and association of officers and men. I did not meet any of the experience of which the hon. Member speaks, and I was there for three weeks.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: I do not quarrel with what the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) has said, but it seems that perhaps there are regiments where this spirit is not so good as it might be. I am open to conviction on this point and I would not wish to be dogmatic.
    I was about to deal with the problems which arise when the death takes place of a soldier serving overseas. I have had some examples of this in detail over the last few years and I think it proper to bring it before the Committee. The position up to last year was that when a death occurred overseas there was great difficulty in Western Europe in bringing back the body of a deceased Service man. Following the statement of the then Secretary of State for War on the Army Estimates last year, this was altered and from Western Europe the body is invariably brought back or, alternatively, in other cases the relatives are flown out.
    That is as it should be, but the position when a death takes place outside Western Europe is still somewhat uncertain. I draw the attention of the Committee to HANSARD for 14th March, 1963, and to the report on that occasion of Mr. Profumo's speech. He announced the new arrangements and went on to deal with the position outside Western Europe and said:
    "Sometimes, certainly we would be able …"
    I underline the word "able"—
    "to bring the body home or fly out the relatives to the funeral anywhere in the world, but we could not guarantee to do this outside north-west Europe because of the difficulties which I have mentioned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1963; Vol. 673, c. 1568.]
    That clearly indicates to me that it was the intention of the then Secretary
    1632
    of State where practicable—I fully recognise the immense difficulties in many parts of the world—to make an effort to bring back the body of the Service man or to fly out the relatives. I put down a Question just before the Summer Recess and I understood at that time that on no occasion had a body been brought back from outside Western Europe. I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies he will assure the Committee that this matter is being satisfactorily dealt with. I am afraid that his reply may not be completely helpful because in correspondence I have had with my right hon. Friend he has emphasised the great difficulties involved.
    A constituent of mine was killed in Singapore some time ago. The body was not brought back, but his family was told that they could bring the body back at their own expense. That convinces me that it would have been practicable in these circumstances for the War Office to have brought back the body. I hope that I carry hon. Members with me when I say that the words of the then Secretary of State, who said that it should be done when they were "able"" to do it, must apply in cases similar to that which involved my constituent where the body could have been brought home. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will have another look at this matter. I would remind him that the United States Services always endeavour to bring back the body or fly out the relatives when there is a request to do so. In my view, this should be extended wherever possible throughout the world.
    Another point of somewhat similar complexity, but of equal importance on the human side of Army affairs. In the event of a death taking place in the Army in this country an Army court of inquiry is set up and a civilian coroner's inquiry is also held. At the latter the family of the deceased may be represented. When the death takes place in Western Germany—and with 50,000 men stationed there it is inevitable, with the best care in the world, that deaths will occur from time to time—the position is more complex. There is an Army court of inquiry but not a civilian one. In those circumstances the next of kin is not permitted to attend or to have a

    1633
    legal representative present, except in exceptional circumstances. I understand that they family is not permitted to see the transcript of evidence.
    I recognise that on security grounds and for internal Army reasons this is by no means an easy problem, but could not the War Office consider giving the next of kin more information when a Service man is killed in these circumstances? Would it not he possible to have a special report written for the family by the chairman of the court of inquiry rather than by someone in the War Office based on the original report? Even with the best of intentions slight differences of emphasis can creep in and I feel that families would be more satisfied if this sort of report, even in an abbreviated form, came direct from the chairman of the court of inquiry.
    Would it be possible to have at least one person with legal training sitting on such courts of inquiry? It is not always possible for this to be done and I only mention it because there have been cases where the proceedings might have been more convincing to all concerned if a person with some legal training had been involved.
    There is the equally important question of an Army court of inquiry being set up in the event of an occurrence other than a death—where, say, someone's reputation or accountability is involved. The officer or man concerned is, I understand, entitled to be present or to be legally represented. Once a man is dead, however, even though he might in some way be responsible for what has happened, he cannot normally be legally represented. We might look again at that situation. Something could probably be done, without legislation, to make it possible for the deceased to be represented by some officer from his regiment, or from another regiment, who could look after his interests before the court as in a court-martial. The representative would be able to keep in touch directly with the deceased's parents or family, and I am sure that that would be greatly appreciated. I am sure that with some ingenuity we could avoid the additional anxiety caused to relatives by the whole uncertainty of the nature of the inquiry when a husband or son has died overseas, perhaps many thousands of miles away.
    1634
    I recognise that these are both rather difficult points, but as many changes must be made in the modern Army in the next 10 years, I would hope that it might be possible to make these changes at an early date rather than later on.
    9.16 p.m.
    Mr. John McCann: I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely in what he has said about the problems that arise when Service man dies on duty. I hope that the hon. Member succeeds in his plea that the relatives of those killed when serving Her Majesty overseas should be flown out, or the body of the deceased brought home to the family. Some time ago my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) had a running battle with the War Ministry and it was tae pressure that he and hon. Members or both sides of the Chamber put on the Ministry that led to the bodies of those soldiers dying in Western Europe being brought home.
    I want to deal with the welfare of the soldier while he is still alive, and particularly with the welfare of the soldier in Western Europe. Some time ago, I had the good fortune to visit, with the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood), the 1st Battalion of the Lancashire Fusiliers at Osnabruck—the battalion mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) I was tremendously impressed by the officers and men, and by the spirit of camaraderie that existed between them. The discipline was fairly strict, but not repressive, and what really pleased me was the almost complete absence of old-fashioned "bull". The men were extremely smart, but there was not the "bull" that we used to associate with smart regiments.
    It is true that, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has said, life in the Army in Germany could be very monotonous, but I want to pay a compliment to the officers of the 1st Battalion under its first-class Commanding Officer—Lieut.-Colonel Wilson—who kept the men interested all the day. The exercises were realistic enterprising and interesting, and we found the men quite happy.

    1635
    That was while they were doing normal Army duties.
    This visit followed one I made some years ago with the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn), when we looked at Army housing, to which I now want to refer. On this visit, too, the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe and I looked at the various types of Army housing. It is really first-cass but, of course, there is not nearly enough of it.
    I was pleased to see from page 36 of the Statement on Defence that
    "The emphasis in Germany will continue to be on improving the general standard of barracks and on providing additional married accommodation …"
    and N.A.A.F.I. quarters. It is reassuring to know that the block of flats to house 9,000 will be open by March, 1965. This means that 18,000 other ranks and 3,000 officers will be provided with quarters.
    We had a look at some of the hirings which are being used now. March, 1965, is a tremendously long time away. Some of these hirings were not of the best. I was pleased to find that they are to come to an end, but when they do there will be a tremendous gap if they are ended too quickly. The Lancashire Fusiliers did a good job by getting a number of caravans on the site at Osnabruck, and I see from the Statement on Defence that in a temporary capacity a number of caravan-type mobile homes are being provided.
    There were 80 at Osnabruck, well within the confines of the camp. They were fortunately placed in so far as the occupants were able to use an old barracks building to provide extra ablutions, a laundry and recreation rooms. A caravan is not an ideal home for a family overseas but it is better than paying £9 for a single room with a three-quarter size bed and in one corner, where one cannot stand up, a gas-ring to cook on. We expect our men to remain happy in these conditions. I should be glad to hear that it is intended to extend these temporary caravan schemes because, the caravans being mobile, if the Army moves the soldiers' families can go with them.
    It was about leisure-time that we heard grumbles. We attended a questions session for a cadre of N.C.O.s and
    1636
    we were impressed by their ability to think for themselves. We found, unfortunately, that they did not get on very well in the local pubs, clubs and town halls. Some of the population of Osnabruck seemed still to regard them as an army of occupation and they rejected the hand of friendship which these excellent ambassadors were extending to them. This means that a great deal of the time, particularly of single youngsters, has to be spent within the confines of the camp. These young men who have entered a long-term contract have been accustomed to watching television at home in the evening. This is one of the things that they miss. They have German television but this is fairly useless to them.
    I ask the Minister whether he could not consider providing some kind of television programmes for the evening entertainment of troops in Western Europe. Could not the Eurovision link be used in reverse to televise a football match pre-recorded for showing on a Saturday evening, so that the boys can sometimes watch their favourite team? Is it not possible to have, as it done already at Steamer Point in Aden, closed circuit television on which such things as "Coronation Street" and "Z Cars" could be shown?
    This grumble about the lack of television entertainment was the only complaint made by these young men. They were as keen as mustard. Proof of their keenness was that when the colonel decided that there should be a march from Osnabruck to the new barracks in Warwickshire he was inundated with volunteers. He had great difficulty in selecting them for this great march which has just been concluded. In that march they did something to maintain the prestige of the British Army in Europe. We should make sure that some of the amenities which I have mentioned are provided for those who are replacing them.
    Now, another subject. I expect that the Minister knows what it will be. Some of us on this side of the Committee and, I am sure, some hon. Members opposite are very concerned about the closing of so many Royal Ordnance factories when, instead of being closed down, they could form a valuable nucleus of skills in an emergency. In

    1637
    this changing world of power politics, no one can ever be sure when the emergency will come. The Royal Ordnance factories could be used for experimentation in the changing nature of weapons. Judging by the controversy we have had about the Bloodhound contract, they could provide a very valuable check against private contracts. The Government could use the Royal Ordnance factories as a good example of how the Industrial Training Bill should be implemented for the training of apprentices.
    Unfortunately, the general tendency seems to be that all the work hitherto done in the ordinary way by the Royal Ordnance factories is being given to private firms over which we have no control whatever and the Royal Ordnance factories are being closed.
    Yesterday, at Question Time, I asked the Minister about tendering, and I was told that the question of rocket motor tubes was a matter for the Ministry of Aviation. I accept this, but the Secretary of State for War controls the Royal Ordnance, factories. I put a very pertinent question: when it is decided to take a contract away from an R.O.F., does not the War Department, as the owner, ask why and make sure that there is a thoroughly satisfactory reason for it being done?
    Patricroft Royal Ordnance Factory is claimed to be one of the most efficient in the country. I asked about it yesterday. In order that the Minister may appreciate the feeling in the factory, among both management and men, I will quote from the minutes of the Whitley Council Office Committee dated last December. The staff side, the manual side and the official side had got together to consider the Government's statement about rocket motor work. The manual side asked to put questions to the chairman, accepting that he might not be able to answer them, but the chairman said that he would have a go. Some of the questions and answers were as follows:
    "It is understood that Patricroft costs are less than Bristol Aerojet"—
    this is the private firm to which the contract has been given—
    "Is this true?"
    1638
    The secretary of the Ordnance Factory replied:
    "We have no access to Bristol Aerojet costs, but our impression is that R.O.F. Patricroft is completely competitive with Bristol Aerojet on the type of rocket motor tubes we are manufacturing.
    "(Q) If the work that has been shared with Bristol was transferred to Patricroft would this have the effect of reducing R.O.F. Patricroft costs?
    "(A) The fundamental rule of spreading fixed overheads over a larger production must apply and R.O.F. Patricroft costs would come down.
    "(Q) If there is only sufficient work for one concern instead of two, would it not be beneficial to the taxpayer to concentrate the work with the firm producing at the cheapest costs?
    "(A) Superficially, this would appear to be true, but otter factors than production, i.e. research and development, would have to be taken into account in the overall evaluation of the proposals."
    This was the answer which the Minister gave me in correspondence. But then came the further question:
    "Is it understood that R.P.E. Westcott and I.M.I. Kidderminster are engaged on research and development of a similar character to Bristol Aerojet. Is this true?
    "(A) We believe it to be."
    Then it was asked,
    "How do the Ministry of Aviation enter into War Office and naval requirements for rocket motor work?
    "(A) By a policy decision taken at high level "—
    some years ago—
    "the Ministry of Aviation have, for many years, acted as the central agency for design and procurement of G.W. stores for all the Services."
    Then this rather interesting question was asked:
    "Does the proposal mean that War Office requirements for rocket motors will not, in future, be placed by them with one of their own factories equipped to do the work but will be handed over to Ministry of Aviation for them to place the work with a commercial concern?"
    The management said:
    "This would appear to be so from information released to date."
    In other words, the Ministry of Aviation will have the right to handle all War Office and naval contracts.
    Later on it was said:
    "We understand that in the past Patricroft have lost orders to Bristol Aerojet when the Patricroft quote has been cheaper."

    1639
    The management said:
    "We have no access to quotations submitted by anyone other than ourselves and are, therefore, unable to confirm or deny this, but we would be surprised if we were not competitive on orders we have lost."
    After another question, the 64,000 dollar question, was asked:
    "Are Patricroft going to be asked to tender for this type of work in the future?"
    The answer was:
    "It would appear that this is not to be so and that we shall have no opportunity of quoting for work of this nature."
    The next question was:
    "Isn't this an extraordinary state of affairs? It would surely be reasonable to allow us to compete on competitive terms even if the application of the 'preferred source' policy is not to be carried out."
    The management's final word was:
    "We would certainly like to have the opportunity to quote for the work."
    I hope that this gives some indication of the tremendously strong feeling of the craftsmen and management at Patricroft concerning a job which they have virtually pioneered. They have done much of the research on these rocket tubes. They have reached the stage when they could be made in quantity, thereby reducing the costs. Yet they find to their disgust that the job has been transferred to a private aviation firm when all the kinks have been ironed out. I only hope that, the next time a contract is transferred, the Minister will try to prevent losing it because only by keeping contracts in the Royal Ordnance factories can we keep the factories at the peak of efficiency for times when we may need them.
    It seems to me sheer common sense, with defence costs rising as they are, that it should be incumbent on the Minister and all the Services to buy in the best and cheapest market. On the evidence which I have presented, the Royal Ordnance factories are this market.
    9.34 p.m.
    Mr. Alan Brown: During this week we have been engaged in debating the Service Estimates, the last of the series being those relating to the Army, which are now before us. Each has involved a heavy financial burden on the nation. I do not think that that
    1640
    of itself is important. Peace has to be paid for, and the primary purpose of Britain's defence policy is to secure peace. To secure peace for the people of our country is, in my opinion, the first duty of our Government, and in this respect we have been successful.
    The second duty of securing the peace of the world is something which is not by any means within our power to achieve. We have no sovereign rights over the other nations of the world. We can only continue to play our part in the world's council chambers. This the Government have continued to do with, in my opinion, a considerable measure of success. I therefore think that we should accept the situation and from there pursue the matter to its logical conclusion.
    That brings me straight to the subject of this debate. The defence of Britain in this nuclear age must involve the expenditure of very large sums of money. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), in his speech, continued to take the line which has been the outstanding feature of every debate on the Estimates this week and which dominated the arena in the main debate on defence last week. He accused the party on this side of jingoism. That has been a feature of the debate. Everything possible has been done by hon. Members opposite to pin the basest of motives upon every aspect of Government policy in relation to defence.
    Thirdly, we have seen the creation of as much confusion as possible, but, at the same time, great care being taken not to let the House of Commons know exactly what Labour's defence policy would involve for Britain. Fourthly, there has been the continual pressing of the old arguments, which we have all heard before, of Sir Stephen King-Hall, Mr. Cousins, and so on, that Britain has no need of nuclear weapons in the nuclear age but that conventional weapons—hon. Members opposite have not specifically mentioned bows and arrows in this respect—are all that Britain needs to win any possible conflict in the future or to deter a possible hostile power from waging war upon us.
    When the hon. and learned Member for Northampton wound up his speech, he did so, I thought, on a partially acid and partially patriotic note. He implied

    1641
    that the Daily Express was not exactly a liar but did not get the true story, particularly in what it had said about the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). The hon. and learned Member said that the Press were friends of the Tories and that the Tories should be proud of this. Reference was then made to the Prime Minister. That has been the theme of the debate all the way through. I am sorry if I have to say this, but I feel that I must, because in my opinion Labour's policy in relation to Britain's defence is just like honest John Bull's. It may be spelt a bit differently.
    What were we told? In winding up, the hon. and learned Member said that Labour in Government would make Britain the real leader of the world and would see that Britain occupied the proud rôle of keeping world peace. I am referring to the speech this afternoon by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. How Labour intends to make Britain lead the world was never mentioned.
    The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but the debate is on the Army Estimates and the hon. Member's speech should be directed towards that subject.
    Mr. Brown: The point I am leading up to, Sir William, is that if there is this continued insistence on the use of masses and masses of men and conventional weapons, of course the money, and huge sums of it, will be spent in the way that it is being spent. The point which I intend to approach from that is that if we faced the fact that we live in a nuclear age, we would save a great deal of money on our Estimates. These Estimates represent the cost of the overall defence of the country which was debated last week.
    To go back to the point for a moment, because we are now talking about weapons, I remind hon. Members opposite that at the time of the 1959 General Election the straightforward argument was advanced by the Liberal Party that more than £200 million a year would be saved by Britain if she would renounce nuclear weapons. The Liberal Party said, to justify its case, that Britain should rely for protection on American nuclear weapons. I think
    1642
    that this is very much to the point of this debate.
    At that time a friend of mine, the late Hugh Gaitskell, was in Tottenham having tea with me when the news of the Liberal Party defence policy became known. His immediate reaction was to condemn it. I have a note of what he said:
    "How can they"—
    meaning the Liberal Party—
    "possibly give up our nuclear weapons and still remain in N.A.T.O.' That would mean sheltering behind the United States deterrent."
    He went on about morality, which was rather beyond me, but I fully agree with the sentiments expressed by him. Nothing has happened since that time to make me change that opinion. Indeed, the very reverse has occurred. Irrespective of any morality, the world has become more and more aggressive every day since.
    The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) recalled in his speech the debate in February, 1960, and jibed at hon. Members opposite, I suppose, saying that he was the only one who at that time believed that Britain should adopt a policy of abandoning her nuclear weapons. He also made a remark to the effect that he was made a bit of fun of by hon. Members opposite. I also remember the policy of the Labour Party at the 1959 General Election in relation to defence.
    Mr. McCann: The hon. Member should remember it. He was a Labour Party candidate then.
    Mr. Brown: That policy has been largely forgotten by hon. Members opposite, and so I will remind them what it was. I quote from the policy statement:
    "Labour fully accepts the duty to maintain the military defences of Britain. So long as the world is split into two hostile camps, we must contribute our share to the defence of the West through N.A.T.O. as well as fulfil our obligations to the Commonwealth and the United Nations."
    It went on:
    "That is the reason why the Labour Party has, by huge majorities at two successive conferences, rejected the idea that it should at this stage commit the next Labour Government to renouncing the H-bomb irrespective of what other countries may do."
    They were brave words, but the ink had faded from them in under 12 months. Every right hon. and hon. Member

    1643
    opposite and every Labour Party candidate who fought the last General Election fought it on that policy, laying it before the country as a pledge.
    Much has been said today about pledges. A lot of it was directed against hon. Members on this side of the Committee. The less I say about it the better, for it is painful. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I speak the truth and hon. Members opposite cannot get away from it. During the last two weeks the national Press has been united in posing almost daily the question, "What is Labour's defence policy?" It is an honest question. Last night's Evening Standard asked the Leader of the Opposition to spell out in the most precise terms how Labour would defend Britain if it won the General Election.
    The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but the whole question of defence policy is not in order. We are debating Vote A of the Army Estimates—the number of land forces. I hope that he will try to keep his remarks restricted to what concerns the Army in 1964.
    Mr. Brown: In that case I will say no more at all, because, if the country is to be committed to defending itself in the manner suggested by the Opposition and laid down by party conferences over which neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the deputy leader has the slightest say, it is clear that there is no point in my continuing on this theme.
    9.47 p.m.
    Mr. Cyril Bence: I hope that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. A. Brown) will forgive me if I do not follow him in discussing defence policy, for I should be out of order. I want to emphasise again a point I have made on previous occasions this week. As a member of the Estimates Committee, I find the presentation of these huge figures complex, whereas the presentation of the Supplementary Estimates for the financial year 1963–64 was very much better than in the previous year, there having been considerable improvements.
    But considerable difficulties arise when one tackles the Estimates because of the changes in the structure of our
    1644
    defence organisation and other factors. I hope that Government Departments, especially the Treasury, will examine this matter to see if they cannot help us to wade more easily through these tremendous figures.
    I want to concentrate mainly on the Royal ordnance factories. We no longer have one in Dalmuir. A sum of £107½ million for military supplies is asked for on account, but there is an estimate of only £2 million for the factories. These factories have been moved away from growth and development districts. That is extraordinary. The manufacturing processes have been lost to Scotland. They have gone to Leeds.
    This problem should be apparent to everybody. It has not arisen this year. The drift of the population to the South has been taking place for decades. Our military, air and naval forces depend more and more on a wide industrial base. It has had some of that industrial base in the Royal Ordnance factories. As the Army began to use more mechanical equipment, we should have expanded the Royal Ordnance factories, not contracted them.
    We all hope that our world competitive position will improve and that our manufacturers and industrial organisations will be able to raise their annual production by 4 per cent. We could help them to do so if we relieved them of much of the responsibility for keeping our Armed Forces equipped and gave the Royal Ordnance factories the responsibility of providing the Army with its equipment.
    I do not want to reminisce and talk about Army contracts in a modern industrial plant. I could tell many stories. I related them here years ago. I will not repeat them. It was a grave tactical error to reduce the Royal Ordnance factories and pass to private industry a large proportion of the ever-increasing amount of work which must be done for the Army.
    I am not criticising private industry. I believe that it does a splendid job in highly competitive conditions. I am sure that the ordinary citizen does not realise how competitive an industry must be to market a product today. Some people think that it is the easiest

    1645
    thing in the world to organise production, to produce a machine, and to turn it out of the factory gate. However, it is not so easy. I get worried when I hear the Prime Minister talk about trade, industry and progress as if it was a simple thing to manufacture and market products. I assure him that it is not. If he had spent as many years in industry as I have, he would appreciate that it is a difficult task. It is a highly competitive and risky business.
    The Government have made a mistake. I had hoped that by now the policy of contracting the Royal Ordnance factories would have been reversed and that there would have been an expansion of our manufacturing expansion through these factories. This would be one way of increasing our industrial base, which unfortunately is beginning to contract. It is contracting in comparison with the expansion which is taking place elsewhere. On the Continent and in North America the industrial base is expanding faster than it is here.
    I come to recruitment. I am as anxious as anybody in the House of Commons that our recruiting figures should improve. The exception is my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), though I have much sympathy with his ideas. If the majority of people in the world felt like him, the world would be a much happier place than it is, but, unfortunately, they do not. I support the policy of maintaining an adequate and well-equipped Army, which should be equipped with the best possible materials. But we cannot recruit, though we have raised the pay.
    From my own experience I disagree completely with what the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) said about relationships in the forces. I have spent three weeks amongst officers and men in Germany. I did not go there as a Member of Parliament. I went there as an ordinary citizen, visiting a friend of mine who is an officer in the Royal Engineers. At the beginning of the First World War I was a cadet in the Royal Horse Artillery. I made many associations. I would never have believed that 50 years afterwards the gulf, or the iron curtain, between the commissioned ranks and the non-commissioned ranks would be broken down
    1646
    to the ex tent that I saw when in Germany.
    It was terrific. It was more like an association in the Boy Scout movement. I spoke to an ex-German Army officer who rather resented this familiarity between thy; troopers and their officers—this was an armoured regiment of Dragoons. He was 40 or 50 years of age and things had not been like that in the German Army in his day.
    These wonderful advertisements and well-illustrated booklets, designed to attract recruits, list series of trades—plumbers, bricklayers, all the trades under the sun—and suggest that young men should join the Army to learn a trade. I do not believe that a young man leaving secondary school and thinking of going into a trade would join the Army to learn it. When I first came to the House of Commons, I found that some parts of the country—Edinburgh was the best example—had a sort of historical relationship with the Services. There were connections with the Army or the Navy—I do not know whether this applied to the Air Force. I found that Edinburgh had always provided a tremendous number of recruits, many from families which had had a traditional link with a Service for generations, a romantic attachment to the Army and to certain regiments.
    I wonder whether military mechanisation has helped to reduce the attractiveness of the Army. If I had a son and wanted him to be an engineer, I should never think of suggesting that he joined the Army. I should probably write to Rolls-Royce or the Bristol Airplane Company, of the British Motor Corporation, and if he wanted to be a marine engineer, I should try to get him into John Brown's, at Clydebank. I would never think of finding out whether he could join the Royal Engineers or the Royal Marines. I appreciate that if young people who join the Army learn a trade, it is valuable to them when they leave the Service, but the advertisements suggest that they should join the Army to learn a trade.
    Hon. Members have spoken of adventure. No one has a greater respect for the British forces than I have. I have met many people from different countries and I once had the pleasure of bringing to the House of Commons three

    1647
    Germans who had served in the First World War. They told me some funny stories. I remembered with pride that my father served in the First World War, which ended just before I would have been seconded to the Royal Horse Artillery as a subaltern and sent to France where the expectation of life of a subaltern was then two days. One of these Germans told me that if there was ever a danger of being captured he always prayed that he would fall into the hands of the British. There is no doubt that throughout the world there is tremendous respect for British military forces.
    I was glad to read in paragraph 105 of the Statement on Defence that a party of 50 Royal Engineers from B.A.O.R. gave assistance to Yugoslavia after the Skopje earthquake—
    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 the 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. Bence: The engineers constructed 244 prefabricated huts and joined with the welfare organisation "War on Want". Soldiers have done this sort of work from time immemorial, but the fact has never been properly noted. We are now living in an age when people should be told these things. Campaigns have been started urging young people to take up international work in the name of their countries, and to do things that they feel are worth while. Tragedy occurs all over the world, and there is no doubt that our modern Army units can assist. I hope that the War Office will lose no opportunity in making it known to the public that such work as this is being done by the Army.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) did not want the wonderful impression given by the British Army to be destroyed by the War Office, as a result of the events which occurred in Dundee. I can assure my hon. Friend that to those people who
    1648
    have served in the Regular Army there is a complete distinction between the War Office and the Army. People will accept what the War Office does in Dundee.
    Mr. Christopher Mayhew: People in Woolwich are favourably inclined towards the Army, but they cannot tolerate the War Office.
    Mr. Bence: That is the situation in Woolwich, and that is the great centre of the War Office. I suppose that the Army would not be as good as it is if the War Office were much better than it is.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East referred to the speech made by the Foreign Secretary in Geneva, and to the proposals of the three Scandinavian countries in relation to an international force. This is an excellent idea for the countries of the Western Alliance. I support this alliance without any qualifications. Such a proposal would enable the countries of the alliance to draw more closely together. They could commit their forces to helping each other. That is the purpose of an alliance.
    Speaking at Geneva, the Foreign Secretary suggested that we would commit troops to an international force under the United Nations. There are already arrangements whereby British troops will be assigned to maintain peace in Cyprus and I give that my whole-hearted support. I agree with the assignment of divisions to the defence of Western Europe. We are organising our military forces and paying £527 million for it. Having raised an Army we see it being progressively assigned to international forces and in some cases put under international command.
    I do not want the public to get the idea that by assigning sovereign defence forces, or part of them, to an international force established for the preservation of our Western civilisation and peace in the world we are giving away our defence forces. That would be a wicked thing to suggest. Anyone who put headlines in a newspaper or propagates that idea is doing a disservice to world peace. The defence of Britain can be secured effectively only by co-ordination and integration with the forces of our friends. When we think of the defence of our island we can do so only in terms of an alliance

    1649
    with friends who can make a contribution equal to our own.
    I was never more hurt than by the frightful suggestion that a proposition to commit part of our defence forces to an international force should be used to frighten Britain with the idea that we are throwing away our sovereignty. That is a shocking think to suggest. We must accept the expenditure involved. The Estimates Committee will do its best to see that the money is not wasted. But do not let us make the task of defending our country more difficult or the task of creating a climate of unity in the West more difficult by crying from the rooftops that we are sending squadrons of the Navy or brigades of the Army to international forces and thereby throwing away our defences. To do that is to do a disservice to Britain and to Western civilisation.
    10.9 p.m.
    Mr. Daniel Awdry: I do not intend to detain the Committee for more than a few minutes because I believe very much in short speeches, even in Service Estimates debates, but I feel entitled to say something about the Territorial Army because I was lucky enough to serve in my county yeomanry regiment for about 14 years. I gave up serving in it only a few months before I came to this House.
    I was delighted to read the statement my right hon. Friend made on 22nd January on the rôle of the Territorial Army in which he said that the T.A. will become increasingly more involved with the reinforcement and support of the Rhine Army. That was well received by my county regiment. I have been very surprised, as I think many others have been, by the high standard of efficiency which can be attained by our part-time Army. Anyone who has visited a Territorial Army in camp must have been extremely impressed by the enthusiasm and esprit de corps of the T.A. This is something of which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee can be very proud.
    One of the things which impressed me most when. I commanded a squadron of the Territorial Army was the keenness and drive of the recruits. In their first camp these recruits, probably 17 or 18 years of age, had had very little technical training and all we could do was
    1650
    to start to teach them how to use a rifle. We formed them into assault troops. These assault troops in my regiment have made a tremendous reputation for themselves. I remember seeing these young lads with very little training carrying out night attacks and swimming across rivers and enjoying every moment of it. In these days when young people are naturally trying to find good outlets for the spirit of adventure, I cannot think of a better opening for them than a few years in a Territorial Army unit.
    Of course morale is not everything and in these days training is becoming a very technical business. I therefore put in a plea, which I imagine is made every year on this occasion, for better and more modern equipment for the Territorial Army. When I joined the Armoured Corps, almost exactly 20 years ago, we had to receive some wireless training. The set we were using was called the 19 set. When I joined the Territorial Army some years later I was a wireless instructor and I found myself instructing 'with the 19 set. The Committee will be sorry to hear that when I left the Territorial Army, a year or so ago, I was still trying to teach the 19 set. These sets are not getting any younger. I always found it a difficult set to work and it is particularly difficult for Territorial soldiers.
    My unit was an armoured car unit and all the exercises we carried out were entirely dependent on communications. It is a fairly expensive business running a large-scale exercise and a great deal of ground is covered. To get any value out of the exercise it is essential that communications should be maintained efficiently. I therefore, ask that modern sets should be quickly made available to the Territorial Army. When I take a taxi home tonight I shall be impressed by the wireless set, which always seems to work perfectly in a taxi. I think it time that we had the best equipment available for units of the T.A.
    I entirely welcome the suggestion that the T.A. should be used to reinforce the Rhine Army. I was a 10th Hussar during the war. That is a regiment which looks after the Wiltshire Yeomanry. It has always been to me a logical and sensible plan that part of the Yeomanry should train with its parent regiment. I stress, however, that it would be quite useless

    1651
    to send out a number of individuals on this sort of training. I referred earlier to morale. Morale is built up, not on individuals, but on the regimental spirit, the squadron spirit, or the troop spirit.
    It would be a wonderful idea if a whole squadron of the Territorial Army could be sent to train in Germany. That would have a tremendous impact on the morale of the squadron and would help to cement a strong link between the parent regiment and the Territorial unit. If the training is to be really effective, the Territorial unit must have received basic individual training first and that training must be carried out on the same equipment as that with which the parent regiment is equipped. This point strengthens the argument for having up-to-date and modern equipment.
    I said that I would not speak for long. One thing my wireless training taught me is that one should be very short on the air. I sometimes wish that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) had attended one of our wireless training courses. His speech the other day on the Navy Estimates lasted for about an hour. It is time he was told he is using far too much air.
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I am tempted to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry). My memory is quite good and I think I can claim to have failed to get through on a 19-set more frequently than any other member of Her Majesty's Forces. I was also at one time commanding an assault troop. I have a vivid and extraordinary recollection of swimming the River Thames with a 30 lb. wireless strapped to my back, before the eyes, strangely enough, of Mr. Bernard Shaw.
    No area of the country is more dependent on decisions made by the War Office than the Borough of Woolwich. I see with surprise that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Turner) is not present tonight. I would have expected, from the most mundane considerations, that he would have been here, particularly since he occupies a very marginal seat in West Woolwich. I regret that he is not here to support me in putting a number of important points to the War Office, points which
    1652
    are particularly important to the borough.
    Will the Under-Secretary, when he replies, give an assurance about phase two of the rebuilding of the R.A. barracks in my constituency? This is a sorry tale. There was two years' delay not long ago simply through faulty estimating by the War Office, aided, no doubt, by a variety of capital cuts at the Treasury.
    It is vital to Woolwich that the R.A. barracks rebuilding should go ahead without further delay, and so make available a vast area which will supply some of the finest building sites anyone could wish to have in the whole area. We have an urgent housing need, and I ask the Minister when a start will be made on the rebuilding. In particular, why has the Department not made available to Woolwich Borough Council the 13½ acres of building land promised to the council about a year ago?
    Another cause of grievance we have in Woolwich against the War Office is the extraordinary condition of Woolwich Common. At Question Time today the Prime Minister was closely questioned about what the Government are doing for the aesthetic improvement of our countryside. I was tempted to ask the right hon. Gentleman to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the shocking condition of Woolwich Common, purely as a result of neglect by the War Office. The contractor working for the War Office has simply tipped rubbish on to the common without any consideration of providing topsoil, let alone seeding for the coming spring.
    I have known the Under-Secretary for a long time and—since spring is coming—have noted in him signs of cultivation of a cultured mind. Will he take a personal interest in this matter and ensure that before the spring topsoiling and proper seeding of the area of Woolwich Common is carried out and that the War Office does not make a disgrace of the area, in stark contrast to the great pride which the borough council has in its open spaces and the extraordinary care with which it looks after them?
    My third point relates to the Royal dockyard. This, too, is a marvellous

    1653
    site for housing and for making a river frontage. If the War Office, with the agreement of the borough council, would release this site for development it would make in immense improvement in the whole appearance of amenities of Woolwich. What is going on at this vastly important site? I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West has now entered the Chamber, and I therefore slightly withdraw some of the strong, criticisms I made about his absence.
    What is going on at the Royal dockyard now? I believe that for several years this extremely important and valuable site has been used simply for storage. If that is so, why have the stores not been moved to some other site, perhaps in the Arsenal, or in some other part of the country not vitally important from the point of view of the development of my constituency? And why was this not done many years ago? I ask the Minister to take a decision about the Royal dockyard outside the other decisions he must take about the Royal Ordnance factory.
    It is, of course, with the Royal Ordnance factory that I am chiefly concerned. The great majority of Woolwich people remain completely unconvinced that if the R.O.F. had had a fair share of conventional arms and fair opportunities to tender for civil contracts, it could not have continued in operation, and done a great service to the country and to the borough. The Press reported the other day big production delays on War Office equipment. The reports said that a quarter of the weapons and instruments ordered for the current year by the War Office, and nearly a quarter of the ammunition and explosives, have not yet been delivered.
    A sum of £11 million is involved, and this state of things speaks poorly of the efficiency of the Department of Supply at the War Office. What a commentary it is on the closing-down of the R.O.F., Woolwich! These are precisely the things that it is well-equipped to supply. If his Department cannot procure the supplies it needs on the proper dates, I should like the Minister to tell us why Woolwich is being closed down.
    Another thing that is worrying some of my constituents, and which I want to put as fairly as I can, is the mem
    1654
    bership of the Royal Ordnance Factory Board. This board was set up in 1952, and its purpose is to advise on the efficiency of the Royal Ordnance factory. I was astonished to find that its membership includes two people who could be said to represent direct competitors of the R.O.F.
    One of the great tragedies of our R.O.F. was its loss, a short while ago, of the great armoured personnel carrier contract to Sankeys. With that contract, I do not doubt that the R.O.F. would be continuing today. That contract was, as I say, lost to Sankeys, and I was astonished to find that on this board, set up to advise the Government about the efficiency of the R.O.F., Woolwich, was Mr. R P. Brookes, chairman of the group controlling Sankeys, and Mr. J. F. Shearer, a partner in the firm of accountants which works for Sankeys.
    I say at once that I do not for one moment suggest that either of these people acted improperly in any way whatever, and I also recognise that the board does not advise on contracts. Nevertheless, it must be bad principle for the board to include direct industrial competitors of the R.O.F., Woolwich. That cannot be right. Even if the Government wish to have people experienced in this field, it would be possible for them to man up the board without having on it direct competitors of the R.O F. If the Minister has time, I should like him to refer later to this matter, which is worrying a number of my constituents.
    Finally, the point of outstanding importance is the part being played by the War Office in the whole development of the 1,500 acres which now are waiting for planning and development on the old arsenal site in the Erith Marshes and the whole sweep of land just south of the Thames which is now becoming free for development. Everybody who has seen is agrees that it is essential that there should be a comprehensive plan of development for this area. The plan should lay down how much industry there should be, where it should be sited, how the road system throughout the whole area should be framed, how a vast overcrowding of our traffic can be avoided, how many new houses and flats should be built in the area, how the development should be related to

    1655
    Woolwich's own town plan and the provision of shops, offices and business premises, and how it should be related to the Woolwich town traffic plan as well.
    Everything in this vast enterprise depends on what happens in the western area, the 600 acres which includes the R.O.F. Who is deciding this? This is a vastly important matter not only for Woolwich but for the whole of South-East London. Who are taking these planning decisions? Is it the planning authority, the L.C.C.? Not at all. Is it the Woolwich Borough Council? Not at all. It is the War Office that is doing this.
    I quote the Under-Secretary of State for War on 20th December in the House when he said:
    "For the rest, no comprehensive planning can be done until we have taken a decision about what Government activities, including defence activities, can usefully continue to be carried on there."
    There is to be no comprehensive development until the War Office has decided who is to get what, on a piecemeal basis. This is a ludicrous situation. The hon. Gentleman went on:
    "The chairman of the review committee is the Permanent Under-Secretary of State for War, and the duties of the review will be to secure the right location for present and predicted Government activities at the western end, the future of the industrial buildings in the R.O.F. itself, the policy to give other Government Departments first claim on surplus land belonging to the War Department, the great need for housing land in London, and the possibility of other developments in the interests of London and Woolwich generally."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1963; Vol. 686, c. 1720–1.] This is what the War Office assumes to be its responsibility. This is a ludicrous situation. The War Office is well-equipped to suppress disturbances in East Africa. It is not well-equipped to do town planning in my constituency, yet in practice this is exactly what is happening.
    The planning authority, the L.C.C., is not a member of the working party which has been set up to decide the key things about this development. There is a serious risk that the whole future
    1656
    development of the area will be jeopardised. There is a risk that the War Office will take what it wants, simply acting in its own interests, and will share out the rest of the swag to other Service Departments and to privileged friends and associates.
    The War Office has the power now to grant the Admiralty land in this great area without reference even to the L.C.C. It is now arguing with the Central Electricity Board on where in the area a huge power station should be built. If I may address myself to the Under-Secretary, I would say: stick to East Africa. Stick to military affairs. Town planning is not a matter for the War Office. It is pure accident that the War Office should happen to be there. It is an old but a bad principle that a Government Department should be able to decide what activity should go on on this land when it does not want it.
    This old and bad principle should be amended. I hope that a special planning body will be established for the whole area, to include not only the War Office but essentially the London County Council, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, the Woolwich Borough Council, the Board of Trade, British Railways and all the other interested parties to work out a master-plan for the whole area. It should be worked out not in terms of horse-trading with little lots of land going to various Service Departments. The plan should be thought out in terms of expanding the town in a big way, with the whole thing tied up with a new South London plan which is due to be published on 19th March.
    We have the friendliest possible relations in Woolwich with the Army, but we are very critical of the War Office. We are not at all satisfied that the War Office is doing its duty as far as the borough council is concerned. I earnestly ask the Under-Secretary—and I warn him that if I am not satisfied with his answer I shall raise the matter again—to look into these questions and to see whether he can give satisfaction to my constituents.
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I think the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) generated the right amount of heat about his constituency problem. However, I hope he will forgive me if I do not go too far into his constituency problem except to say that in my experience the War Office is likely to be at least as good on town planning as the L.C.C. is.
    I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War on giving the Committee a very good account of his stewardship and the stewardship of his predecessors. I think it is generally agreed that the British Army today is in good heart, and those who have been responsible for it can take the credit which is their due. I was also glad to hear from my right hon. Friend and from the hon and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) the tributes, which they rightly paid, to the former Secretary of State, Mr. Profumo, for the work that he did for the British Army.
    I wish to refer to the problem of what should be the level of our Army strength, and in doing so I wish to make one or two short points. The Soviet ground forces available in Eastern Europe, as they are deployed today, are far fewer than they have been in the past and are rather fewer than we suspected until recently. There are more troops in West Germany than there are in East Germany and in the zones nearby, and although it would be possible for the Soviets to concentrate troops in one particular area, they have not done so at the moment.
    The type of Soviet armament deserves our attention. The main Soviet armament is the M.R.B.M.—the medium-range ballistic missile—of which they have, so I am told, 700 which are aimed at targets in Western Europe and whose rôle is to contain not only Europe but also the United States by threatening Western Europe.
    I understand that the Soviets have fairly recently altered the command of some of their tactical nuclear weapons which are now commanded and integrated within the divisions, and not under a separate command as they have been until fairly recently. The strategy as laid down by Soviet publications, which one
    1658
    may read, used to be the use of nuclear weapons followed by a very rapid follow-up by ground forces to take advantage of the use of those nuclear weapons. But it seems some that the reliance on M.R.B.M.s and the way in which the tactical nuclear weapons have been integrated into the ordinary forces shows that this type of armament is defensive in nature, because it is not possible to occupy the ground with nuclear weapons, and the shape and command of the ground forces are such that they are also of a defensive nature.
    It is sometimes said that we must fear some small probing attack from the Russians in Germany. I would point out that they have never yet tried it, although there have been occasions when it would have been much easier for them to do it than it is today, and there were times when they were in a much more belligerent mood. I do not see how they could risk the United States' reaction to a probing attack. What would be the purpose of such a probe? They do not want the ground itself. Presumably they would make a probing attack in order to split N.A.T.O. and show the Europeans that they could not rely upon the United States coming to their help.
    However, I do not think that it is necessarily the case that the Soviets would wish to split N.A.T.O., because if they were to detach Europe, or a part of Europe, from the United States, there is absolutely no guarantee that Europe, or the part of it they had detached, would remain either neutral or pro-Soviet, and they might, therefore, have created two enemies, where only one exists for them at the moment, and might have created a state of uncertainty.
    Furthermore, in so far as they detached Europe from the United States they would not be able to exert that influence and pressure they can do at the moment by threatening Europe, much less split it. They would not militarily affect the United States, so much farther away from them, as they would affect Europe. Therefore, for these two reasons, I doubt whether the Soviets consider it in their interests that N.A.T.O. should be split, and I conclude, from their weapons and their disposal, and from their own interests, as I understand them, that we can think

    1659
    that Soviet policy in Europe is to preserve the status quo.
    I know that one of the arguments for large ground forces in Europe is that they permit us to have a controlled response, a graduated response, to whatever aggression is offered to us. I know that sort of argument would make a certain amount of sense in the vast spaces of the United States and Russia, but it really makes no sense whatever in the crowded areas of Europe—at least, it makes no sense to me.
    Finally it is said that there could be some sort of mistake, whereby Soviet forces went blundering over the frontier, or satellite forces might, or some bomb or other might go off, and war would start. Personally, I think that a most extraordinarily remote possibility. In the first place, technically it would be very difficult. Secondly, I do not think that generally, if it did happen, we would be deceived by it. If an incursion into our territory by atomic explosion of some sort were to take place, preceded by no mobilisation, with no strategic objective in view, and no strategic objective gained, we would not be led to think that it was other than a mistake, and we should not, I am sure, rush to our weapons to retaliate in kind.
    So I do not think any probing attacks are likely. I do not think a mistake would take place; or, if it did, we would recognise it as a mistake. I very much wonder, therefore, what the level of military ground forces in Western Europe should be.
    I come to the question of the British Army of the Rhine. We find that the flower of the British Army is tied up there, using valuable exchange moneys which we can ill afford, training for an extremely specialised war which could be fought nowhere else in the world, with extraordinarily expensive sorts of equipment which could be used in no other area of the world. I wonder whether the level of forces which we are bound to maintain by Treaty is the level of forces which N.A.T.O. actually requires for its purposes. I think we can see now that our influence in N.A.T.O., whatever we may have argued before, depends very largely upon our ability to do the sort of things we have been able
    1660
    to do with our flexible Regular forces in these past two or three months.
    Therefore, while not being dogmatic about this very difficult matter, I ask my right hon. Friend to keep the question of the strength of the British Army of the Rhine in the forefront of his thinking to see whether reductions cannot safely be made, of course in agreement with our allies.
    We have had some discussion today about the merits of Regular selective or conscriptive service. There can be no doubt that the evidence of the last few months does very much justify those who wish to have a fully Regular Army. If we were to go in for some form of conscriptive service, because some great crisis forced us to do so, then, like the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, I would say that selective service would not be a runner. We should have to keep the men far too long, and the selection would be seen to be much too unfair. We should have to have a great many more men than the Army was short of at the time. If we needed 10,000 and sought to recruit them by selective service, before very long with training commitments and the loss of morale in the Regular Army, we should be asking for not 10,000 but 40,000. I do not think that this would be an agreeable or sensible way of finding the men.
    I do not believe that conscription is unpopular in the country. I think that a large number of people, especially parents of families, and young men, too, believe that conscription is quite a good thing for the individual and would not resent it. But, of course, it is not militarily very desirable, and I hope that we manage to avoid it.
    If we had to go in for some form of National Service, if some great event overcame us, conscription would be the method to use, I am sure; but we should not use it in order to fill small shortages of men in Infantry battalions or anything of that kind.
    It is often said, in discussing the strength of infantry battalions, that they go abroad under strength. I wonder whether the fact is that the whole battalion does not always go. I suspect that a lot are left behind, especially when battalions go on what we hope are short trips, so to speak, to Cyprus and

    1661
    elsewhere. They probably leave the band behind. They leave behind various other people such as the regimental boxing team because the championship is coming along, and so on. In that sort of way, a battalion which is pretty well up to strength or, perhaps, full may actually go abroad with quite a few—one must not call them "odds and sods"—[Laughter.]—hon. Members know what I mean—people of the sort I have described left behind. Doubtless, they will catch up later on when the boxing championships are over, and so on.
    Now, a word about the Territorial Army. When I was, by chance, in Cyprus last spring, I had the pleasure of seeing the 44th Parachute Brigade, which is mentioned in the Statement on Defence, at their training. I was told by the Regular troops who were training with them that, after 14 days—which was their allotted time—they were fully equal to the Regular troops who were with them. They may have been not quite so quick up the mountains, but they were older, more responsible men and in every way were militarily equal to the Regular battalions. It is very fine that they should get ready so quickly. This leads me to say that I believe that there is still scope in the Territorial Army for further recruitment of light or specialist troops which people like joining and which do not need the elaborate mechanical training which is necessary for the more heavily armed troops such as the Armoured Corps and so on.
    The Territorial Emergency Reserve has been slightly disappointing, perhaps. I can understand that it is difficult to find men, but my impression is that it is the units which have put up a certain resistance to the putting of people forward. I think that there is an understandable reluctance on the part of commanding officers of Territorial units to let £150 of tax-free public money go to people other than the absolute top-notchers in their particular units. If they are required to produce people of various ranks and grades, they cannot give it to, say, the 15 or 20 best men of the battalion but they have to give it to the particular ranks and grades required. Some commanding officers are reluctant to see the money go to people whom they may not regard as
    1662
    absolutely top of their regiment. Therefore, the idea which my right hon. Friend put forward today of the "Ever-readies" training far more as sub-units and moving as sub-units has a great advantage and would, I think, overcome that difficulty, among others.
    I say today, as I did last year, that I do not think that enough scope is given to the W.R.A.C., the girls in the Army. I am sure that there are a lot more jobs which they could be allowed to do, particularly in Germany. They are very good, for instance, as drivers of V.I.P. cars and in signal duties. There is, however, a certain prejudice against them which should be overcome. There are a good many things which they could do but which they are not allowed to do. Recruiting would be much better if they were allowed to go abroad more often, as they like to do. Furthermore, if they were to go abroad more often, they would be less likely to get married quite so soon and, consequently, they would give longer service.
    10.46 p.m.
    Mr. Marcus Lipton: When the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) is in one of his less belligerent moods, he utters an occasional word of good sense. I am happy to follow him for this reason.
    This must be about the first time when from the Government benches some doubts have begun to emerge as to the value of the British Army of the Rhine and the extent of our commitments in the European zone. That is to be encouraged, because for a long time I have felt that the rôle of the British forces in Europe is due for a complete reappraisal.
    Mr. Kershaw: This is not the first time I have said it. I said it two years ago. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) intervened to tell me that I was talking the greatest military nonsense he had ever heard.
    Mr. Lipton: The whirligig of time brings its vengeance. All I can say is that for much longer than two years I have felt that the whole growth of N.A.T.O., and, in addition, the British contribution to N.A.T.O., is due for reappraisal.

    1663
    My reason for saying that is that the time has come when, with our limited resources, we must make a clear assessment of priorities. We cannot do everything. In deciding what the problem is, we have two main commitments. One is our contribution to N.A.T.O. in Europe and the other is our Commonwealth obligations in South-East Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and so on. The dilemma which faces us—and it is a dilemma of which the Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State for War must be only to well aware—is that we must either increase our Armed Forces on the ground or give priority to one or other of these two rôles to which I have referred, either N.A.T.O. or our Commonwealth obligations.
    It is undoubtedly the case that our influence in N.A.T.O. is getting less. If, as has been made only too clear, we find it quite impossible to meet our treaty obligations and keep 55,000 men on the ground in Germany, it follows that it is useless to pretend that in present circumstances we shall ever be able to provide 55,000 men on the ground in Germany. We have been struggling hard to find those men. All kinds of pledges have been made—for example, that we intend to see that these 55,000 men are provided—and yet for a long time the Government have had to face the fact that, as things are, there does not seem to be any reasonable prospect within the near future of finding the men who are required if we are to meet our treaty obligations.
    I know that this entails an admission perhaps of growing military weakness and the consequence that important posts in N.A.T.O. have to go to other countries which are making a larger and more effective contribution than we can. But I agree with what the hon. Member for Stroud said, that the Soviet military rôle in Europe is getting more and more purely defensive. If we attempt a calm appreciation of the situation in Europe, the likelihood of a Soviet offensive there is very much less now than it has ever been, and from a purely practical point of view it would be an act of complete insanity for any of the Communist countries to start offensive military operations in Europe at present.
    1664
    If we look at the world and try to forecast where a conflict is most likely to arise, we are inevitably driven to the conclusion that the possibility of armed conflict is much more likely in South-East Asia or the Middle East or Africa than in Europe at present.
    If what I say makes sense, we are driven to the conclusion that if we have to choose between our N.A.T.O. and Commonwealth commitments, there is a very clear case for giving priority to our Commonwealth commitments. If we have to meet our N.A.T.O. commitments and our Commonwealth commitments at one and the same time and give both an equal degree of priority, what we need is 30,000 men a year more than we have at present.
    Some 370,000 men reach the age of 18 every year, and if it were possible by some easy, simple device to pull 30,000 out of the 370,000 and put them in the Army, the problem from the point of view of the Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State for War would be very much simpler. But as it is, with our limited resources we have an Army under-manned and under-equipped in Germany, an Army which has to be prepared to dash off in many directions, sometimes simultaneously. That all builds up to the conclusion that there is a case for thinning our ranks in Germany, if not for completely withdrawing our troops. There might have been a case years ago for the British Army of the Rhine. In my opinion, there is a very much weaker case now for maintaining, or pretending that we shall ever be capable of providing, 55,000 men in Germany.
    It is useless to use Cyprus or Malaysia as an excuse for taking troops away—troops that we shall never be able to send back to Germany. For all those reasons, I think that the time has come when we may be compelled, not only for military reasons but for economic reasons, too, to consider the withdrawal or complete evacuation of British troops from the European mainland.
    What has distressed a number of people for some years past has been the dreary procession of Finance Ministers and Treasury officials going from this country to Germany and engaging in talks on the foreign exchange costs involved in keeping British troops there

    1665
    at a time when, apart from military considerations, economic considerations have to be kept in mind and when the balance of payments constitutes a serious problem. It is futile to engage in protracted discussions with the Federal Government in Bonn with a view to trying to persuade them, very often without success, to help us in our balance of payments problems. The time has arrived for us to give serious consideration to the complete withdrawal of British troops from Germany.
    10.55 p.m.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: I entirely disagree with the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). Our influence in N.A.T.O. has never been greater. The Government, the War Office, the staff officers and the troops have recently combined in some of the finest and most speedy "fire brigade" operations the world has ever seen. We have proved our capabilities in N.A.T.O. by mounting this sort of operation.
    I agree with him in one respect, in that there is no reason why, from time to time, we should not use the "waiver" clause in the NATO Treaty, as it was used by the French during the Algerian campaign, if we should need troops for Common wealth operations. It is not a new clause and we should certainly be prepared to use it where necessary.
    Quite rightly, all right hon. and hon. Members today congratulated the Secretary of State and the Army on the success of these recent operations. There cannot, I am sure, be a single hon. Member who has not at least one constituent involved in these operations.
    I believe that the Emergency Reserve of the Territorial Army should be utilised as units. The men dislike going out on their own on operations with strange units. They want to go alongside the friends with whom they have trained and worked. We should make a strenuous effort to centralise the people who wish to join the T.A.E.R. so that, if called upon, they can go in units, even if only as a section, a troop or a squadron.
    We should use the Emergency Reserve if we need it. We must take the political consequences and regard these soldiers as part of our reinforcements, which is what they are intended to be.
    1666
    In the long run we should lose nothing politically and eventually they would be regarded is part and parcel of our reserves.
    Has the Army ever conducted a survey of the reasons why men leave? I believe that housing is one of the biggest factors. We must "get cracking" with the local authorities so that men leaving can go on to housing lists. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government told me the other day, in answer to my question, that he would send out guidance to local authorities to equate the housing lists throughout London. There should also be an added suggestion that men leaving the Army should not be put at the bottom of the list hut that their years of service should count. A Service man cannot live in one place long enough to qualify for the top of its housing list.
    I suggested in previous years that the barrack sites of B.A.O.R. should be used for temporary housing for our families out there. In this way we would overcome the difficulties encountered by the German building industry and of getting local planning permission. I hope that every effort will be made to use all available sites in our barrack areas for more married accommodation, since this involves another big factor leading men to give up the Service.
    I have no time to mention other points, except that I believe that the rôle of the Army now is dependent on the fact that we have preserved our nuclear shield, and are able to deploy our forces as and when we please, in any part of the world, without let or hindrance, and that we car never be blackmailed by any other nation as to where and when we should send our conventional forces in order to maintain peace throughout the Commonwealth or other parts of the world.
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. John Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) for curtailing his remarks. He has been patient, and has waited for a long time. I am glad that he managed to say a few words before the end of the debate.
    These Estimates debates frequently consist of long lists of recollections by hon. Members on both sides of the

    1667
    Committee. On this occasion we have not suffered from so many recollections, but even today three hon. Members have drawn our attention to what happened to them in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) reminded us of the days when he was trying to operate a 19-set, and the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) did likewise. We also had a vision of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East swimming the Thames, with Bernard Shaw looking on. The other recollection was that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). As far back as 1946 he forecast the need for a new kind of sleeping bag for the Army. Those were the most vivid recollections I had of this debate—recollections of battles long ago being re-fought in 1964 on the Floor of the Committee.
    It would not be entirely wrong, when hon. Members are being bombarded on all sides by shopkeepers with letters about retail price maintenance, to refer to the present Defence Estimates of £1,998·5 million as the 19s. 11¾d. budget. The impression has been given that every effort has been made by the Government to ensure that the total Estimates do not rise about the magic figure of £2,000 million.
    This is the third year in which I had to do penance by winding-up the debate on behalf of the Opposition. Year by year it becomes more like a marathon. One rises at 11 o'clock, having waited all day. Looking back over the past debates, I find that the same problems have concerned us year by year. The issues raised in today's debate have been the same as usual—and almost the same hon. Members have taken part.
    We have had the usual parade of weapons—many of which are still in various stages of gestation. They have been conspicuous over the years by the thunder of their fire power. But year by year we have been reminded that many of these weapons are still not with the units. At least we have been able to forecast and trace the development of these weapons. As my hon. and learned Friend has said, it takes about 10 years—it used to take eight—for a weapon which has been conceived and
    1668
    has been mentioned for the first time in the Estimates to reach the units on the ground.
    The other hardy annual which is mentioned every year is the shortage of manpower. I sympathise with the Government. If I may be permitted to mix my metaphors, the policies of the Government have failed; they have failed to produce the goods in manpower. Ever shifting targets have been given to us. The number which the Government have is always the number that they want. Whether it be the size of the Army, the size of the "Ever-readies" or the forces required for any operation, what they have is what they need.
    I want to make one major criticism, which applies to the whole range of our defence discussions, namely, the lack of information which would enable hon. Members properly to debate the subject. The House of Commons, it seems, is always the last to be told.
    When I was first asked to wind up for the Opposition in a debate on the Estimates, I thought that as a new Member, a rather innocent daisy from Glamorgan, I should find it easy to obtain information. I could put down Questions and be able to obtain information either through the Secretary of State or from the Library. Then I should know the strength of units and where shortages were and we could grapple with the problems of the Army. I soon found, however, that in this field of events we operate in a vacuum and there is no real information available.
    Far too often Defence White Papers and Estimates appear to be conceived and planned as a method, not for showing the maximum amount of information, but rather for hiding it and revealing the minimum. If it were not for my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who is a sort of walking encyclopaedia of the Army, there does not seem to be in this House any independent source of information to which we can go to find whether a unit is or is not up to strength. Usually my hon. Friend seems to be right when he makes a statement about the strength of a particular unit.
    The point which was made by him in the defence debate and in the exchange between my right hon. Friend

    1669
    the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and the Secretary of State earlier today was about the large number of units which are under-strength. In the exchange earlier in the debate the Secretary of State refuted the allegation my hon. Friend made that battalions were being sent abroad at little more than half strength. In the end the issue resolved itself into the question of what was meant by strength. The Secretary of State had great confidence when the issue turned on whether the strength was 660 men, but when it turned on 774 men, he was far from confident. All he could say was that if my hon. Friend was arguing on that basis his allegations could be barely true and he would have to think about it. He was unable to refute my right hon. Friend when he said that there were battalions in Cyprus with not a lot more than half on the 774 basis.
    The statement has been made from time to time that there are a large number of units of the British Army today which are far below strength. I think it was the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) who said last year that 30 of the 60 battalions of infantry of the line were seriously under-strength. I am not in any way attacking the British Army nor what units have clone in recent weeks. Indeed, I am very proud of what they have done and I have said so on previous occasions. It is a great tribute to us as a nation that we have been invited to send troops to Cyprus and countries in Africa and they have carried out their tasks magnificently, but it is hardly fair to those units if they had to be sent out under-strength, as we understand they have been. The Minister of Agriculture, then Secretary of State for War, said in March, 1959, that the then strength of 635 was not enough and, by implication—and he was talking about Cyprus at the time—stated that the proper peace-time strength should be 774. He indicated that it would be dangerous to have units of a lesser number.
    The Committee will recall that last year we had a great deal of trouble with the Scots Guards. One of the main reasons for that trouble, which we all regretted, was that the strength was about 360 men; that is, 360 men with a full complement of N.C.Os. We had incidents bordering on mutiny. Although I hope
    1670
    that that situation will never be repeated, it must be realised that if units are sent out under strength—whether it be to do police or other duties—they will perform those duties effectively and efficiently, but before long the constant round of chores, guard duty and so on will wear any unit down. Under such circumstances, the War Office is taking a gamble on whether or not they will continue to do their duties efficiently.
    I am proud of what has been done so far, but do not let us forget what happened with the Scots Guards last year, particularly since that trouble occurred because of the shortage of men. That is not just my idea, for the Secretary of State's successor himself said that that was the reason for the trouble. We must approach this problem with great care and, while we have been successful so far—and the Secretary of State said the other day that he wanted to be judged on results—the right hon. Gentleman must remember that in the main our men have been performing police duties. There has not been a substantial or prolonged war. If those units were called upon to take an active part in a substantial or serious conflict the right hon. Gentleman would be gambling severely if their numbers were inadequate.
    Many issues have been raised in the debate and it is not possible for me to comment on them all. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton referred to the Gurkhas and assurances were asked for on the long-term future of the officers corps of various brigades. I hope that we will be given more information on this subject.
    The Chieftain tank is one of the favourite subjects of hon. Members in these debates. It is also an old favourite of several White Papers we have had on defence. In 1962 we were told that the tank was in the final stages of vigorous trials. In 1963 we were told that acceptance trials would take place within a few weeks and that the units would have Chieftain tanks by 1965. Now, in 1964, we are told that the tank has successfully completed its trials and that two production lines are being established. To my knowledge not a word has been said about when the units may be expected to have these tanks.
    Mr. Ramsden: We said that last year.
    Mr. Morris: It was said in the White Paper last year that it was hoped that the units would have Chieftains by 1965. That statement was repeated in the debate last year by the then Under-Secretary, but when I asked on that occasion what percentage of the units would have them he would not or could not give me the figure. I have studied that speech, and there was not a word in it about the question I then asked. In the absence of any comment about 1965 in the present Estimates, perhaps we can have some reassurance on the matter from the Under-Secretary. It was pointedly ignored by the Secretary of State in last year's debate, but I forgive him for that, as he had many things to think about at that late hour.
    I was not in the Chamber when it occurred, but in an exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) alleged that my hon. Friend had suggested last year that he wanted to withdraw tactical nuclear weapons from the B.A.O.R. My hon. Friend's recollection was that he had said nothing of that kind, but that he wanted to withdraw those weapons from the front line—not at all the same thing, as I am sure the hon. Member would agree.
    I have taken the trouble to check the actual reference. On 4th March, 1963, the Minister of Defence said that ha understood that my hon. Friend was against the N.A.T.O. nuclear deterrent, and in favour of taking tactical nuclear weapons away from the front line altogether, and my hon. Friend agreed with that. Therefore, the only suggestion made by my hon. Friend was that the tactical nuclear weapons should be taken away from the front line altogether and not from B.A.O.R., as I understand was suggested.
    Sir Richard Glyn: I immediately accepted the explanation that was put forward. Of course, they had never been in the front line—perhaps that is why the misunderstanding arose—or in any position other than where they are now. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would deal with this matter. Since it is confirmed that the Opposition's policy is to retain tactical nuclear weapons, is it their intention to retain the present tac
    1672
    tical nuclear weapons or are they not satisfied with them as they are? If the Opposition had the responsibility for the defence of the country, what change would they make?
    Mr. Morris: To deal, first, with the issue of tactical nuclear weapons, it was not my hon. Friend who suggested that they were in the front line; it was the question by the Minister of Defence that suggested they were there. Secondly, I do not propose at this stage to enter into a long discussion of the hon. Member's questions. I am sure that he will find a suitable occasion to ask his questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East.
    Helicopters have been referred to, and I think that we were warned that there would be an announcement on this subject today. That seemed to be the calculated leak, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us why the announcement has not been made in this debate. There is obviously a vital need for these vehicles, if I may use the term, and one wonders when the announcement will be made.
    Many hon. Members on both sides have referred to housing. Probably the worst recruiting officers are dissatisfied wives and dissatisfied and retired soldiers, and that is why it is absolutely vital for the Government to do everything they possibly can to ensure that there is adequate housing.
    While I am glad that a great deal of progress has been made in recent years and that the figures seem now to be going up, we remember the criticisms made two years ago by the Estimates Committee when it castigated the War Office for the delays and the fact that at that stage the Department was not able to keep up with the estimates it had made. I am sure that the whole Committee will agree that there is a long way to go before there is adequate housing. I am convinced that this is one of the most important issues in recruiting. If wives are separated from their husbands when they are sent to what is now regarded as a home posting in Germany and adequate housing is not available fairly speedily, it obviously will lead to immense dissatisfaction and it will be of no assistance to the Government in recruiting.

    1673
    As for providing facilities for the troops, there was great disquiet in Germany last year. Hon. Members will recall the incidents which we discussed in last year's debate on the Estimates. Today the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Clive Bossom) discussed the Army Kinema Corporation and the possibility of providing television for the B.A.O.R. The same point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann).
    Whether hon. Members like it or not, we as a nation have become greatly dependent upon television for a substantial part of our entertainment. When families are transferred to Germany, where it is true there is local television but of which they understand not a word, there is a feeling of being deprived of something to which they have grown accustomed in this country.
    I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us that an inquiry is being made into what might be done to ensure that there are better facilities for the entertainment of troops abroad, particularly in Germany. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also tell us whether something might be done to solve the problem of providing television and to meet the suggestion made that live shows should be sent over to visit the troops. There was a series of difficulties in Minden and other parts of Germany last year. Promises were made then that every possible inquiry would be made to discover what might be done to provide better entertainment and social facilities for our troops in Germany.
    Among many other issues canvassed in the debate were the open spaces of Dartmoor and the topsoil of Woolwich. In the limited time available I do not propose to deal with them. I only note that my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman), after a sort of "recce" last year, when he asked a number of questions, is now demanding a phased withdrawal from Darmouth. Perhaps we can have the Under-Secretary's views on this issue.
    This year sees the beginning of integration of the Services. We have discussed it for many years. One of
    1674
    the issues has been the staffing of the War Office. We were promised over the years that there would be reductions in that staff and there have been criticisms of the way in which reductions have been made. This issue has been further complicated now by the defence reorganisation.
    I am sure that the British Army has a great rôle to play in the future and that the Army, with the other Services, will be called upon more and more to integrate, Service with Service, for this purpose.
    We are very proud indeed of what it has done in recent months. We are very glad that even with our limited resources and the number of men that we have, we are able to perform our rôle so magnificently. I am sure the whole Committee will wish to send congratulations to our men in various parts of the globe, to thank them for what they have done and to bask in their reflected glory, in that we as a nation were asked to send our troops to places which were once our Colonies and which paid us the compliment of inviting us back to help them restore peace and order.
    11.26 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State and Financial Secretary for War (Mr. Peter Kirk): As the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. J Morris) said, this debate, like all Estimates debates, has ranged over a very wide field, from the moors of Devon to the vales of Monifieth and from the dockyard at Woolwich to B.A.O.R. and all points east. I shall answer as many points as I can in the time at my disposal before 12 o'clock.
    I think the most important point to get clear from the start is the question of manpower and establishments, because it is around that subject that the whole of the rest of the discussion about the strength of the Army revolves. Much reference has been made today by the hon. Members for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and for Aberavon to the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Agriculture when he was Secretary of State for War in the Estimates debate in March 1959. It might be of interest, therefore, to study exactly what he said, because I think there has

    1675
    been a slight misapprehension about this point. My right hon. Friend said:
    "The Committee already knows of our decision to raise the Army's recruiting target from 165,000 to about 180,000."
    The suggestion that has been made throughout the debate, that the target has been flexible and that we have altered the target up or down according to the number of troops that we have got, has not been true in the last five years.
    My right hon. Friend went on to say:
    "By taking in about 15,000 more recruits the Army, and particularly its fighting units, will obtain a welcome increase in strength. I want to emphasise that this decision does not affect the structure of the Army as it was settled in 1957. The number of units and the arms to which they belong remains the same."
    Later my right hon. Friend said:
    "In respect of the infantry, upon whom falls the greatest burden in the cold war, the plan for the 165,000 Army was drawn up on the basis of the majority of infantry battalions being at a strength of 635, which was the establishment of an infantry battalion at the time the re-organisation was decided upon. Experience in working with this figure has shown us that there are certain circumstances in which a higher strength would be better. This was most noticeable in Cyprus, when things were at their worst, and when units were at full stretch day and night. It was then necessary to keep battalions at a strength of over 700."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 3rd March, 1959; Vol. 601, cc. 229–30.]
    That statement was made by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Agriculture, and it is from that that this mystical figure of 774 has somehow come into the argument.
    I want to make it absolutely plain that the figure upon which we are working for establishment at the moment is 660, and it was this figure to which my right hon. Friend was referring this afternoon. It has been this figure for a considerable time. Although the former Secretary of State for War referred to the need for battalions of over 700 in Cyprus at the time when the last emergency was at its worst, I do not think anyone would suggest that things are exactly the same now and that we need exactly the same number in an infantry battalion. The infantry battalion establishment which is relevant to the argument is the three company peace establishment of 660 men, and it is wrong
    1676
    and confusing to bring in other establishments not currently in force.
    What are the facts about the infantry units in Cyprus at the moment? We do not give strengths, but I can say that the weakest of them is just under 500 strong. This battalion is the one which went off at short notice and left over 100 men behind for various reasons. Even on the figure of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), of 774, half of which I work out at 387, he is a very long way off from battalions being sent to Cyprus at about half-strength, and on the figure we are working on it is very much above half-strength. It is curious to note that, even on the right hon. Gentleman's figure, the average strength of an infantry battalion in Cyprus is almost two-thirds higher than the figure we are working on anyway. I hope that this disposes of this argument for good and all.
    Other points which were made on manpower were basically the question of B.A.O.R. and whether it was right to keep there the 55,000 men we are currently aiming at. We believe that we have a Treaty obligation to fulfil in this respect, and we intend to work towards fulfilling it. In this connection about reorganisation of B.A.O.R., I should like to refer to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House in November. He said then something about the way in which we hoped to phase in the reorganisation of B.A.O.R. to six brigade groups with the biuld up in numbers in B.A.O.R. We intended to do the one without prejudicing the other. It has, however, now become clear that the commitments recently undertaken by the Army in various parts of the world must affect the build-up in Germany in the short term. In the long term they may make very little difference. It depends on how long they last, but at the moment they must have priority. I do not think we need reproach ourselves too much about this. The Committee knows the importance of fulfilling our Treaty obligations, which is the foundation of our policy, but equally—
    Mr. Lipton: Does this argument not mean that for the present and for the foreseeable future our priorities go to our

    1677
    Commonwealth commitments over and above those we have in Germany?
    Mr. Kirk: Not for the foreseeable future, I think. At the moment, we hope, as I was saying, to carry through the reorganisation without reducing the troops. The combination of the reorganisation and the emergency coming at the same time have affected the situation. The reorganisation as announced by my right hon. Friend on 26th June is going ahead and we intend to withdraw an infantry brigade surplus to the reorganisation from the order of battle within the next few months. This will, of course, affect the rate of build-up in B.A.O.R. If, however, our world-wide commitments had permitted us, we would have had the reorganisation without even a temporary net reduction in the number of British troops, but this will not now be possible.
    Despite that, however, as I have said, it is our plan so far as we can to make up the total to 55,000 to meet our Treaty commitment, though I am not at the moment, in view of this, prepared to say when we hope to be able to do it.
    I was also asked a question about the Gurkha battalions. The position is the same as it was when I answered some Questions on this in the House in November; that is, that the planned rundown has been halted, the strength of the Gurkhas remains at about 15,000, and we shall be reconsidering the matter at a later stage.
    Mr. Paget: Surely this is very, very bad for officer recruiting? This is a subject on which, if they are to get the right officers, the Government must come to a decision quickly.
    Mr. Kirk: We shall, of course, come to a decision as soon as we can, but the hon. and learned Gentleman must understand that the length of our commitment and the size of our commitment in Borneo is not yet absolutely plain, and this is bound to govern the circumstances in which the Gurkha battalions are built up or not.
    I ought to say a word about the Reserves, a subject raised specifically by the hon. Member for Dudley, who has
    1678
    sent me a note explaining why he cannot be here at this late hour. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we might, as it were, convert the T.A. itself into a kind of "teeth' Reserve, slightly more immediate than it is now, and that also we might do something to bring Section B somewhat nearer mobilisation. I got the impression that he was trying, in fact, to convert both of these into pre-Proclamation Reserves, almost doing away with the Proclamation altogether. Of course, the T.A.E.R. the "Ever-readies", is, in fact, a teeth Reserve of the kind the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and we are trying to build it up as much as possible. Perhaps, in this connection, I ought to clear up a slip made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) in suggesting that the bounty was tax-free. I should hate the impression to get about that it was tax-free and for people then to discover that it was not. This is already a cause of a good deal of friction among people thinking of volunteering for the T.A.E.R.
    The T.A E.R. has been building up in the last few months. It is a very long way short of what we should like it to be, but it is available and it will be used if necessary. In addition, there has been the recent passage of the new Army Reserve Act, which has lengthened and broadened the whole scope of Section A, another pre-Proclamation Reserve. This also meets a point made by the hon. Member for Dudley.
    In connection with the subject of Reserves, I should like to mention one development on the reinforcement of B.A.O.R. in the event of a grave emergency. In answer to a Question on 22nd January, my right hon. Friend referred to the increased contribution for which, from 1965, we shall look to the T.A. This year and next year, while the T.A. is working up to this, we shall still, as before, want a number of part-time National Service men as individual reinforcements. There is nothing new in this, but, since we have no longer a fresh supply of National Service men starting their part-time service and, hence, available to take the place of those men who are finishing, we are having to alter the current posting instructions to existing part-time National Service men with a long period of part-time service still to perform. In other words, a number of

    1679
    these men who at present have instructions to report to T.A. units on mobilisation will now receive amended instructions telling them to report on mobilisation to reinforcement units or other T.A. units with a B.A.O.R. rôle on mobilisation.
    This is very much a short-term measure, and the total number of men likely to be pre-posted in this way will not exceed 10,000. Those affected will, however, receive fresh mobolisation instructions, and, before these are issued, I thought I should make clear to the Committee what was involved. This measure in no way alters the liability of those part-time National Service men, nor does it affect in any way the likelihood of their being called up. It is nothing to do with the pre-Proclamation liability which some National Service men still have. It is solely concerned with where they would go in the event of general mobilisation following a Proclamation.
    Some points were made about the Territorial Army, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) asked me about the possibility of entire squadrons or battalions of the T.A. training with their sister units in B.O.A.R. We are still working out the precise scheme for training with B.A.O.R., to which my right hon. Friend referred in January, and I hope very much that my hon. Friend's squadron will be able to exercise there in the near future.
    A number of hon. Members spoke about recruiting, and I should like to take up one or two of the points which were made. In the first place, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised again the question of colonial recruiting. This time, I think, he had in mind whole units or sub-units or even sections coming from various parts of the Commonwealth. I must say that that is not really what we need. We have got all the units we need. What we need is to bring them up to strength. If one creates new units, one has to create new headquarters, a new structure of command, and so on, and the whole situation becomes a little more elaborate. My right hon. Friend's method of gradually raising the limit and letting a few more
    1680
    in will probably be a better way of doing it and will probably afford an easier way of absorbing them into the Regular Army.
    The hon. and learned Member referred also to the question of pensions, in particular the old conflict between parity, on the one hand, and immutability, on the other. The difficulty is that all public service pensions are based on service rendered and on rank or, in the case of civil servants, the rate of pay preceding retirement. We cannot, however, consider Service pensions in isolation. The whole of pensions must be considered right across the board, including civil public service pensions also.
    It is a general rule, as the hon. and learned Member said, that once awarded, a basic pension is not made to match alterations in the rates or conditions of future awards. The last Pensions (Increase) Act was the sixth since the war. We must all sympathise with the difficulties which past inflation has brought to retired Service people, but I do not dispute that, even with the latest pensions increases, many of those who retired long ago will have pensions which buy less than when they were first awarded.
    The Government have consistently taken the view—I do not think that any other is defensible—that essentially all public service pensioners are faced with the same problem. As Sir James Grigg's Committee on Recruiting clearly recognised, there is no logical halfway position between our present policy and that of bringing all Service pensions up to present-day rates. We certainly could not bring existing Service pensions up to present-day rates without doing the same for public service pensioners, which would cost something like £75 million a year. We do not think it right to ask the taxpayer to insulate public service pensioners from every effect of inflation, however much sympathy we may have with them in the situation that has arisen.
    For those reasons, I do not think that it is possible to raise pensions over the whole field. We have, however, in the last Pensions (Increase) Act, specifically gone slightly further than in the previous Acts and tried to compensate for future rises in the cost of living. We hope that

    1681
    in that way we can achieve a compromise between parity and immutability.
    Mr. Paget: We on this side take the view that Service pensions are in a quite different position to Civil Service pensions, because a Service pensioner retires so much earlier. Consequently, there is much longer time for inflation to take effect. We do not have Civil Service pensioners who have been on pension for 30 years.
    Mr. Kirk: I take the point, but I still do not think that it can invalidate the general point that it would be extremely difficult to do this for Service pensioners and not do it for pensions right across the board.
    I was asked questions by both my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) and my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) about housing for soldiers leaving the Army. This is a perpetually difficult problem, as many hon. Members are aware. About five years ago, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government circulated all local authorities drawing their attention to this problem, but the local authorities, quite reasonably, pointed out that they had their own housing problems and waiting lists and their own people to look after. We have, therefore, tried through the "Save while you serve" scheme to encourage soldiers to save up to buy their own houses when they leave. I am glad to say that the scheme is going remarkably well. A large number of soldiers are taking it up and are saving with a view to ensuring that they have a house when, eventually, they leave the Service.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Clive Bossom) raised the question of the length of engagement. We are keeping an eye on possibilities of introducing other terms of engagement, but it is a good idea to let the present ones work out. It is interesting to note that one of the objects of recruiting is to get as many men as possible to sign on for nine-year rather than six-year engagements and that we have had considerable success in this way.
    When we first introduced the six-year engagement in 1957, most recruits joined for an initial six years rather
    1682
    than nine years. In 1958, the numbers taking the short engagement were more than three times those who joined for nine years. During the last three years, however, an increasing proportion have chosen nine years initially and recently more men have chosen the nine-year than the six-year engagement. That is encouraging, because it means that we will not, we hope, be faced in the future with the immense run of the kind we now have at the end of six years.
    I can also assure my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster that we shall be keeping up television advertising. We hope to increase it in the course of the next financial year. It seems to have very considerable effect.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) was quite right in thinking that the trough in recruitment to Sandhurst—I am now talking about officers—has passed. The situation now seems to be that the Royal Military Academy is taking in as many people virtually as it can.
    I was very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster raised the question of leisure. This is one of the problems to which we have perhaps devoted too little attention in the House in the past. I was grateful to him and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Aberavon, for the tribute which they paid to the A.K.C. This is a body which achieves a very great deal without ever attracting to itself very much publicity. As my hon. Friend said, it provides in very many cases a seven-day service, sometimes with two changes of film a week.
    However, there remains the very difficult question of television. In the course of the last Estimates debate, the then Secretary of State referred to the problem, and we have not been idle since then. Both my right hon. Friend and I have taken considerable personal interest in how we can get a television service in B.A.O.R. I regret to say that I am not in a position tonight to announce anything definite, but I can say that the problems that confront us are very considerable and not by any means purely financial ones either. The air waves in Germany are extremely full. It is a question of finding frequencies which we can use for the purpose. We have been having consultations with the German federal postal

    1683
    authorities, and we hope to reach some agreement with them to enable us to run our own television service for our troops in B.A.O.R. It must be realised that the Germans are under very heavy pressure from their own people to provide more television, and, understandably, this may take some time to work out; but I think we have made some progress, and I hope we shall make more.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster also mentioned the question of languages and suggested that we might encourage people to learn other languages. We do. We have a very full scheme in operation already. For the languages of N.A.T.O. countries we give awards which range from £500 for a first-class interpreter in Turkish to £25 for a colloquial speaker in German, French and Italian. Special financial provision has been made to increase the demand to undertake colloquial tests arising from the introduction of a special rapid course. I saw many soldiers taking it when I was in the B.A.O.R. a month or so ago.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) raised two rather difficult questions—the repatriation of bodies from abroad and representation at inquests. I have been into both of these quite recently. I am sorry to say that I can still see no way of providing next-of-kin representation at Army boards of inquiry, which must of their very nature remain secret, and, therefore, a representative of the next-of-kin really could not tell anybody anything about it if he came. Nor can I see any way of getting round the difficulties of repatriating bodies from areas other than North-West Europe.
    Turning to equipment, the situation with regard to wireless sets is not quite as simple as the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think. It is not just that we are afraid that soldiers will drop the sets. It is that even a transistor set for the Army would have to be a good deal bigger than it might appear because it must be able to both send and receive. A commercial transistor radio can be very simple when it is receiving along fixed lines. It need be designed only to pick up the very powerful transmissions of national radio stations. But our radios must be
    1684
    much more sophisticated. For that reason I do not think there is much chance yet of producing a really light transistor set which will meet the case.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster may be interested to know that we have got 100 Armourlite rifles on order and will try to find out whether they will suit us.
    On helicopters, the hon. Member for Aberavon expressed some surprise that there was no statement today, and said that there had been a calculated leak that there would be. If there was a calculated leak it was not from this side of the Committee, because my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation said at Question Time yesterday that he was not in a position to announce a decision on helicopter requirements for the Army this week but hoped to be able to do so very soon.
    The statement in last year's Estimates about the Chieftain tank was remarkably accurate. It will be coming into service with the Army next year, and we hope to have equipped most of Rhine Army with it by the end of 1965.
    Now I turn to the Royal Ordnance factories. There is not an enormous amount I can add to what I have already said to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann) and the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) on the reason why, unfortunately, we have had to close down R.O.Fs. I can perhaps help by making one or two points in reply to the hon. Member for Woolwich, East.
    The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know some figures of redundancies. So far, 207 industrial workers have left the Woolwich factory. Thirty have gone to other War Department employment, 61 to other Departments and nine to public bodies of various kinds. Of the established people who have transferred or left, 31 retired on pension, 14 retired on frozen pensions, 25 resigned with terminal grants and five resigned for other reasons. Of the unestablished, 32 resigned. No one has yet had to be discharged, so we hope that the run-down can continue in an orderly fashion.
    Various points were raised about the Arsenal itself. I do not see anything discreditable in having people who are, to

    1685
    a certain extent, in competition, being appointed to sit on the Advisory Board. If they did not know something of the work involved there would be no point in appointing them, and as they do not advise on contracts there is no point in interfering with them.
    The important question of land was raised. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East referred to the land in Woolwich. Not only the barracks but the whole of the garrison area there is to be redeveloped. We are pressing ahead and, when the scheme is complete, several sites will no longer be required for military use. These will be disposed of in the normal way, by public auction, unless the local authorities have an overwhelming case for acquisition by compulsory purchase.
    Some 16 acres have been put up for disposal and 6½ have actually been sold or are in process of being sold to the Woolwich Borough Council, which is also interested in the other 9½ acres. During the next five years or more, another 26½ acres will be made available for disposal. Other parts of the garrison may appear to be unused. This is inevitable as units are moved about during the various phases of redevelopment.
    The hon. Member expressed great indignation at the state of Woolwich Common, and I agree with him. I pass it regularly. It is in a shocking state. It will not continue like that for very much longer, however. Action has been taken to level the area and arrangements have been made for the importation of soil. We are turning the common back to grassland. Of the total of 35 acres all but six acres have been seeded, and these will be seeded by the end of next month if the weather holds out. I hope I have pleased the hon. Member.
    The problem of Monifieth is not as simple as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) made out. It is not only the fact that people might be fired on or trip over something that is involved, although in March last year there was a fatal accident in which a War Department employee and his son were killed and people have been injured by picking up thunder-flashes and other things.
    The annexe is at the other end of the range, and we must consider the sand
    1686
    dunes, which shift from time to time. If people wander into the area, even past sentries—that has been known—we stop firing. However, I will go into this again and, if I can, I will visit the site and see whether we can settle the matter.
    Finally, on the land side, I refer to Dartmoor. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham spoke eloquently about the damage which the Army does to Dartmoor. With the greatest respect, however, I must say that I cannot accept that the document which has been sent to all hon. Members is an accurate statement of the case. There is a very long history behind this. I will not go into it, but I have made a very careful study of all the allegations in the document, and if any hon. Member cares to raise any of them with me I will deal with them.
    For example, there have been no infringements of the safety regulations. There have been no firings on days previously advertised as non-firing days—one of the allegations made in this brochure. Training exercises outside the established training areas are carried out only alter consent of the owner-occupier has been obtained. Further, the Minister of Public Building and Works, who is responsible for ancient monuments, confirms that there has been no complaints of damage to scheduled monuments in the area.
    As for the damage done to the Langstone Menhir, I have verified that the damage was done during the war by a single member of the Home Guard, armed with a rifle, and had nothing to do with the War Department in later years. I cannot accept the document as being accurate. Other bodies work with the War Department, and I regret that the Dartmoor Preservation Association refuses to co-operate with us in making it possible for both the civilian and military use of the moor to take place at the moment.
    I have answered as many questions as I can, and I promise to write to hon. Members on any other points which have been raised, and hope to be able to satisfy them.
    In conclusion, this is the last debate on Vote A that we shall have for the

    1687
    War Office, which goes out of existence in about four weeks. I have probably had the shortest tenure of office of all in this post, because I came in only four months ago, and will presumably go out with the War Office shortly, carried out like the rest of the furniture. But in the short time that I have been here I have learnt to appreciate the great efficiency and zeal of the members of the War Office staff—civilian and military—and also to appreciate something which people sometimes forget—the way in which the civil and military sides work so happily together. I hope that in the larger organisation to which we are shortly all to be transported this same teamwork between the permanent and temporary staff will be able to continue, and will be extended on an even greater scale in the other two Service Departments.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 229,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown, 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.

  ROAD JUNCTION, HUCKNALL
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
  11.59 p.m.
  Mr. William Whitlock: At this witching hour we turn from the consideration of matters of great importance, involving the expenditure of over £500 million, to something of not nearly so universal interest, but which is of some interest and importance to my constituents.
  I wish to talk about the dangers of a place on the northern outskirts of the Hucknall Urban District Council area, where there is a junction between the B.6011, Wighay Road, and the A.611, Annesley Road. Near this junction there has been a number of accidents in recent years, some of them fatal. Strong feeling has been expressed in the area of the need for some action to reduce the dangers at this place. To the north of the junction there is a straight stretch of the road in open country known to some of the residents in the area as the "race track". Cars travel at speed along the road from the direction of Mansfield and encounter at the danger spot the combination of the bend, the junction and the beginning of the built-up area.
  On 31st July, 1963, I asked the Minister of Transport why he had refused permission for a "Halt" sign to be put at the junction at the end of Wighay Road. Nottinghamshire County Council asked for permission for this sign to be erected at this spot. The county police wanted it and the city coroner, following a fatal accident at this spot, recommended that a "Halt" sign be put there. Responsible people who know this spot and know the dangers of the area asked that the sign should be there, but the man from Whitehall said, "No, you cannot have this sign".
  In his reply to my Question on 31st July, the Parliamentary Secretary said that "Halt" signs must be limited to intersections where visibility is exceptionally bad and that the visibility at this spot did not justify having a "Halt" sign. The police, the local authority and the city coroner were all well aware of

  1689
  the extent of the visibility from the end of Wighay Road along the Annesley Road in both directions. Nevertheless, with all their knowledge of the area they felt that a sign was justified, but the rule of thumb was applied by the Ministry and the request was turned down.
  In my supplementary question, I suggested that warning signs should be placed farther north on the A.611 on the Annesley Road so that drivers might reduce speed before reaching the danger spot. The Parliamentary Secretary appeared to agree in his reply to the supplementary question. Shortly after this interchange in the House, I had a discussion on this danger spot with officials of the Nottinghamshire County Council and as a result a scheme was put forward for road widening and eliminating the dangerous bend is Annesley Road.
  A request for siting the 30 m.p.h. limit sign farther to the north had been made by the county council in 1962 and had been rejected by the Ministry. Following my visit to the county hall, the request for extension of the speed limit sign was renewed. I say at once that the provision of the roundabout at the junction would appear to be an ideal solution to the problems at this spot, but although there are plans for an eventual ring road to come out near this point, and for a roundabout to be built where the ring road comes out, the provision of a ring road would appear to be a long way down the Ministry's list of priorities and may not be made for several years ahead. In any case, expenditure on a roundabout now could prove abortive since it is by no means certain that the ring road will come out at this precise spot. Road improvement here is not only necessary now, but it could fit in with the eventual plans for a ring road.
  I am pleased that the improvement programme proposed by Hucknall Urban District Council and Nottinghamshire County Council is to rank for Ministry grant. A little bird has whispered in my ear that following the announcement that I proposed to raise this matter tonight the Department became prepared to be even more generous than it originally intended. I hope that that rumour is sound.
  So much for the improvement scheme, which in no way invalidates the need for the extension of the 30 m.p.h. limit
  1690
  sign. The present 30 m.p.h. sign is located inside the Hucknall Urban District Council area at a point where it is hidden by he bend from drivers who speed down the straight from Mansfield. It should Ix placed further back to the north so that speeds may be reduced before this danger spot is reached. However, the Ministry has turned that suggestion down on two occasions and, once again, the man from Whitehall has presumed to know best.
  The Ministry's letter rejecting this application made it clear that 30 m.p.h. signs should be erected only in built-up areas. It seems nonsense to say that there cannot be an extension of the speed limit sign beyond a built-up area when it is obvious that the danger spot is at the beginning of the built-up area and that speeds must be reduced before traffic reaches that spot.
  The Ministry's approach to this matter seems to be in line with a circular which was sent out by the Ministry in December, 1961, in which local authorities were asked to ascertain where speed limits were justified, to raise speed limits in some cases and to abolish them in others, but generally to take steps
  "… to put speed limits on a basis which will command the respect of motorists and make the limit; more easily capable of enforcement."
  I hope that the Home Secretary does not seek to apply that kind of peculiar logic to his efforts to combat crime; that he will not say that, since the crime figures show that the law commands less respect among thieves, therefore we should relax the laws on larceny.
  Apart from the implications of the circular to which I referred, the hon. Gentleman may argue that once the road improvement scheme is carried out there will be no need for an extension of the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. But if he argues that I will disagree with him because it seems that the extension is still necessary to ensure that drivers are warned that they must reduce their speed before entering the built-up area. If the extension is not agreed there is a danger that what is known as the "race track"—the straight piece of road down which cars come at great speeds—will be extended further into the Hucknall area and that we will still have an area of potential danger.

  1691
  I hope that the interest shown by the Ministry in this matter in the last few days is an indication that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to concede some of the points that I have made.
  12.8 a.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) and though it is a late hour it has been well worth waiting for. I confess that I understand and sympathise with the fears he has cogently and persuasively expressed about safety conditions at the junction north of Hucknall. All hon. Members are concerned to reduce the number of road accidents and this is a subject with which we at the Ministry of Transport have great sympathy. Indeed, it is something we are trying to achieve all the time.
  There are really three aspects of the problem at this junction north of Huck-nail. First, there is the point which the hon. Member raised in a Parliamentary Question some time ago about a "Halt" sign to replace the "Slow" sign, to which he has again referred this evening. Secondly, there is the question of whether or not the speed limit should be extended further along the road. And there is the condition of the road itself. All three aspects have to be considered in order to get the problem into a proper perspective.
  The hon. Member very properly made a Effie fun at our expense about the refusal to allow the erection of a "Halt" sign, although it is usually his own party that claims that the gentlemen from Whitehall know best, but in view of his remarks, it may help if I were to explain why this decision cannot be left to the locality.
  I can assure the House that our policy of centralising these decisions has only been evolved as a result of bitter experience. As I expect the hon. Gentleman knows, up to 1937 local highway authorities were free to provide "Halt" signs anywhere they wanted to, and the result was such a proliferation of these signs that much of their value as a safety measure was lost through overuse. For this reason, it was decided in
  1692
  1937 that "Halt" signs should be erected only where the Minister of Transport approved, and it was necessary to do this to preserve the safety value of these signs. If they became too common their value would be reduced.
  Our policy is that "Halt" signs should be restricted to junctions where visibility along the major road is so bad that it is imperative for drivers on the minor road to stop at the junction in every single case before they proceed out on to the major road. What is the visibility range at the junction north of Hucknall? As the hon. Gentleman will know, the visibility along Annesley Road from a point 25 ft. from the junction is already 240 ft. in the northerly direction, and 700 ft. to the south.
  That leads me to the aspect of the condition of the road itself. The visibility figures that I have just given refer to the present condition of the road but, as the hon. Gentleman apparently knows, the intention is to improve Annesley Road by widening it to 33 ft. When this work is completed, the visibility will be increased from 240 ft. to 1,200 ft. in the northerly direction, and from 700 ft. to 1,000 ft. towards the south. This great extension of visibility in both directions means that the criterion which justifies the erection of a "Halt" sign does not even begin to apply in this case.
  Another advantage of the road widening scheme is that it will not only greatly improve visibility for drivers coming out of Wighay Road, but also for those going in either direction along Annesley Road itself; and the visibility will be increased for those drivers by more than three times its present distance This is a very substantial improvement, as I am sure the hon. Member recognises.
  The widening of Annesley Road itself will be for a distance of 850 ft.—
  Mr. Whitlock: The hon. Gentleman said that the "Halt" sign asked for was to replace the speed limit sign. That is not so.
  Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member may have misunderstood me, but if that was what I said it was a slip of the tongue. I understood that the object was to replace the "Slow" sign at Wighay Road at the junction into Annesley Road. If I gave the impression that I was talking

  1693
  about the speed limit sign I must apologise. Does that satisfy the hon. Member?
  Mr. Whitlock: The people who recommended that this "Halt" sign should be put there were well aware of the dangers of proliferating traffic signs of all kinds. They are not irresponsible people. They felt that there should be a "Halt" sign there. I agree that a "Halt" sign will not be necessary if the improvement scheme is carried out, but we want now in addition to the improvement scheme an extension of the 30 m.p.h. limit.
  Mr. Galbraith: That is one aspect with which I propose to deal. I should like to tell the hon. Member about the details of the work which will be done on Annesley Road.
  The widening of the road will be for a distance of 850 ft. The hedge alongside will be moved hack on Annesley Road and also on the northern side of Wighay Road at the junction. This work of improvement will start in April and should not take very long to complete. I do not know exactly what it was that the little bird whispered to the hon. Member, but I am willing to tell him that the cost of the scheme will be £9,500 on which the grant will be £7,125. I hope that the hon. Member will feel that his little bird whispered in the right, cheerful tone.
  Bearing in mind the very heavy pressure which we receive from all quarters for the expenditure of our limited road improvement funds, I hope that the hon. Member will recognise that in facilitating this road improvement we are doing something really worth while to help him in his accident problem, and that we are doing it in the right way, by eliminating the cause of danger at its source by straightening out the road and improving visibility on it.
  I have examined very carefully the accident record to which the hon. Member referred. I find that over the last five years there have been five accidents involving personal injury at this junction. I agree that these are five too many, but, at the same time, we must recognise that an accident rate of one a year over five years is not high. This perhaps is not surprising, because the volume of traffic using the A.611 is only two-thirds of the average for Class
  1694
  I roads in the country as whole, and B.6011, as he hon. Member will know, is only lightly trafficked. Of the five accidents which have taken place in the last five years, the first two involved vehicles making a right turn from Annesley Road to Wighay Road, one of them being in a fog. As the hon. Member knows, right-hand turns are always fraught with danger, but I am sure that the widening of Annesley Road and the removal of the bend will do a great deal to diminish this hazard in the future, because visibility will be so much better.
  The three other accidents have all involved vehicles coming out of Wighay Road and turning to the north. One of these was in bad visibility and was a case plainly calling for increased care by the driver emerging from the minor into the major road. When the new mandatory "Give Way" signs at the mouth of minor roads are introduced, as the result of the recommendations of the Worboys Committee, they should increase the care taken by drivers on minor roads such as the B.6011. This together with the increased visibility along the major road, and with the setting back of the hedge, will I hope result in the accident record at this junction for the next five years being even lower than it has been in the last five years.
  I turn now to the suggestion which the hon. Member invited me to deal with in his intervention that the existing 30 m.p.h. speed limit should be extended northward along Annesley Road beyond the junction. Although I do not think the hon. Member mentioned it just now, it was in his Parliamentary Question, I know that another matter in which the local highway authority is interested is that a new speed limit should be imposed or Wighay Road.
  When this request was put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport by the hon. Gentleman on 18th December my right hon. Friend replied that this extension of the speed limit could not be agreed because the roads for which they were requested were not in a built-up area. I must stick to this decision, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be too disappointed when he hears the reasons. This is not another instance, as he seems to suspect, of the gentlemen

  1695
  in Whitehall knowing best. If it were a purely local matter, it would be all right to leave it to local decision, but drivers from all over the country will be affected, so the decision must be taken in the light of criteria that are generally applied throughout the whole country and are not particular to each different area or district.
  It might help if I explained the basic philsophy which guides us in this difficult matter of deciding about speed limits. The 30 m.p.h. speed limit is really only appropriate for fully built-up areas—that is. areas where pedestrians and cyclists are numerous, or where junctions and the consequent crossing and turning movements are frequent, or where bus stops and parked cars cause interruptions to the traffic flow and obstruct the field of view. In such circumstances as these, drivers recognise the need for a 30 m.p.h. limit and comply with this restriction.
  This is a very important matter because there is no point in having a speed limit in conditions which the ordinary driver does not find sensible. It is no good having a speed limit unless to the ordinary driver it seems sensible, because then he tends not to observe the speed limit. This not only brings the whole system into disrepute, but it is also exceedingly dangerous because pedestrians think they can rely upon a slow speed when, in fact, the ordinary motorist does not regard the road as fulfilling the conditions which justify a limit, and he does not drive slowly. This is the worst possible set of circumstances to have if one wishes to avoid accidents, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates.
  The conditions appropriate to a 30 m.p.h speed limit obviously do not exist on the length of Annesley Road on which the county council recently sought the Minister's consent to an extension of the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. It is not built-up at all and the sole justification offered for the limit was the junction with Wighay Road and the fact that the council was also applying for consent to the same speed limit on Wig-hay Road. But Wighay Road does not justify a 30 m.p.h. speed limit either, because there are only a few houses on one side of the road, so the application, for these reasons, had to be rejected by my right hon. Friend on these two roads.
  1696
  However, I do not want to appear altogether too negative to the hon. Gentleman in my approach to this problem. I have, therefore, asked the divisional road engineer to consider whether a 40 m.p.h. speed limit would not be better suited along the Annesley Road where it is built up only on one side, and whether a 40 m.p.h. speed limit could not also be accepted for Wighay Road. If this is done I do not think that it would be unreasonable for the speed limit to cover the junction as well, which I understand from what the hon. Gentleman has said is something which the highway authority is very anxious to achieve. Before we can come to any decision on this, it will be necessary for a traffic count to be taken and the divisional road engineer will also have to discuss the suggestion with the local highway authority.
  Earlier, I mentioned the new "Give Way" sign, but I would not like the hon. Gentleman to think that the highway authority is dependent on the introduction of Worboys signs for any further safety action it may consider necessary. At the moment there is a whole range of other warning signs which are available for use at junctions and which it is open to the highway authority to use without reference to my right hon. Friend's Department if it considers that additional signs are necessary in the interests of further road safety.
  I should like to give a few examples of additional warning signs which could be used at this junction if the highway authority thought fit. First, the word "Slow" could be written on the carriageway of the minor road at some distance in advance of the roadside "Slow" sign. If necessary, it could even be written twice, as is already done, as the hon. Gentleman will know, in the case of the south bound lane on Annesley Road north of the junction. A second possibility is that the junction warning sign on the minor road could be doubled in size. Thirdly, the longitudinal hazard lines on the minor road could he lengthened, and the broken white line across its mouth could be somewhat thickened. On Annesley Road the existing longitudinal line down the centre both north and south of the junction could be replaced by hazard lines, and north of the junction these could be marked in reflectorised material.

  1697
  I mention all these as possibilities to show that there is considerable scope left to the local highway authority, but, of course, it will be for the highway authority to determine whether any of these additional signs are or are not justified. I merely wanted to make clear the scope which does exist.
  In conclusion, I hope that what I have said has shown the hon. Gentleman how carefully the whole of the circumstances at this junction have been examined, and though this reply of mine is obviously not all he wanted, I hope that he will appreciate the reasons which make it impossible for me to agree to a "Halt" sign—I think that he does appreciate them—or to have a speed limit of the kind he proposed. Nevertheless, he will see that in three respects the matter is not as black as might be supposed. First, the road improvements will substantially reduce the danger at this junction; secondly, the D.R.E.'s inquiries may produce an acceptable solution to the speed limit problem; and, thirdly, there is scope at present for the local highway authority to use additional warning signs if it wishes. I have clone my best to help the
  1698
  hon. Gentleman, and I hope that in the light of what I have said he and his constituents may feel reassured.
  Mr. Whitlock: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the very detailed manner in which he has dealt with this matter, but may I ask him whether I understood him to say that the part of Annesley Road in Hucknall District Council area, now covered by the 30 m.p.h. sign, is to be covered by a 40 m.p.h. sign? If it is, I shall be rather unhappy at out that.
  Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman will. I fear, have to be rather unhappy, and this is a rather bad way to start the weekend. That was the suggestion. It cannot be appropriate to turn that part of Annesley Road where there are buildings on one side into a 30 m.p.h. limit. It is also the suggestion that the 40 m.p.h. limit should extend slightly beyond the junctior.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Electoral Register
  Electoral Register
  Betting Shops
  Betting Shops
  Drug Addiction
  Drug Addiction
  Footpaths (Unlawful Use by Vehicles)
  Footpaths (Unlawful Use by Vehicles)
  Eire and Commonwealth Immigrants (Immoral Earnings)
  Eire and Commonwealth Immigrants (Immoral Earnings)
  Young Persons (Homicide of a Parent)
  Young Persons (Homicide of a Parent)
  Examining Magistrates (Tucker Committee's Recommendation)
  Examining Magistrates (Tucker Committee's Recommendation)
  Robbery with Violence
  Robbery with Violence
  Metropolitan Police (C.I.D. and Uniformed Officers)
  Metropolitan Police (C.I.D. and Uniformed Officers)
  Prisoner, Horfield Prison
  Prisoner, Horfield Prison
  Metropolitan Police District (Population and Indictable Offences)
  Metropolitan Police District (Population and Indictable Offences)
  Prison Interviews (Solicitors' Form of Undertaking)
  Prison Interviews (Solicitors' Form of Undertaking)
  Convictions (Persons under 18 years of age)
  Convictions (Persons under 18 years of age)
  Employment of Prisoners (Report)
  Employment of Prisoners (Report)
NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  University of Rhodesia and Nyasaland
  University of Rhodesia and Nyasaland
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  Independence
  Independence
RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
  Public Officers' Agreement
  Public Officers' Agreement
  Dissolution (Order in Council)
  Dissolution (Order in Council)
AFRICA
  Defence Problems
  Defence Problems
KENYA
  Land
  Land
MAURITIUS
  Self-Government
  Self-Government
MALTA
  Electoral System
  Electoral System
  Emigration (Financial Aid)
  Emigration (Financial Aid)
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Information Agreements (White Paper)
  Information Agreements (White Paper)
  Unemployment, St. Helens
  Unemployment, St. Helens
  Commonwealth Countries (Tied Aid and Long-term Credits)
  Commonwealth Countries (Tied Aid and Long-term Credits)
  Manufacturing Industries (Costs and Distribution)
  Manufacturing Industries (Costs and Distribution)
  Denny Hovercraft, Dumbarton
  Denny Hovercraft, Dumbarton
  Czechoslovakia
  Czechoslovakia
  Imports (Control)
  Imports (Control)
  Advance Factory, Chester-le-Street
  Advance Factory, Chester-le-Street
  New Projects, Caithness and Sutherland
  New Projects, Caithness and Sutherland
  Butter Imports (Increased Quotas)
  Butter Imports (Increased Quotas)
  Industrial Development, Scotland
  Industrial Development, Scotland
  Cuba (Imports and Exports)
  Cuba (Imports and Exports)
  South Africa (Imports and Exports)
  South Africa (Imports and Exports)
  Industrial Development Certificates, Middlesbrough
  Industrial Development Certificates, Middlesbrough
MINISTRY OF POWER
  European Iron and Steel Industry (Productivity)
  European Iron and Steel Industry (Productivity)
  Iron and Steel Industry (Imports)
  Iron and Steel Industry (Imports)
COAL
  Houses
  Houses
EDUCATION
  Teachers (National Advisory Council)
  Teachers (National Advisory Council)
  School Building Programme, Gateshead
  School Building Programme, Gateshead
  Teacher Supply
  Teacher Supply
  Teaching Machines
  Teaching Machines
  Schools, Colne Valley (Lavatories)
  Schools, Colne Valley (Lavatories)
  Primary Schools (Reading Standards)
  Primary Schools (Reading Standards)
  INDIA (PAKISTAN REFUGEES)
  INDIA (PAKISTAN REFUGEES)
  CYPRUS
  CYPRUS
  ANGLO-SOVIET FINANCIAL CLAIMS
  ANGLO-SOVIET FINANCIAL CLAIMS
TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
  Zanzibar (Overseas Service Aid Scheme)
  Zanzibar (Overseas Service Aid Scheme)
  EAST AFRICAN TERRITORIES (BRITISH HELP)
  EAST AFRICAN TERRITORIES (BRITISH HELP)
  MINISTERS (TELEVISION INTERVIEWS)
  MINISTERS (TELEVISION INTERVIEWS)
  SCOTLAND (GOVERNMENT-SUPPORTED SCHEMES)
  SCOTLAND (GOVERNMENT-SUPPORTED SCHEMES)
  PRIME MINISTER (PUBLIC RELATIONS)
  PRIME MINISTER (PUBLIC RELATIONS)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Service Pensions (Review)
  Service Pensions (Review)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Cancer Research (International Co-operation)
  Cancer Research (International Co-operation)
ROADS
  A.62 (Accidents)
  A.62 (Accidents)
EMPLOYMENT
  Saddleworth
  Saddleworth
POST OFFICE
  Vandalism, Birmingham
  Vandalism, Birmingham
SHIPPING
  Shipbuilding (South African Contracts)
  Shipbuilding (South African Contracts)
BRITISH ARMY
  War Department Land, Monifieth and Buddon Burn
  War Department Land, Monifieth and Buddon Burn

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester

THE FOREIGN OFFICE BUILDING
3.5 p.m.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have given thorough consideration to the principle of retaining the exterior facade of the Foreign Office but removing all the interior and re-designing this: or, if not, would they hold a public architectural competition to see whether some private architect could produce a satisfactory solution to this by no means insoluble architectural problem, as has been proved with such success in many other cultural countries?]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the idea of reconstructing the Foreign Office within the existing facade was exhaustively considered by my right honourable friend. He has, however, reached the conclusion that a scheme of interior reconstruction could provide neither the amount nor the standard of accommodation needed. As my right honourable friend has made clear in another place, he intends to appoint an architect capable of designing a fine building which is both functionally adequate and worthy of this important site.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he will not hold a public competition to see whether he can get exactly what he wants? This is not an insoluble architectural problem, as any architect of experience will tell you.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, that this is not an insoluble architectural problem. Is it not a fact that the Home Office also is located in the Foreign Office building; and has the problem of moving the Home Office out to a new building—one on, say, the site of the old Westminster Hospital, which still stands bare—thus making more room for the Foreign Office, been fully considered?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the Home Office is at present located within this general building. My understanding is that it is the idea that, when the new Government building is constructed between Bridge Street and Richmond Terrace, part of that new building will be occupied by the Home Office. This will, in fact, give more room on the existing Foreign Office site, but it will give nothing like the amount of room which is required if all the Foreign Office departments are to be brought together, as is clearly desirable.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Earl answer the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Bossom? Why is it that we cannot have a competition, so that we may have the opportunity of studying, the ideas of a number of architects, instead of relying on one architect and the Minister's own decision?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it would, of course, be possible to have a competition; but my right honourable friend is absolutely certain that without a new building it is quite impossible to accommodate all the staff that are required within this existing site. I should perhaps mention that it is his intention to appoint a planning consultant, so that the treatment, both of this new site and of the new site opposite, the Bridge Street-Richmond Terrace site, should be handled together and viewed as a whole.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, would the noble Earl tell us what is going to happen to the Commonwealth Relations Office, which also is expanding very rapidly?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the idea is that the Commonwealth Relations Office will be located, along with the Foreign Office, in this building.
LORD BOSSOM: Is my noble friend aware that, by using long-span, pre-stressed construction, you could do this work and probably get all the accommodation needed at much less cost and in very much less time?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not aware of this, but I will certainly bring my noble friend's ideas to the attention of my right honourable friend.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he will not give further and deeper consideration to the suggestion made in this Question? Is it not a great pity that one of the classic views of London, of a really worthy building, should be lightly cast aside? When you come across St. James's Park and see that tower you see one of the best-known views of this city. I would beg the noble Earl to consider further some such suggestion as that made in this Question.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend will give very careful consideration to the views which are expressed in your Lordships' House on this matter. I would agree with the noble Lord that this is a very fine building—at least to some eyes, including mine—from the outside; but he knows as well as I know how intolerable it is inside for a great many people who work there. Also, I think the Question implies a lack of confidence in our architects to-day which is not entirely justified.
LORD KILLEARN: In reference to the noble Earl's statement just now, judging by the new buildings which are put up in Whitehall I think it would be appalling to have something similar set up in St. James's Park. With all respect—cubic capacity, if you like; but there is something else besides cubic capacity involved. I really would beg my noble friend to give more serious consideration to this question.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, will the noble Earl bear in mind that this is partly an engineering problem, and not merely an architectural one? I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, that long-span, pre-stressed concrete bars might be the answer, but that might be very unpopular with the architects. Will the noble Earl make sure that appropriate consultations take place with structural engineers?—because I am
214
quite sure this problem could be solved as a structional engineering problem. This is a gem of architecture which it would be a shame to destroy.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I thought that I had made it clear, in replying to another noble Lord just now, that my right honourable friend will pay very careful attention to these views which have been expressed.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, are the Minister and my noble friend so totally indifferent to the very serious thought of probably a million or more informed people who have reputations for good taste as to destroy a building of this sort—a building that will not be replaced by anything like so congenial a building when another is erected on this site?
EARL JELLICOE: No, my Lords.
EARL ATTLEE: Is it really so necessary for all the Departments to be under one roof? Surely, we have had many instances where Departments have found it quite possible to send part of their staffs away. I am quite sure that parts of the Foreign Office could do the same thing.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think it has been considered that there would be considerable advantage felt by this Government, as it was felt by the noble Earl's Government, in co-locating (to use that horrible expression) the Foreign Office staff in one building.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for what he has said: that he will take all these matters very seriously and convey them to the Minister and see whether something cannot be done to retain the façade of a building of such historical value.

DIPLOMATS' CARS AND TRAFFIC LAWS
3.14 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: 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 cars owned by members of the Diplomatic Corps in London are subject to traffic laws and rules, and to parking regulations; and, if not, what measures are taken to ensure that they do not cause danger to the public or

215
obstruct traffic; how many cars are granted diplomatic status; and how many times in the last twelve months charges would have been brought if diplomatic immunity had not been claimed.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, persons who are entitled to diplomatic immunity and who drive cars are expected to observe the traffic laws in the same way as citizens of this country. As guests, they are entitled to as much courtesy as can within the law be extended to them, but the Heads of Diplomatic Missions were reminded in a circular letter last December of the responsibility of all members of the Diplomatic Corps to observe the regulations and to do their best to co-operate with the police in their difficult task of keeping the traffic moving in London. If there is danger or obstruction, cars can be, and have been, removed.
I understand that since January 1 this year the London County Council has issued 1,975 Excise-exempt licences for diplomatic vehicles. During 1963 the Home Office received police reports of 50 traffic incidents in the Metropolitan Police District in which drivers claiming diplomatic immunity were involved. In addition, I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that in the same year, in respect of parking offences for which fixed-penalty notices had been issued, no proceedings were taken in about 2,078 cases because the persons involved claimed diplomatic immunity. It is not possible to say whether charges would have been preferred in all these cases had it not been for the entitlement to diplomatic immunity.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask whether the Government are satisfied that the Heads of Diplomatic Missions in London are fully aware of the apparent inequity of the existing state of affairs; and whether they are bringing pressure to bear on those members of their staffs who are guilty of these offences?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the Heads of Diplomatic Missions are well aware of the problem and, as I have already said, a circular was issued reminding
216
them last December. I cannot answer for what steps they themselves take as regards their staff; that is a matter for the Heads of Missions.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, in view of the Minister's Answer may I ask whether he can comment on a report in the Press that the Foreign Office has recently circularised the appropriate Departments requesting that action be not taken?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, no such instructions have been issued by the Foreign Office; but I understand (and perhaps I had better amplify this) that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has instructed the police and traffic wardens to do their best for diplomatic persons in not enforcing parking regulations with full rigidity. Where, however, a car is holding up traffic, or is a danger to the public, it is the duty of the police to have it removed. I would stress what I have already said as to the responsibility of all members of the Diplomatic Corps to observe the regulations and to co-operate with the police in their difficult task.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask whether diplomatic representatives abroad have corresponding facilities and privileges to those of diplomatic representatives in this country?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, in general terms the answer is, Yes. I cannot say that there is no country that does not take a similar line—I am afraid that I do not know. I do not think that there is any country where that does not happen; but in the vast majority reciprocal treatment is accorded to our representatives abroad.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, now that the Minister has kindly given us these figures—and they are very important figures—in the Answer to Lord Molson's Question, can we ask the Government to produce, for example, statistics to show how many actions have been taken against British diplomats in countries like the United States of America, France, Italy and the like?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I do not know whether that information

217
could be obtained. I shall, of course, ask, but at the moment I have no information about that.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that from the figures given, some diplomatic representatives seem to show a cynical indifference to the citizens of this country; and is it not time that we withdrew the immunity from some of these offenders?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think I can perhaps best answer that question by referring to Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which is an international Convention and states that it is the duty of all persons enjoying diplomatic immunity to respect the laws and regulations of the country in which they are serving. That is the international position, and I think this is not a case where one can discuss taking away diplomatic immunity, remembering that our representatives abroad also have diplomatic immunity.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, in view of the Minister's statement that it is the duty of these people to have respect for the laws of the country in which they reside—he cited over 2,000 offences; yet apparently no action can be taken by the Government, and presumably no effective action be taken by the Heads of the Diplomatic Missions—cannot something be done, even under the international Agreement to which the noble Lord has referred?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I cannot accept that no action has been taken by the Heads of Diplomatic Missions. There is not the slightest doubt that action has been taken. But that is a matter for them and not for us.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Lord say, since it was not the Foreign Office, which Government Department or Minister asked the Commissioner of Police to have a word with members of the force? Is it true that this action was initiated through complaints from the Heads of Diplomatic Missions who said that the police here were dealing with their staffs too harshly?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, this is the normal procedure in most countries. They are not too rigid about
218
parking offences. We carry out the practice which is usual in most countries. If a diplomat offends against the traffic laws, we notify the head of the Mission. Unless the offence is likely to cause danger to the public, the police do not operate the law too rigidly, if they can help it, because diplomats are guests here. This applies in other countries in exactly the same way.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Lord say which Government Department made representations to the Commissioner of Police? He would not do it on his own initiative.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the Commissioner of Police is responsible for traffic in London.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that this question of diplomatic immunity has been debated in two full debates in your Lordships' House in the last few years, the whole gist of which was that it has been perverted for uses for which it was never intended. It was never intended to cover subordinate staff, such as chauffeurs. It was intended to apply to Ambassadors and their immediate staffs. How many people are now covered—2,000 or more? It is intolerable.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am very interested in the noble Lord's speech, but it has nothing to do with the Question.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I consider that that is an extremely rude remark.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask a question, which I think the Minister will admit is pertinent? Would it not be more in accordance with reasonable procedure, and probably also helpful to Heads of Diplomatic Missions, if the instruction issued by the Commissioner of Police about these parking offences stated that in the ordinary course, people would be served with a notice and could, if they wished, plead their diplomatic immunity, but that if it was clear, on the face of it, that there was good reason for not giving a ticket, then it would not be given? At the present moment, it would appear that anybody—most probably a lot of young diplomats going to night-clubs,

219
and not distinguished Ambassadors keeping important appointments—can get away with it. That really cannot be right.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think that I must make it clear that Heads of Missions are fully aware of what is going on in certain cases, when their staff infringe the law.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not rather unfair of the Government to put all the blame and all the responsibility on to the Commissioner of Police? And is it not quite invidious to expect a policeman or traffic warden to have to decide whether or not to enforce the rigour of the law?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, perhaps I may go a little further in roughly describing what the Commissioner of Police has said to his police officers. As your Lordships may or may not be aware, the licence of diplomatic cars has a special marking on the licence holder—I am not referring to "CD" plates. The Commissioner of Police, who is responsible for traffic, with the agreement of the Home Office, has told his policemen where possible to find the driver of a diplomatic car and tell him to shift it; not to "run him in" straight away, if he knows that it is a diplomatic car. If the driver cannot be found, and if the car is causing an obstruction, or is a danger in any way, the car is towed away; and offending cars will continue to be towed away in these circumstances.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, if it is mainly a question of parking offences, would it not be reasonable to consider what is being done in certain capitals abroad—that is, in regard to special parking areas reserved for our Ambassadors—so that Heads of Diplomatic Missions would have greater facilities for parking cars outside their premises?
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, suggested that diplomatic immunity was being gravely misused. I would suggest to your Lordships that perhaps Question Time is in danger of being misused on this occasion. If
220
noble Lords want to debate this question, I suggest that we ought to do it properly and in order, and not allow Question Time to become a small debate.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!

RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES AND TRADE UNIONS
3.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: 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, in view of their action over restrictive practices in the retail trade, they will now turn their attention with equal thoroughness to curbing restrictive practices in all sections of the community.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, the Government are opposed to restrictive practices in all sectors of the economy, unless they can clearly be shown to be in the public interest. Their proposals for further strengthening the legislation dealing with restrictive practices are contained in a White Paper published to-day.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer, but is he aware that there is in this country a growing volume of opinion which considers that, in the interests of the economy and the real value of wages, the time is now approaching when Her Majesty's Government, in co-operation with the unions, should set up some form of inquiry into the working of the trade union Acts as regards restrictive practices in the unions?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the Government regard this matter primarily as a matter of management, whose duty it is to negotiate by voluntary agreement for the progressive removal of restrictive arrangements, and they regard it as the Government's responsibility to remove the obstacles to change which so often encourage such restrictive arrangements.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, would the Government not set an example by removing the restrictive practices on postmen?
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, if the Government are so much against restrictive practices, could the noble Lord explain why, out of 23 recommendations made by the Monopolies Commission, the Government have acted on only three of them?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, under the monopolies legislation, the Government's duty is primarily to persuade industry to adopt the recommendations that have been made. This has been successful in all the cases where the Government have decided that this is the right course to adopt. As the noble Lord will see, when he reads the White Paper, it is now proposed to go a little further and to take powers where it is not possible to persuade industry to adopt the recommendations which the Government think fit.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, as well as giving attention to restrictive practices among trade unions, would the noble Lord give some indication of whether the range is to be extended so that some attention is given to the restrictive practices of the legal profession, so that we may secure some reduction in legal costs?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that this is probably not a question for me, but perhaps I should explain that the Government consider it right to move step by step in this field of services, and propose, in the first instance, that commercial services relating to goods should be included in future legislation.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, in that case, may I ask when the proposed restriction upon householders being forced to accept, willy-nilly, unaddressed mail they do not want, a restriction of the rights and freedom of householders, may be properly protected?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that that is a suggestion which goes rather outside the scope of this particular Question. It does serve to show what was the purpose of the
222
Question of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, which I am afraid I did not appreciate.

DRIVING TESTS IN DARKNESS
3.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: 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 anything can be done to give part of the driving test in real or simulated darkness.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords I am sure that my noble friend appreciates that to conduct driving tests in "real" darkness is just not a practicable proposition. A simulated test would be equally difficult, as well as unlikely to be effective.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. I was of the opinion that we could have driving tests in simulated darkness but I am quite prepared to accept my noble friend's assurance that it is quite impracticable.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords I am obliged to my noble friend. I am afraid it would be ineffective. Of course, it would be nice if it could be done, but I feel it is a long way off yet.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, in the interests of road safety, may I ask my noble friend what steps the Government are taking for learner drivers to obtain practice and instruction on equipment able to simulate difficult or dangerous road conditions, in the same way that air crews can obtain practice and be tested on flight simulators on the ground instead of in the air? Is it not possible for something of that kind to be done?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think I must say to my noble friend that he certainly might ask that if he were to put a Question on the Paper, but, frankly, I do not think I am justified in answering that as arising out of the Question that we have before us.

UNITED NATIONS FORCE IN CYPRUS
3.31 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat a statement being made in another place. As your Lordships will know, the Security Council unanimously adopted the resolution on Cyprus yesterday. Part of this resolution recommends the creation, with the consent of the Government of Cyprus, of a United Nations peace-keeping force in Cyprus. The composition and size of the force is to be established by the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Governments of Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom. The Commander of the force is to be appointed by the Secretary-General and to report to him. The force is to exist for three months, all costs pertaining to it being met in a manner to be agreed upon by the Governments providing the contingents and by the Government of Cyprus. The Secretary-General may also accept voluntary contributions for this purpose.
The function of the force will be, in the interests of preserving international peace and security, to use its best efforts to prevent a recurrence of fighting and, as necessary, to contribute to the maintenance and restoration of law and order and a return to normal conditions.
The resolution also provides for the Secretary-General to designate, in agreement with the Cyprus Government and the Governments of Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom, a mediator, who is to use his best endeavours in promoting a peaceful solution and an agreed settlement of the problems confronting Cyprus.
Since the Secretary-General will now be immediately considering and discussing with all concerned the problems of the composition and direction of the force, as well as the appointment of the mediator, it would not be proper for me to anticipate the results of his efforts. All I need say is that we are most anxious that they should meet with success as soon as possible.
I should like to make clear that Her Majesty's Government greatly welcome these arrangements and look forward to
224
their bringing peace to the Island of Cyprus. I think, at the same time, your Lordships will wish me to pay a tribute to the British Forces who have for the last three months performed such magnificent service in the troubled conditions of the Island.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for giving us this statement. To take his last point first, I am sure the whole House will welcome the invitation that we should join in the tribute to the British Forces who, in the most difficult circumstances, have performed their duties with such good temper and efficiency. I am sure we are all proud of them.
I should like to ask whether the Leader of the House could possibly give us some idea of the time that is going to be taken. These matters are urgent. I share the wish of the Government that as great speed should be made as possible in bringing these necessary preliminary talks to a conclusion. But, especially, ought it not to be a matter of early consideration to announce the appointment of a mediator, as well as, as soon as the agreement has been made upon the United Nations peace force, the appointment of the commander? The appointment of a mediator seems to us to be of great importance.
The other point I want to put to the noble Lord is this. We have all been reading about the efforts which are being made by the Cyprus Government to enlist further security forces of their own, and there will no doubt be a question of arms for them. I should like to know what the view of the Government is, or what representations they will make as to the future distribution of arms of this kind. If there is to be a United Nations Force, ought not these things to cease?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I note with pleasure the way in which the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition has associated the Opposition with the tribute, which I know all your Lordships endorse, to the British Forces in Cyprus. With regard to the noble Earl's first question I know that the Secretary-General has very much

225
in mind what he says: there is a great need for speed and urgency. I know, too, that the Secretary-General is taking steps at this moment on the two matters to which the noble Earl referred. It is, of course, within the competence of the Secretary-General to appoint the commander of the force without consultation with the other countries concerned; but for the appointment of a mediator it will be necessary for him to consult with the four Governments most closely involved. As to his second point, this is a matter for the terms of reference of the force itself, and is within the competence of the Secretary-General. I have no doubt that he has very much in mind the sort of problem the noble Earl has raised.
LORD REA: My Lords, I am sure it is unnecessary, but I should like to add from these Benches my warm tribute to the British Forces who have done so well in that particular part of the world. While I accept the remarks of the noble Lord the Leader of the House that the matter must be treated with care until it is gone into, I should like to ask him two questions, but if he cannot answer them at this moment I shall well understand. Can he give us any idea of what proportion of this new force will be British? Secondly, if at the end of the period, unfortunately, things do not come to a satisfactory conclusion, will this country still be left bearing the heavy responsibility which it now has?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, to take the last question first, it is because we have felt for some time that this was a very onerous duty imposed upon us as a member of the Commonwealth, to have the sole responsibility for peacekeeping in Cyprus, that we welcome this resolution. Since the resolution went through only yesterday, it is perhaps a little early to talk of failure. With regard to the noble Lord's first question, I am afraid it is too early to say what the exact composition of the force will be. After all, the Secretary-General has had only a few hours so far to make up his mind what steps to take.
LORD REA: My Lords, I quite understand. I thank the noble Lord very much.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, it is one of the functions of the international force to maintain and restore law and order and a return to normal conditions. Will it be one of the responsibilities of the international force in that connection to see that there is a stoppage of the illegal distribution and possession of arms, which is a contribution to the uncertainties and troubles in Cyprus itself?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I must say that I should certainly have thought so. But we shall have to see what are the exact instructions the Secretary-General gives.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are a great many people in this country who regard a British political solution to the problems in Cyprus as still of great importance, having regard to our historical responsibility for that island and the fact that Cyprus is a member of the Commonwealth? I confess to some anxiety about the nationality of the mediator and the possibility that he will range so large through the United Nations channels for a solution, and that Britain will be only one of the countries consulted. If the mediator is not to be British, may we press that at any rate we shall take a foremost place in trying to find any solution to this problem?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not entirely know what my noble friend means by a "British solution". If he means that the solution should take account of British interests, that will be the aim of Her Majesty's Government.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask what arrangements have been made for the general and administrative staff of this United Nations force; and whether it has not been the lesson of the United Nations force in the Congo that what is required by the United Nations is a permanent staff organisation rather than a permanent organised force, which might provide great difficulties for the United Nations in future?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I have no doubt that this point is very much in the Secretary-General's mind. I take note of it.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, since in our debate here in February, 1963, there was on all sides great pressure for the formation of a permanent United Nations force, could the noble Lord the Leader of the House say whether Her Majesty's Government have taken any steps during the last year to bring this to the attention of the United Nations?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to put that Question down on the Order Paper.

CITY OF LONDON (COURTS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LIFE ASSOCIATION OF SCOTLAND LIMITED BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CAMBRIDGESHIRE AND ISLE OF ELY ORDER, 1964
3.41 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, it might be convenient for the House if the two Orders were taken together, the Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely Order, on the one hand, and the Huntingdon and Peterborough Order, on the other—they are made under the same provision of the Local Government Act, 1958, and are very similar in content—although I will move them separately. The House will recall that the Luton and Solihull Orders which were recently approved were the first major measures of local government reorganisation outside London for a quarter of a century and the first Orders to emerge from the process of reorganisation set under way by the Local Government Act, 1958. The Orders now before your Lordships are the second product of this procedure. Their purpose is to constitute by amalgamation two new counties of Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely, and Huntingdon and Peterborough, and to make some other alterations to county boundaries. If the Orders are approved
228
by Parliament, these will be the first new administrative counties to be created since the Isle of Wight was separated from Hampshire in 1890.
The Commission dealt with the four counties of Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, the Isle of Ely and the Soke of Peterborough in their report on the East Midlands General Review Area which, as required by the Act, has been laid before Parliament with the Orders. At an early stage of their review of the area the Commission found that the problems of local government structure in these four counties were so interconnected that they ought to consider them together. There were three main problems. The first concerned the local government structure in the Soke of Peterborough where there was a lack of balance between town and country. Eighty-one per cent. of the county's population and 88 per cent. of its rateable value lay in the City of Peterborough. Special joint authorities, on which both city and county were represented, had been set up for some services like education, police and civil defence. This lack of balance was likely to become more acute when the city's population reached 60,000 and it would then become entitled to claim delegation of health and welfare services.
The second problem arose out of the local government structure in the county of Cambridgeshire. Difficulties arose partly because Cambridge City had half the population of the county and two-thirds of its rateable value, but was entitled to only minority representation on the county council, and partly from the city's special needs as a regional centre and university town. As the Commission put it, the city was too big a fish for the Cambridgeshire pond; either the fish had to be taken out of the pond or the pond had to be enlarged.
Finally, the Commission thought reorgansation essential for Huntingdonshire, the Isle of Ely and the Soke of Peterborough, which are among the smallest counties in England, if their services were to be improved. In considering this problem, the Commission tried to get a general impression of the conditions under which the main services had to be provided, and the extent to which services could be developed beyond a minimum. From these studies

229
they concluded that Huntingdonshire, the Isle of Ely and the Soke of Peterborough were, by comparison with larger counties, far too narrowly limited in their population, resources and case loads. These limitations affected the range of staff with special experience and the range of special institutions which they could afford to carry. As the Minister told the Commons on August 2 last, when the county amalgamations were discussed on the Adjournment, there is no criticism of the members or officers of the authorities; it is just that effectiveness of services is substantially determined by size.
The Commission went on to consider claims for county borough status from the Cities of Cambridge and Peterborough. Peterborough's claim was rejected at an early stage because its population, then just under 60,000, was far short of the figure of 100,000 which under the Act is presumed sufficient for the discharge of the county borough functions. Cambridge City, on the other hand, with a population of 94,000 had a much stronger case. The question was whether a pattern of county administration could be devised which would withstand the loss of the City of Cambridge.
In their draft proposals the Commission attempted to find such a pattern. They suggested that Cambridge should be given county borough status and that the rest of the four counties should be merged into a single administrative county. Apart, however, from the cities of Cambridge and Peterborough, the draft proposals were strongly opposed by the local authorities and particularly by the county councils. The opponents said that a single county would be so inconvenient as to be ineffective, and they were strongly against taking the population and resources of Cambridge City out of an area otherwise generally sparsely populated and poor in terms of rateable value.
The Commission were impressed by the weight of these arguments, and also by the support given by three of the four counties to the alternative idea of leaving Cambridge as a non-county borough and forming two new counties by amalgamation on a North-South basis. It was this plan which the Commission proposed on their final report. There were a number of objections to the Commission's proposals
230
and a public local inquiry was held into them at Cambridge in October, 1962. Copies of the Inspector's report on the inquiry and of the Minister's decision letter have been made available to noble Lords in the Library and the Printed Paper Office.
The decision letter makes it clear that, after considering the objections and representations and the Inspector's report on the inquiry, the Minister came to the conclusion that the present local government structure of these four counties was unsatisfactory and unsuitable for the future. He agreed with the Commission that the primary aim must be to strengthen the counties. In choosing between the two possible ways of doing this, he thought it right to give a good deal of weight to the fact that the two-county system commands a large measure of local support. He therefore accepted the Commission's proposals for the amalgamation of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely, on the one hand, and of Huntingdonshire and the Soke of Peterborough, on the other hand.
Before going on to outline the provisions of the Orders, it may be helpful to deal with the boundaries of the two new counties. The Commission proposed some twenty alterations in the boundary between the two new counties and in their boundaries with Bedford, Essex, Hertfordshire and Northamptonshire. There were objections to 5 of these 20 proposals. The proposals and objections concerning the boundary between Northamptonshire and Huntingdon and Peterborough have been left for consideration along with any proposals which the Commission may make for Stamford, which is in the Lincolnshire and East Angia area and still under review.
In the other four cases public local inquiries were held. After considering the reports on these inquiries, the Minister rejected the proposal for the transfer of Royston from Hertfordshire to the new county of Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely, and also the proposal for exchange of parishes on the Huntingdonshire-Cambridge boundary. He accepted the proposals for the transfer of Thorney Rural District from the Isle of Ely to the new county of Huntingdon and Peterborough, which were supported by

231
the district council, and also, with modification, he accepted the proposal for the transfer to that county of the Bedfordshire township of Eaton Socon which adjoins St. Neots. The boundaries of Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely with Norfolk and West Suffolk remain the present ones pending completion of the Commission's review of those two counties in the Lincolnshire and East Anglia General Review Area.
The contents of the two Orders are very similar. In many respects their provisions are similar to those contained in the Luton and Solihull Orders, which the House considered recently. Other provisions follow wherever possible the general lines of the London Government Act, 1963, and of the Administration of Justice Act.
The object of the Orders is, of course, to create two new counties, and this is done by Article 5. Article 5 also deals with the changes of county boundaries and the consequent changes in the areas of some county districts and parishes. The other provisions of the Orders are consequential on these basic operations. There are a substantial number of them, and I propose to mention only a few of the more important ones.
The new counties will not come into existence until April 1, 1965, but the councils will need some time to prepare for the amalgamations. For this reason, Article 8 provides for elections to the new county councils to be held this autumn. Article 8 also lays down the number of councillors for the new county councils. Article 7 keeps the existing county councils in office until they hand over their functions to the new authorities on April 1, 1965. This provision avoids the inconvenience of holding elections in April of this year for councils which will be in office for less than twelve months. This proposal has been welcomed by the county councils.
The Articles on administration of justice provide for each of the new counties to have a single court of quarter sessions and a single magistrates' courts committee. The new counties will also each have a Lord Lieutenant and a Sheriff. Other Articles make detailed provision for the transfer of services from the present county councils to the
232
new ones. For example, in the case of Huntingdon and Peterborough, Article 22 deals with the education services, Articles 25 to 31 with the health and welfare services, and Article 34 with planning. To start with, the new county councils are required to maintain the services provided by the present authorities. They will, however, need to reconsider and replan their services in the light of the greater scope which increased population and resources will afford them.
The Orders also contain provision for the transfer of local authority staff and for the protection of their terms and conditions of service on the lines laid down in Section 85 of the London Government Act, 1963. All the staff of the present county councils and of the Peterborough Joint Education Board will be transferred to the employment of the new county councils. Local authority employees for areas to be transferred because of boundary alterations will move to the employment of the new authority.
These Orders provide, in the Government's view, a good solution to the local government problems of these four counties. It is a solution which has the disadvantage of not meeting Cambridge City's claim to be a county borough; that is true. But it is a solution which will strengthen county government very greatly. First it will improve the internal balance of the counties incorporating Cambridge and Peterborough cities; and, secondly, it will substantially raise the resources of the counties in population and wealth. These two new counties should be able to provide good services over the widest field, attracting the necessary specialist officers and running the necessary special institutions on a scale which hitherto has not been possible. Moreover, they should draw strength from existing county loyalties; for the great merit of the reorganisation the Government are proposing is that it attracts the maximum possible amount of support in the counties. Even in the case of the Isle of Ely, which has stoutly maintained its claim to independence, there is good reason to hope that the new county will evoke support and enthusiasm.
The Minister is indeed indebted to the members and officers of all four county

233
councils for their ready assistance with the Orders, and is encouraged by the signs that they are ready to come to grips with the problems which will face the new county councils. My Lords, this is perhaps rather a long introduction, but in view of the importance of the alterations I think it is necessary to explain this matter at some length. I beg to move that the Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely Order, 1964, be approved.
Moved, That the Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely Order, 1964, be approved.—(Lord Hastings.)
3.56 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not want to say anything about the merits of this Order. I have not had very much time to examine it, but it looks all right. I should like to pay a tribute to the Minister for the very clear and careful way in which he has explained what has happened. What I am a little concerned about is the position of Cambridge City. It has to-day a population of 94,000. It is within reach of the target for becoming eligible to be a county borough, and it seems to me that it will not be very long before it will strike that figure of 100,000. On the face of it, I should have thought that Cambridge is eminently suitable to be a county borough.
This arrangement seems to me to be permanently excluding Cambridge from becoming a county borough. Cambridge is becoming so important a factor in the new county that to remove it later on, even if it were to obtain a considerably larger population, would destroy the viability of the new county. I wonder whether the Government have considered that point. It seems unfair to Cambridge that, apparently for all time, they should be precluded from becoming a county borough simply because the county, as now reorganised, will not be viable without Cambridge. This is possibly a matter for the future, although the not too distant future, and I shall be very grateful if the noble Lord can give us the Government's view on this point.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Silkin, I do not propose in any way to criticise the Orders which are before us this afternoon. But, as the Minister knows, there has been considerable opposition in the area to the proposed amalgamations and alterations
234
which we are considering. I should like to thank the noble Lord for his courtesy in informing me of what is now the procedure for making known the views of the local government commissions. The reports are available in the Printed Paper Office and the Library. I was wondering whether they had just been made available, or when they were available, and, if it has not been done, whether in future in the document which is circulated to Members an indication could be included of the papers which are available, sometime before the Orders are submitted to the House for consideration and agreement.
3.58 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, if I may reply first to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, I think it is true that the various Papers to which he is referring are put in the Printed Paper Office and the Library at the time of the Orders. He will remember that in my letter to him I drew attention to the fact that decision letters are issued a long time before, so that the Orders may be prepared, and they are available to any noble Lord who is interested. I will, however, go into this particular point and see whether perhaps these facts can be made available, or at least notified, at a previous moment. But the real information the noble Lord wants is in the decision letter, and I think that is a quesion of noble Lords' asking the Ministry of Housing and Local Government if they might have a copy. I think that would be the best solution.
To turn to the problem put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, of course this was really the basic problem that had to be solved by the Commission. In their first proposals, as I said in my remarks, the Commission suggested that Cambridge City should have county borough status, but they pointed out that the only way in which that could be considered the really appropriate solution in the circumstances of the whole area would be if at the same time the other four counties came together into one unit; because the noble Lord was talking about viability. Even now, if Cambridge City is taken out of the two counties, Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely, the rest becomes not viable. How much more would that be the case if Cambridge City were taken

235
out of Cambridgeshire by itself? In terms of population and rateable values, Cambridgeshire would become as small as the Soke of Peterborough is now—in fact it would become poorer, because it would not have Peterborough to support it, as the Soke has.
When it came to trying to get agreement on the single unit for the four counties without Cambridge City, it proved quite impossible, and all the county councils objected very strongly. Even Peterborough, which at one time was in favour of that solution, because it foresaw that it might be the capital, so to speak, of the administrative unit and eventually perhaps get its own county borough status—when the two-county proposal was put forward, changed sides and supported the present proposal which is the subject of the Order. Cambridge City, of course, would soon be entitled to ask for county borough status, but in the meanwhile I think this is the best solution that can be obtained in all the circumstances. We shall have to see what happens in the future. Maybe Cambridge City will be quite content with the new arrangement and let it go along for many years. If it does make an application, we shall have to consider it at that time.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, would the noble Lord suggest to his right honourable friend the possibility of siting one or more New Towns in that area, which would add to the viability of the county and so make it possible for Cambridge City to apply for county borough status one day?
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HUNTINGDON AND PETERBOROUGH ORDER, 1964
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Huntingdon and Peterborough Order, 1964, be approved.
Moved, That the Huntingdon and Peterborough Order, 1964, be approved. —(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEFENCE (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
LEGAL AID BILL
Report of the Amendment received (according to Order).

PERPETUITIES AND ACCUMULATIONS BILL [H.L.]
4.5 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As your Lordships will see, the Bill gives effect, with some minor exceptions, to the recommendations made in the Fourth Report of the Law Reform Committee about what is known to lawyers as the rule against perpetuities. I fear that this is a somewhat complex and technical subject and the provisions of the Bill are therefore necessarily themselves somewhat complicated. But in essence the problem is a straightforward one. It arises from the fact that the law has for centuries set its face against the possibility of a person's tying up his property in perpetuity.
The law, which was worked out by decisions of the courts over a long period, but particularly in the 18th and early 19th centuries, is that a disposition of any future interest in property is void if the interest is capable of vesting after a period consisting of a life or lives in being at the date of the disposition and 21 years thereafterwards. This period was presumably taken because it is one during which parents may have a family and the children attain full age. The Law Reform Committee thought that if there had still to be some restrictions on the extent to which a man could tie up his property in perpetuity—and this they took to be beyond argument—the basic rule which the courts had worked out at a time during which the traditional forms of family settlement were taking shape was still the right one.

237
The trouble about the rule is that it has become encrusted with a number of subsidiary rules which allow it to operate capriciously and unreasonably. The effect of the rule as it stands is that a disposition of property will be invalidated from the outset if there is any possibility of the interest in question failing to vest within the permitted period, even though the possibility that it may vest outside that period is so remote as to be quite unreal. Moreover, for the purposes of the rule, the courts refuse to recognise a woman as incapable of having further children, however old she may be. The Law Reform Committee, in their very full Report to which I should like to pay tribute, accordingly recommended a number of modifications in the rule which would enable it to achieve its object without the injustices and anomalies to which it is at present capable of giving rise.
The Committee made three principal recommendations which your Lordships will find in the first three clauses of this Bill. First, they thought that, as an alternative to the present period of lives in being and 21 years thereafter, a settlor or testator should be entitled as an alternative to take a fixed period of years within which his disposition should have to take effect, if it was to take effect at all. The Committee suggested 80 years for this purpose, and this suggestion has been adopted in Clause 1 of the Bill. The Committee hoped that by this means conveyancers would be dissuaded from using the device which is frequently adopted at present in an effort to tie property up for as long as possible within the permitted period. This is done by what has come to be known as a "Royal lives" clause, whereby the draftsman provides that the disposition is to vest within 21 years after the death of the last survivor of, let us say, His late Majesty King George V living at the date of the disposition.
Secondly, the Committee recommended that for the purpose of the rule against perpetuities there should be a presumption that no one under the age of 14 should be capable of having a child and that no woman over the age of 55 should be capable of having one. Such a presumption would, of course, be capable of being rebutted by evidence to the contrary. We have adopted this
238
proposal in Clause 2 of the Bill, except that in the case of a woman the lower age is 12 and not 14, as the Committee suggested. Your Lordships may perhaps think that this takes rather more account of practical possibilities. It is interesting to recollect that until 1929, when the age was raised to 16 for both sexes, 14 and 12 were ages below which males and females respectively were unable to contract a valid marriage.
The third of the Committee's three main recommendations was that, instead of requiring the validity of every disposition to be tested from the outset to see whether it could possibly offend the rule against perpetuities, one should have regard to the events that actually happen. In other words, the principle should be "wait and see". Effect is given to this by subsection (1) of Clause 3, which provides that a disposition is to be treated as if it were not subject to the rule against perpetuities until such time, if any, as it becomes established that the event on which the disposition depends can take place only outside the perpetuity period. In the meantime, anything done in relation to the disposition by way of advancement of capital, application of income or otherwise, is to be valid. Under this new "wait and see" rule there will be no obvious means of ascertaining the lives which are to be taken as relevant in determining the length of the perpetuity period. Subsection (2) accordingly specifies the classes of lives which may be taken for this purpose.
Clause 4 provides two methods of validating dispositions which are not saved by the "wait and see" rule that I have attempted to describe. If, for example, there is a gift to the first son of X, a living person, to reach the age of 30 and at X's death his eldest son is 8, the "wait and see" rule will not help, for the perpetuity period will expire 21 years after X's death, and at that time his son will not have reached the age of 30. Provision was made for cases of this kind by the Law of Property Act 1925, which provides that in such a case the age of 21 is to be substituted for the age specified by the testator or the settlor. The Bill gives closer effect to the intentions of the settlor or testator by providing

239
that one is in future to take the age nearest to that in fact specified which would be sufficient to prevent the disposition from being made void. In the example I have given your Lordships, where the son was 8 at his father's death, this means that he would take the property at the age of 29 instead of the age of 30 mentioned in the disposition.
There was some disagreement between the members of the Law Reform Committee on the question whether the "wait and see" rule should, or should not, be applied before what I may call the age-reduction rule contained in the Law of Property Act. The majority of the Committee thought that one should apply the age-reduction rule in appropriate cases without waiting to see whether, and to what extent, it might be necessary to apply the rule in the events which in fact happen. The minority thought that it would be better to give effect to testators' or settlors' intentions, if one possibly could, by waiting to see what happens instead of doing violence to such intentions in every case by reducing the age to 21. I am bound to say that I think the minority were right on this point. I am fortified in that belief by seeing that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was included among their number. As your Lordships will see, the Bill gives effect to the views of the minority.
The Committee made a number of other recommendations designed to ensure that dispositions of property take effect more readily than they do at present, and I think I can say that all these recommendations are dealt with in the remaining clauses of the Bill. Your Lordships will not, I am sure, wish me to deal with these provisions in detail now, although I should be happy to do so at a later stage.
There are only three further provisions which I ought briefly to mention now. The first is Clause 9, which deals with options relating to land. Subsection (1) of that clause provides that the rule against perpetuities is not to apply to an option conferred on a lessee to acquire the freehold or other reversionary interest, the reason being that leasehold options can be said to be in the public interest to the extent that they
240
enable a lessee to secure for himself the fruits of his expenditure on the land comprised in the lease.
Other options, such as the ordinary option to purchase, are in a different category. For, as the Law Reform Committee pointed out, they tend to discourage rather than foster the maintenance and development of the land, because a landowner will be unwilling to spend money on his land if he is at risk of having the fruits of such expenditure taken from him by the exercise of the option. Clause 9(2) accordingly requires all options of this kind to be exercised within 21 years from their creation, after which they are to be treated as void in all respects, even as between the original parties to them.
Clause 12 deals with the periods for which the income of property may be validly accumulated. The law on this subject dates from the time of the Accumulations Act, 1800, which was passed after a certain Mr. Thellusson had bequeathed the bulk of his very considerable estate to trustees upon trust to accumulate the rents and profits at compound interest during the lives of all his sons, grandsons and great-grandsons. The last of these did not die until 1856, by which time the value of Mr. Thellusson's estate had been considerably dissipated by the number of law suits to which his will had given rise.
The Act of 1800, which is generally known as the Thellusson Act, provided four different periods during which alone income might he validly accumulated, and these provisions were re-enacted in the property legislation of 1925. The Law Reform Committee thought that it would be convenient to have two additional periods during which it should he possible to accumulate income. These, as your Lordships will see from Clause 12(1), are 21 years from the date of the relevant disposition, or the duration of the minority or minorities of any persons living at that date.
Finally, I should perhaps mention Clause 13, which applies the presumptions in Clause 2 as to the ages below and above which people are presumed to be incapable of having children to the rule of law enabling beneficiaries to put an end to any provisions of a trust requiring income to be accumulated for

241
their benefit. This is a matter of considerable practical importance. As the law stands, all beneficiaries under a trust who are of full age and capacity can agree together to put an end to the accumulations and divide the whole trust fund between themselves. But they cannot do this where there is any possibility, however remote, of another beneficiary coming into existence, although very often the only possibility of this happening is that an elderly woman will have another child. It seems obviously desirable that this possibility should be brought within bounds, and accordingly, by applying Clause 2, it would be presumed that no woman over 55 is able to have another child unless the contrary is shown.
My Lords, I fear that, as I warned your Lordships, the provisions of this Bill have turned out to be complicated and, perhaps, dull. They are none the less of considerable importance to all concerned with the law of property. It is interesting to notice that quite a large number of countries in the Commonwealth and States in the United States have found it desirable to legislate on this subject in terms not entirely unlike those in the present Bill, and we have indeed for some little time been pressed to follow their example.
It may be said that we have taken a long time to implement the Law Reform Committee's Report, which was published as long ago as 1956. That, my Lords, is perfectly true, but I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that we have been far from idle in the field of law reform. So far as the Law Reform Committee itself is concerned, effect has now been given to the recommendations in the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Reports, while some important recommendations in the Tenth Report are dealt with in the Hire-Purchase Bill now before Parliament.
In addition to this, a very considerable number of law reform Acts have passed through Parliament in the last ten years. I will not weary your Lordships with a long list of them now. I would only remind you that last Session alone we passed two important measures of law reform, the Limitation Act and the Wills Act, each of which gave effect to the recommendations of the Committees which had considered the subjects with
242
which the Acts were concerned. It is perfectly true that no Government can find all the time it would like for Government Bills on law reform, which is why we so often have to rely on the assistance of Private Members, both in your Lordships' House and in another place. But it is revealing no secrets to say that Private Members who introduce law reform Bills can generally count on having the assistance of the Parliamentary draftsmen as well as of my office or other Government Department concerned.
I sometimes wonder whether those who criticise the way in which we deal with law reform really appreciate all that has been done. I do not wish to be complacent or to suggest that there is not still a great deal to be done, but I do think that the need for measures of reform is sometimes somewhat exaggerated. However this may be, there is little point in asking Committees to produce Reports unless one can have some reasonable assurance that Parliamentary time is likely to be found for their implementation.
Law reform, like politics, is the art of the possible, and one has to proceed by stages. Looking at the matter from the standpoint of what is reasonably practicable, I venture to say that we have nothing in our record of which we need feel ashamed. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for having strayed for a moment or two from the subject matter of this Bill, but I thought it might be useful if I were to say something about the general subject of law reform. I think your Lordships will agree that the Bill now before you represents an important instrument of reform which should be acceptable to all sides of the House, and I accordingly ask you to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.20 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in introducing this Bill, referred to it as complex, complicated, dull; and I would add, difficult. Indeed, when I first tried to master the Bill I found it almost beyond my comprehension. I was therefore very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his very clear explanation. I think that I almost understand the Bill, although how long I shall retain

243
that understanding I am not sure. But he certainly made fairly clear what was, for me, an impossible Bill.
I was interested to find that in one respect the Minority view of the Committee had prevailed with the Government. I am very glad of that, because minorities are sometimes right, as has been often demonstrated in this House. I hope the views of minorities will be taken more notice of by this Government than has been the case in the past. I was also interested to hear mention of my old friend Thellusson. He was a very famous figure in my student days in relation to the law against accumulations, and it was nice to hear of him again. In regard to the merits of the Bill, there is little that I need say at this stage. Broadly, it implements the recommendations of the Fourth Report of the Law Reform Committee, and in principle I am sure that the whole House will accept it. There may be one or two matters to raise in Committee, on a point put to me by the Law Society, which I will not raise at this moment. No doubt the noble and learned Lord Chancellor has heard of the point, and it may be that we can discuss it fully in Committee.
Since the noble and learned Lord has referred to the Law Reform Committee, I should like to say a word or two about it. The question of law reform is certainly not a controversial subject. It is of the greatest importance, in a civilised community, that from time to time our laws should be examined, and that those which are out of date or obsolete, or which no longer meet the convenience of the general community, should be reviewed and, where necessary, altered. I consider that the machinery of the Law Reform Committee is an excellent one, and, if I may, I should like to congratulate the Government (I see that there are not many of my noble friends here, and therefore I can do it freely) on the number of recommendations of this Committee which they have been able to implement.
One question that I should like to ask is why it is necessary to wait seven years. As I have said before, seven years seems to be the normal period of gestation of a Report of this kind. We implemented the other day a Report of the Law Reform Committee on the Court of
244
Criminal Appeal. That also took seven years. It could be said that this particular measure is a difficult one and needed a great deal of preparation. I cannot think that the previous measure needed all that time. We seem to be taking too long to implement these Reports, and it is rather discouraging to those members who take part in their preparation. In this particular case Lord Jenkins was the Chairman; the present Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker of Waddington, was a member, and so were Lord Devlin, Lord Justice Diplock, my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, Professor Goodhart and others—all eminent men in the law. They gave over two years of their time to this very difficult task. It is rather discouraging for them to find that, having produced a Report which at the end of the day is being very largely implemented, they should have to wait over seven years before the Government can find the time to introduce a measure.
I hope (and I am not moving a Vote of Censure on the Government over this) that it will be possible in future to speed up the implementation of these Reports, and to give the encouragement which is very much needed if we are to find volunteers to serve on these Committees; so that they find that, at the end of their arduous task—and this was an arduous task—their work is appreciated and implemented. I hope that it will be found possible in the future, whichever Government is in office, to do this. As to the Bill itself, I am not surprised to see that that there is only one other speaker, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Evershed, because it is not a subject with which I imagine most noble Lords will be very familiar.
4.27 p.m.
LORD EVERSHED: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has anticipated, I should like to add my support to the Motion for Second Reading of this Bill introduced by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I have spent my professional life in what is, I think your Lordships will admit, the more respectable branch of the law, known as the Chancery Division. It was, of course, there where one came across the rather fantastic results which the rule sometimes produced. That great

245
lawyer, Lord Blanesburgh (as he became when a Member of this House) once described the results as being "the stringent, almost penal, character of the rule".
Without again going over what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I would venture to draw your Lordships' attention to one matter. One unhappy result of a provision being held to be void through infringing the so-called rule against perpetuities was that a subsequent limitation dependent upon the first one was also rendered void. That blemish—for such it is—is remedied by Clause 6 of the Bill. I was pleased that by this Bill the Minority view of the Committee, which was the view of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, had been preferred to that of the Majority that is to say that one first applies the "wait and see" rule, and then one applies the amended provisions of Section 163. As was pointed out in the Minority Report, that seemed to be the better rule. I have one example to hand of support for that view; namely, the corresponding Act of Western Australia passed in 1962, which in all essential respects followed the same principles as are followed in this Bill.
My Lords, it is perhaps right to observe that it was the view of the Committee—and I think it is generally accepted—that to enable a man who has the means to make it worth doing to tie up, as we say, his property, so that not only his children but his grandchildren also may benefit, is regarded as socially sensible and sound; and that general rule which has long been afoot is preserved. What this Bill does is to prevent—again, I use Lord Blanesburgh's words— "the stringent, almost penal, character of the rule ", when it is, sometimes literally, carried into operation.
I shall not delay your Lordships further. As has been pointed out, this Bill may be said to lack the gripping, exciting interest that some matters have—such as those relating to motor cars and the like—which come before the House. But this is a case where, as I venture to submit, the law should be amended so that a rule fundamentally sound should not by extravagant example become a subject of public disrespect. It is indeed a complicated measure. I have
246
myself been much interested in the problem, and in that connection have been in communication with a notable professor at Harvard University, Professor Barton Leach, who has been responsible for similar legislation in his own State of Massachusetts, and elsewhere. Because the Bill is so complicated, I should like, if I may, having regard to my knowledge of the subject, to pay my respects and offer my congratulations to the draftsman upon his skill in putting into this Bill what is necessarily recommended and is desired to be achieved. It must obviously have been a difficult task, and it has been well performed. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, there may be matters to be discussed at a later stage. But on this occasion I hope that your Lordships will accept what is suggested and give this Bill a Second Reading.
4.33 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I add a word in support of this measure, in which I take personally a special interest, for reasons which I shall give to the House? Some years ago I found that it was very desirable that a settlor should incorporate in a settlement something which it will be possible to achieve under Clause 12 of the present Bill, but which could not be achieved in the then state of the law—namely, to provide for accumulation of income for 21 years from the date of the settlement. I was informed by my Chancery friends that the desirability of this reform had been recognised in this very powerful Report of the Law Reform Committee published in 1956. As this particular recommendation was one which was within my own comprehension, I wrote to my noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir, who was then Lord Chancellor, asking whether there was any prospect of legislation and saying that I thought I could myself introduce a Bill which would at least effect this reform. I am sure he will allow me to disclose his reply. He thought it was very desirable that, when we legislated on this subject, the Bill should incorporate the whole of the Report of the Law Reform Committee, and should be prepared with great skill by the Parliamentary draftsman.
My Lords, my next connection with the matter was when my noble and

247
learned friend now upon the Woolsack took up his great office, and in conversation with him I expressed the view, which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, expressed just now, that it was desirable to embody in legislation some of these admirable Reports; and I gave this one, the Fourth Report of the Law Reform Committee, as an example. I think it was then that my noble and learned friend extracted from me a promise that, if it were drafted, I was willing to introduce it. Then I forgot all about the matter until, a short time ago, he said that the Bill was almost ready and it would fall to me to introduce it.
I took the very reasonable precaution of approaching the Chancery Law Lords, and finding out whether they were generally favourable and were willing to give all necessary assistance, and I thought that I should be able to answer anybody who raised any question by saying that, of course, on that difficult problem the House would wish to have the reply from my noble and learned friend upon the Woolsack. Therefore, when I saw the nature of this Bill and its complication, I was delighted that Her Majesty's Government decided themselves to take over the Bill; and I join with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in congratulating my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack on his very lucid explanation of its provisions. I wish, however, to say how much I welcome the precedent that my noble and learned friend is now setting of introducing a Government measure in which to embody this reform. I have some reason to know how many of these matters have been left to Back-Benchers, because it has been my task, I think, to pilot through this House no fewer than four legal reform Bills, always with the support, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, points out, of noble Lords in all sections of the House—because this House is always most willing to carry out important legal reforms.
My Lords, the House will remember the recent most interesting maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, who drew attention to the very high respect in which English law and our administration of justice were held abroad; and he also included in his speech some points on which
248
admiration was less universal. Nobody admires English law more than I do, but there are branches of the law which from time to time require reform. As a result of the rule that the House of Lords as a Judicial Assembly is itself bound by its own decisions, the only method now of securing law reform is by Statute. And what better method of preparing for a Statute can there be than referring these difficult matters to this admirable body, the Law Reform Committee? But, my Lords, when the Law Reform Committee does at last produce one of these admirable Reports, I do not think there should be so much delay as there sometimes is; and in this matter I associate myself with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I am perfectly certain that there will always be, in both Houses of Parliament, private Members willing to introduce such Bills when they have the assistance of Parliamentary draftsmen. But I do not think that the possibility of law reform should depend upon that chance. I am delighted that on this occasion my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has himself introduced this as a Government measure, and I hope that that admirable precedent will be followed in future cases.
4.40 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I had not intended to say anything on this matter to-day, but as each noble Lord who has spoken on this Bill has referred to me I should like, if I may, very shortly, to join in the welcome which is being given to this Bill. It is, as your Lordships know, merely in implementation of a recommendation by the Law Reform Committee, of which I was a member, though I played a very humble part on this most abstruse Chancery subject; but I am naturally gratified to find that, on the one point on which there was any division of opinion, the view of the minority, of whom I was one, has found favour with the Government.
As a certain amount has been said on the work of the Law Reform Committee, I hope that none of your Lordships will think that, because we have a Law Reform Committee, this Committee will see that English law is brought up to date. Having been a member of that Committee for twelve years, I resigned from it largely because I was persuaded by my

249
experience that it was quite impossible for a Committee of that kind to do more than scratch the surface. As my noble and learned friend Lord Evershed has pointed out, this particular branch of our law has been known to be wrong since the time of Lord Blanesburgh, but nothing was done at all until the Law Reform Committee was asked to go into it.
It reported, as your Lordships know, in October, 1956; and I cannot altogether join in the congratulations which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack heaped upon himself for the speed with which law reform has lately progressed in this country. My noble friend Lord Silkin said that seven or eight years was the average time it took to implement a report of this Committee, but I did once spend considerable time and trouble trying to ascertain what was the average period of time between the moment when all lawyers agreed that some particular reform in the law was necessary and the moment when it was carried out, and I found that the average time was 35 years.
Therefore, while I welcome the Bill and congratulate the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for having, at last, sought to implement the recommendations of the Committee, it is, I think your Lordships will observe, only one of many Bills which have been introduced lately which, though admirable Bills, would have been better still if they had been introduced during the period of stagnation which we have had during the last ten years. Therefore, while congratulating my noble and learned friend on at last introducing this Bill, I would venture to express the hope that reforms in his field may come rather more quickly in the future.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which your Lordships have received this Bill. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, that he rather misrepresents me if he suggests that I sought to heap congratulations on myself (I think those were his words) for the speed with which this Bill has been introduced. What I said is within your Lordships' recollection. I do not think I said anything of that sort.
My Lords, views may differ as to the extent of law reform that is necessary,
250
but I join with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his view that the machinery of the Law Reform Committee is an excellent one. It is a powerful body, and although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, resigned from it not so very long ago, that Committee has served, and will continue to serve, a very useful purpose indeed. I should not like it to be thought that any criticism can legitimately be made of the work of that body. Indeed, I should like to do all I can to encourage them in their labours, which do not, I think, perhaps get all the appreciation that they deserve. Nor is it right, in view of the record of legislation, to talk about stagnation in the last ten years. I am not going to take up time now in detailing the list of law reform Bills which have been passed during the last ten years, but I am quite sure that that record in the preceding years, during record in the preceding years, during the Socialist Administration.
This is a Bill dealing with the rule against perpetuities. I am glad the noble and learned Lord, Lord Evershed, was able to give it his support, with his great experience of how that rule works. I moved the Second Reading of this Bill with a considerable amount of trepidation because I have never had any practical experience in the courts of the operation of this rule. But I remember, my mind going back to the last time I had any acquaintanceship with it before now, which was when I was approaching my Bar examinations, what a formidable hurdle I then found the rule against perpetuities to be.
I think this is indeed a useful reform. I am sorry, too, that it has taken so long, since the Committee produced its report, to present a Bill on this subject to your Lordships. I would say only this. It is not always easy, as I think those of your Lordships who are aware of the problems know, to find space in legislation—Government or, indeed, Private Legislation—for all the measures that one would wish; but it certainly should not be accepted that a delay of seven years is anything like the general rule. I could quote instances to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to show that other reports have been implemented in a much shorter space of time. I should like to conclude by thanking your

251
Lordships for the way in which this measure has been received, and by hoping that we can avoid any further delay in putting it soon upon the Statute Book.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE BILL
4.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
(LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, I beg to move that the Agriculture and Horticulture Bill be now read a second time. This Bill has been fully discussed in another place, and many of your Lordships will, I am sure, already be familiar with its form and purport. The Bill covers two clearly defined fields: Clause 1, which provides for the application of minimum import prices and levies to agricultural and horticultural commodities; and the remainder of the Bill, which covers new measures in the horticultural field.
To deal first with Clause 1, this covers most important new powers to apply minimum import prices and levies to agricultural and horticultural commodities in the interest of maintaining market stability in the United Kingdom. This interest is one we share, whichever Bench we may occupy in your Lordships' House. The need for these powers arises consequent upon the Government's policy on cereals. But it was decided that, rather than drafting powers in terms of cereals alone, it would be far better to seek general enabling powers exercisable in respect of agricultural and horticultural commodities generally.
Your Lordships will know that there is wide and hopeful discussion on the possibility of international agreements, not only on cereals—which is already under consideration in the GATT Cereals Group—but also for other temperate commodities. Moreover, market conditions for temperate foodstuffs change
252
rapidly. It was these considerations, in particular, which prompted the Government to bring forward legislation in the form of general enabling powers, though there are no plans for applying them to other commodities at the present time.
The powers in Clause 1 are, therefore, exercisable by Statutory Instrument. The detailed system of minimum import prices and levies for cereals, and indeed for any other commodity to which the powers may subsequently be applied, would have to be brought before Parliament in accordance with the Orders provision in the clause. In drafting these, the Government had in mind two sets of considerations: on the one hand, the need to give adequate Parliamentary control over the scope and details of the arrangements which Ministers may wish to introduce; and, on the other hand, the practical requirements of applying and enforcing the minimum import price system by the imposition of levies.
Basically, there would be three steps in introducing the minimum import price arrangement under the provisions in the clause. The three agricultural Ministers would have to specify the commodities in respect of which they wished to exercise the powers. In effect, this would define the field of commodities within which the minimum import price and levy arrangements would be applied. And it has been thought right to provide for any Order which specifies a new commodity to require Affirmative Resolution in each House of Parliament. Thus Parliament would have the maximum opportunity to scrutinise and satisfy itself as to the justification for applying the arrangements to any particular commodity.
Secondly, the Ministers would be able to prescribe minimum import prices for any specified commodity, and to lay down the arrangements for applying levies and granting any allowances or reliefs under subsection (3) of the clause. Normally these detailed provisions would be prescribed in orders subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, which again would need to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Thirdly, the Minister of Agriculture alone would be able, on the basis of the levy provisions which, as I have explained, would be prescribed in a

253
previous Order, to lay down the rates of levies applying to individual commodities, so as to enforce the prescribed import prices.
Your Lordships will know, the Government's approach on cereals is to proceed, as far as possible, by agreement with our overseas suppliers. As a nation heavily dependent upon world trade for our livelihood, it is wise and proper that we should seek to agree with our trading partners concerned the arrangements for securing greater stability in our cereals market. The Government have been discussing these proposals with our four main suppliers—Australia, Canada, the United States and Argentina. As my right honourable friend announced in another place on February 11, agreement in principle has been reached with these countries for co-operation in the system of minimum import prices for cereals. Their co-operation is, of course, conditional upon the modifications which the Government introduce in their domestic arrangements following the Annual Review discussions, now taking place. We are in the course of approaching our other suppliers to see whether they are also willing to co-operate with us in the introduction of minimum import price arrangements.
Those countries which are ready and able to undertake to observe our minimum import prices when exporting to our market will be exempt from levies so long as they continue to do so. If they fail in their undertaking, we shall reserve the right to apply levies to their supplies in order to enforce our prescribed minimum import prices. The intention would be to apply in these circumstances a "country levy" which would be determined on the basis of the difference between the minimum import price for that particular commodity and the prices at which supplies were available for import into the United Kingdom from the country concerned. The country levy would then be applied on a flat-rate basis on imports from that particular country.
We hope that a large proportion of our supplies will be covered by agreements of the sort I have described. But in so far as we are unable to conclude agreements with some of our overseas suppliers, we should, when necessary,
254
apply a "general levy" to all imports from non-co-operating countries on the basis of the difference between the minimum import price for the particular commodity and the lowest representative prices at which supplies were available for import into the United Kingdom from the non-co-operating countries as a whole.
For the purposes of enforcing our minimum import prices for cereals, our intention is to rely primarily on the types of levies which I have outlined. But the powers in the Bill will enable the Minister to prescribe, by Order, other types of levy arrangements to enforce minimum import prices if it proves necessary to do so. In particular, the powers cover the possibility of applying a levy, not on a flat-rate basis to all imports of a particular type, but in relation to the prices of individual importations.
The purpose of these arrangements which the Government propose to introduce for cereals is to remove the low troughs in import prices which have, from time to time, disrupted our domestic market. There is no intention of applying the minimum import prices at such a high level as to create a restrictive regime which would raise the general level of prices. At the present levels of prices for the main cereals, the minimum import prices we have in mind would not bite and no levies would therefore be charged on them. But the introduction of the minimum import price arrangements would have the effect of preventing unrealistically low-priced imports from damaging our market generally as they have from time to time in the past. As your Lordships will know, we are the only remaining large market which is completely open to imports of cereals. There is, therefore, always the danger at the present time that the low-priced surpluses of any country in the world will come here with disruptive effects on our market as a whole. This is the situation we need to protect ourselves against.
There is no change in the Government's basic approach to agricultural support. The deficiency payments system will continue to be the basis of support to cereal producers in this country. The Government believe that, unless steps are taken now to contain

255
the cost to the Exchequer, our whole system of agricultural support based on the principles of the Agriculture Acts of 1947 and 1957 may be threatened. Clause 1 would give the Government the powers they need. I commend it as an important and valuable extension of our agricultural and horticultural legislation.
I now come to the Bill's horticultural provisions. These will be of great significance in helping the industry to reduce production costs and improve marketing. I believe they represent a new charter for the industry, to revitalise and strengthen its ability to withstand fair competition from any temperate country. While the industry will thus be put into a stronger position, making it less dependent upon the tariff, there is no cut-and-dried anticipatory plan for reductions in the protective tariffs. As I explained in the statement I made in your Lordships' House on November 27, there will be a period of some four years before any reduction is considered in the tariff on sensitive items—that is, those items which are particularly sensitive to overseas competition and enjoy a significant level of tariff protection in the home season. After this period reductions may be considered if it is judged to be in the national interest to do so. There will, however, be further consultations with the industry before any such reductions are made, and, in these consultations, account will be taken of all relevant data including the progress made towards achieving a higher degree of competitive efficiency. And I would add that the Government would certainly not be preparing to invest large sums of money in horticulture, and to encourage others to do the same, if they did not believe that great progress along these lines could be made.
I turn now to the details of these horticultural provisions. They fall into four categories: the extension of the existing system of grants to growers and co-operatives; the improvement of credit facilities; grants for the redevelopment of the major markets; and the introduction of compulsory grading. The Bill greatly increases the maximum amount available for grants under the Horticulture Act of 1960. As well as
256
providing for the new grants under Clauses 2 to 5, this will enable us to enlarge the list of equipment eligible for grant under the existing Horticulture Improvement Scheme, with particular reference to equipment for the production, as well as the transport, storage and preparation for market, of horticultural produce. Consultations are being held with the industry and we have had many useful suggestions from other sources about the sort of equipment which should be included. A draft of the extended Scheme will be laid before Parliament in due course.
In Clause 2 of the Bill we are proposing to take powers to introduce a scheme to provide grants for improving the efficiency of small horticultural production businesses. We have in mind especially the small grower who wishes to reorganise his business or adapt it to changing conditions; and the grant would be a contribution to the working capital necessary to enable him to do so. Growers have been concerned for some time about the low-quality fruit which sometimes comes on to the market—often, it is reasonable to suppose, from small orchards on agricultural rather than horticultural land. Clause 3 provides for grant for grubbing out orchards, including orchards of this kind.
Clause 4 introduces a new form of assistance for co-operatives—grants towards the initial capital needed to get co-operatives going, or to help existing co-operatives to expand. This will help to surmount one of the chief obstacles to effective development of horticultural co-operation; namely, the difficulty growers find in raising sufficient working capital to mount their operations on a practical and purposeful scale. Grants to co-operatives are also proposed under Clause 5. This will make possible an extension of the Horticulture Improvement Scheme under which grants can be made to co-operatives who wish to build, equip and run their own markets in producing areas. The clause recognises that for this purpose some cooperatives might need to join together with other co-operatives or individuals, and so allows what we might call "second-tier" co-operatives to apply for grant. Clause 6 was added to the Bill on Report stage in another place.

257
It is designed to ensure that any cooperative receiving grant under the Horticulture Improvement Scheme or under Clause 4 of this Bill has provision in its constitution to secure sufficient produce from members for marketing by the co-operative.
Clause 9 introduces new arrangements for augmenting the supply of credit for growers and their co-operatives. Our experience in operating the Horticulture Improvement Scheme up to the present has shown that a good many growers have held back from taking advantage of it, due to difficulties in raising their two-thirds of the cost. The method this clause proposes will make use of the services of the banks, who have a great deal of practical expertise in assessing creditworthiness, but superimposes an arrangement by which one or more institutions will offer guarantees to the banks, and in turn be supported by a Government grant when they have to honour the guarantees on such debts as may go had. This will, we hope, turn out to be a cheap as well as an effective method of inducing an impressive expansion in the total of bank credit facilities. Your Lordships will have noticed that there was some lively discussion in another place, as to the particular institutions which could qualify for grants for this purpose.
The question presented has been whether the Agricultural Finance Federation, as well as the Agricultural Credit Corporation, should participate in the grants in aid under Clause 9. In view of what was said in another place, my right honourable friend has given further thought to the matter and has decided that, by way of establishing a proper relationship between the Federation and the Corporation, some change could be made in the method of implementing Clause 9, as compared with that outlined in another place. Briefly, what we are now doing is to offer the Federation one-tenth of the sums to be made available under the clause, and the Federation, in employing this share, will have the same status in the eyes of the Ministry as the Corporation will have in employing their share. They will, in other words, be grant-aided bodies operating in parallel under the same conditions.
258
My Lords, I come next to wholesale markets. I take it that all noble Lords will be agreed upon the need for action on this front. Most of our major wholesale horticultural markets are out of date, congested and badly sited. Experience has shown that without an effective incentive we shall not have them rebuilt quickly enough. The purpose of Clause 10 is to provide that incentive by making grants of up to one-third of the cost of redevelopment available over the next ten years to markets of major importance. The grants will also have the effect of enabling market authorities to charge lower rents in new markets than they would otherwise have to charge, and so help to keep down costs of distribution. My right honourable friend has stated in another place that our present intention is to adapt an actual potential throughput of £5 million as our criterion for judging whether or not a market is a major one. I have no doubt that this grant-aid will help over the next decade to provide a system of up-to-date and efficient markets playing their part in the modernising of our country.
I now turn to the third Part of the Bill, which gives Ministers the power to designate compulsory grades for certain fresh horticultural crops "when dealt in in bulk". And I would emphasise the last few words, which I have quoted from the Long Title, since they underline that this Part of the Bill is primarily intended to help our growers to compete more effectively with imports. We all know that a great deal of horticultural produce coming from abroad is graded; and where this graded produce is available at the same time as ungraded home produce, the home product is put at a disadvantage. There is every reason to think that this sort of consumer selectivity will continue, and even increase, under present conditions. The introduction of a dependable grading system is therefore urgent if our home-grown produce is not to suffer in comparison with imported produce.
A number of forward-looking growers have already recognised the problem and introduced their own grading schemes. There is, I believe, general recognition of the advantages that would flow from the introduction of standard grades administered on a common basis throughout the country. That is what

259
this Part of the Bill sets out to do. But, of course, we cannot bring in overnight compulsory grading for the whole range of fruit and vegetables. We have it in mind that in the first instance grades should be prescribed, after consultation with the industry, for four or five commodities. These would be apples, pears, tomatoes, cucumbers, and possibly cauliflowers. We shall need to recruit and train an inspectorate, and it is likely to be two or three years before we are in a position to enforce any grading. The grade descriptions will be published as soon as they have been settled, so that growers will have at least one full season in which to accustom themselves to what is required before the use of the grades becomes obligatory.
Your Lordships may wish me, before sitting down, to summarise what this Bill sets out to do. It seeks a realistic adjustment of some of our agricultural and horticultural policies to meet the changing conditions of the modern world. Clause 1 provides a new and essential buttress to our support policy for agriculture. The horticultural provisions of the Bill promote a determined effort to help create a fully efficient and competitive horticultural industry in all its aspects: production, marketing and wholesale distribution. I believe that, together, the Bill's provisions mobilise into a practical and penetrating attack on the problems facing British agriculture and horticulture over the next decade. I am quite sure that during the coming years we shall see its provisions reflected not simply in the Statute Book but in two efficient and prosperous industries, and in the service that they give, and will continue to give, to the entire nation. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
5.9 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his clear and careful, although in some respects not sufficiently long, explanation of this very important Bill. I feel that his explanation of Clause 1 might have brought forth sounds of triumph from the Opposition Benches, because for ten years, as the noble Lord is well aware, we have argued convincingly, and the Government have refused stubbornly
260
to admit, that open-ended deficiency payments, while denying protection and a fair living to the farmers, were a disaster to the taxpayer. We have insisted that deficiency payments, perhaps just tolerable in the conditions of 1953, could not possibly stand up to world pressure in 1963, particularly, as the noble Lord pointed out, when we are the only remaining open food market in the world with food imports totalling some £1,450 million a year. From these Benches we have consistently urged import controls and a managed market, and for years this has been just as consistently ignored. So the cost of support has risen to some £360 million in a single year—£210 million of it for meat and cereals alone—until, of course, the Treasury would have no more of it.
So we are to have import controls and a managed market. But I, for one, am not cheering, for two very good reasons. The first reason is that the Government may at long last be doing the right thing, but they are doing it in a hopelessly wrong way. The second is that the farmers throughout those ten years have had to foot the bill for what I regard as ten years of Conservative folly. The whole of Clause 1 is, in fact, a device to save £100 million or so on the Departmental Estimate. But over these last ten years the Department has been screwing those same savings year by year out of the farmers.
The noble Lord said that these proposals were in line with the Labour Party's 1947 Act. If they are in line with it, it is a very long line, and it is a long distance away.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The 1947 and 1957 Acts.
LORD STONHAM: I do not agree that 1957 was very much in line. It had gone distinctly off the rails, and that is partly why we are having this Bill now. In 1947 the Labour Party said that there should be
"proper remuneration and living conditions for farmers and workers and an adequate return on capital invested in the industry."
And the 1947 Act did just that. But since 1952 the farming community has been, in real terms and relatively, getting progressively worse off. So to-day, two out of five farmers earn less than £12 a week, and only one farmer in

261
three earns more than £20 a week, and that is counting interest on his invested capital as earnings. If we deduct interest from the total income, most farmers get for their labours only two-thirds of the minimum wage allowed for a farm worker.
I would ask: is the farmer being fairly rewarded, as he was promised under the 1947 Act? His output has increased 50 per cent. since the war, but his income has increased only 10 per cent., and the whole of that increase came under the Labour Government before 1951. In the last ten years farmers' costs have increased by £188 million. But their guaranteed prices have increased by only £12½ million, and they have thus been called on to bear £175½ million of increased costs. Compare that with other industries which, like agriculture, have increased their output since the war by 50 per cent. The farmer's income has increased only 10 per cent., while other industries have increased their incomes by 50 per cent. So far as prices are concerned, the things the farmer has had to pay for have increased by 25 to 35 per cent., and the prices he has received have dropped by 1 per cent. in the last ten years. No wonder the National Farmers' Union say that to put their members on something like parity with other industries their income must be increased by 25 per cent. over the next three years!
Agriculture, one of the most progressive industries, is entitled to a fair deal. Since the war home food production has increased by some £400 million a year, and every penny of it a saving in imports. Compared with pre-war our farms are producing two-and-a-half times as much grain, 99 per cent. more eggs, 114 per cent. more sugar beet, and the full yield of milk per cow has increased by 200 gallons. And all this has been accomplished with 170,000 fewer farm workers. Yet for ten years what I regard as the "Scroogery" imposed by the Government's deficiency payments scheme has denied them a single penny of reward for their extra efficiency and effort. So what I regard as this death-bed repentance, even with its promise of such forms of Socialism as co-operative marketing and financial assistance for co-operative and municipal enterprise, brings no plaudits from me.
262
But my main and very deep concern about Clause 1 is the method by which the Minister proposes to control imports and manage the market. He is going to fix minimum import prices, and impose, as I understand it, a levy equal to the amount of the deficiency if imports still come in at prices below the minimum. The noble Lord was careful to point out that, although this is a general enabling Bill, it is proposed only to apply the provisions in regard to minimum import price to cereals. What are the likely consequences going to be? At best, it means balancing on the knife edge of restricting home production and curtailing imports, remembering that even a small percentage of over-supply from overseas can rock the market.
Therefore, the level of minimum prices is crucial: if it is too low, it defeats its object; if it is too high, it affects our terms of trade and puts up prices to the consumer. The noble Lord assured us, of course, that it would not put up prices to the consumer. In other words, it is going to be so low that it will not have the effect that the Bill is intended to have. You just cannot have it both ways. My belief is that in any case, whatever happens, it is going to put up prices to the consumer.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food quoted in another place a hypothetical figure of £20 a ton as the minimum figure for barley. It is within your Lordships' recollection that a little while ago the French, and I believe the Russians, exported (or they certainly would have) barley to this country at £17 a ton. Let us assume that the same kind of circumstances of their having an over-supply arise again. One of two things is going to happen. The French or the Russians, who sold us barley at £17 a ton, will now make the price £20 a ton in loyally keeping the agreement which the right honourable gentleman hopes to make with them. We shall, in fact, be fixing, not a British minimum import price, but a world minimum price.
To me, the spectacle of the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Agriculture forcing overseas suppliers to charge us higher prices for their food than those at which they are willing to sell is a sight to astonish the world. It must increase prices to the house-

263
wife, and the farmer who buys imported feedingstuffs as a raw material will also have to pay more. Let us take the other thing that can happen, although I do not think it will: exporters insist on selling at £17 a ton, and then we stick a levy, presumably of £3 a ton, on top of that to bring the price to £20. Again the housewife is bound to pay more.
The other point that worries me is that this is a general enabling Bill, and does not merely give powers to fix minimum import prices for cereals; it applies to all agricultural and horticultural produce and to products derived from them—a most extraordinary thing. If it is so applied, it can affect our international trade and our taxation policy, because in the clause the Minister takes power to fix minimum prices for a large proportion of our imports, and to levy import taxes on most of the essential foodstuffs consumed by our people. It is no good the noble Lord crowning and telling me that those powers do not reside in the Bill, because quite obviously they do.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think that is probably a tacit invitation for me to intervene. If I have to find fault with what the noble Lord is saying, it is this. He said that the Bill "applies". Of course, it does not apply. The Orders will apply. Until an Order is approved by Parliament, nothing will apply at all.
LORD STONHAM: If it is not going to apply, then no Orders are going to be produced, and we might as well not have the Bill at all.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, surely the noble Lord is suggesting that Orders covering all commodities will be approved virtually simultaneously. That is not so. The point I am making is that, Order by Order, the Bill will be applied, but until the first Order it will not be applied. Therefore his picture of the enabling powers of the Bill being extended over the whole field of food imports simply does not add up.
LORD STONHAM: If the noble Lord is saying that until this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and until the Minister takes action on the Bill nothing will happen, of course I will agree with him.
264
I do not want to read to him the whole Bill, but if he will look at Clause 1(1) he will see that it says:
"The Minister … may by order specify produce of that description or any of its related products or both as commodities in relation to which the powers conferred by subsection (2) below may be exercised …"
Later in that subsection it says:
"… specified commodity' means any description of produce or related product in relation to which those powers are for the time being exercisable by virtue of such an order."
That is the whole range of agricultural and horticultural produce and products derived from them—for example, wool, hide, or things of that sort. It is no good the Minister denying that these powers are being taken, and that once this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament those powers can, and probably will, be exercised.
LORD ST. OSWALD: With Parliament's approval.
LORD STONHAM: Yes, with Parliament's approval, but, as I have pointed out, many things over the last ten years have been carried through with Parliament's approval because there has been a permanent majority on the other side of this Chamber. We are now discussing the disastrous financial effects which have flowed from those acts with Parliamentary approval, which the noble Lord is now asking us to undo. I take no pleasure in the fact that we are passing a Bill with defective clauses in it which will become dangerous only if, unhappily, we continue to have a Conservative Government.
These import levies—import taxes, which they really are—although paid in the first instance by the importer, will naturally be passed on to the consumer. Indeed, they could facilitate a major shift in the burden of taxation from direct taxes to indirect taxes on the consumer through increased prices; and the burden, of course, as with any increase in food prices, falls most heavily on the shoulders of those least able to bear it—the poor, the aged, the working people with larger families, and any people with small fixed incomes. I know that some foods in the total bill presumably would not qualify for levy—the non-indigenous food. But, as I mentioned, raw materials would. An increase of just 10 per cent. in the cost of food imports would increase the cost

265
of living by some £300 million. I said that I thought the Government were doing the right thing in the wrong way, and, in our view on these Benches, the only way for British agriculture is that based generally on the 1947 Act, whereby we have really guaranteed prices, wherever those are possible, and subsidies, wherever they are necessary, arranged in such a way that they benefit both farmers and consumers alike. To depart from those policies and to switch to food levies and restriction on supplies will bring expensive, and perhaps even tragic, disaster. Increase in food prices means increase in wages. That means an all-round increase in manufacturing costs and a decrease in our power to export.
On the other hand, food subsidies, although consistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, are a most powerful form of export subsidy. We must not forget that since 1957 the terms of trade have moved in our favour by 20 per cent., which is a bonus of £1,000 million a year on our balance of payments. A rise in food prices would start a reverse trend and push us straight into a deficit—assuming we are not there already. World food prices are not still falling; they are rising. In the last two years, prices of imported food have risen by 12 per cent. and retail food prices by 5 per cent. Nor are there quite the same world food surpluses. China, India and the Soviet Union have come on to the market as heavy buyers of cereals.
Our difficulty in the world may therefore be to keep food prices down, not push them up. It is under such conditions that the Government introduce a measure which must have the effect, beyond any peradventure, of restricting home production of staple foods. Labour's policy of food subsidies widened the world food market; Conservative food restrictions and levies will narrow it. We cannot help the underfed nations by producing less food. We should aim to produce more, and then find ways, in co-operation with other countries, to help them with our bounty.
I regret that the noble Lord was not able to say just a word about the proposal for a world food board when he was mentioning the restrictions which would have to be imposed on home production. This proposal, which is strongly
266
supported by the National Farmers' Union, should be investigated and followed up, because it is tragic even to think of restricting production of food here when more than one-third of the people of the world are, in varying degree, starving.
The right honourable gentleman, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, admitted on February 7 that his attempts to reach agreement with overseas suppliers on the level of imports of beef, veal, mutton and lamb, appropriate for 1964–65 fatstock season, had failed. Therefore I am sure the noble Lord will agree that there can be no quantitative limitation of imports during the coming fatstock year, because no agreement has been reached. I ask him: Does that mean that the Minister may consider applying to meat the provisions of Clause 1 of this Bill for fixing minimum import prices? If not—and the Minister shakes his head—I would then ask: What safeguard is there against the possibility, if the conditions turn unfavourably, of another colossal bill for deficiency payments on meat? The Minister's proposals for voluntary restriction of imports, which the noble Lord mentioned very briefly in about half a sentence, would have been coupled with agreements for standard quantities at home, and he will agree that the Labour Party do not object in principle to the idea of standard quantities. After all, the 1947 Act may be said to be the parent of the idea of standard quantities, because in it we referred to the production of such parts of the nation's food requirements as can be produced at home. I am not quoting the exact words, but they are well known. To-day, in fact, most of the staple foods, except meat and cereals, have standard quantities built into the price arrangements in one way or another.
We are, however, very much concerned—and I hope the noble Lord will comment on this—to ensure that standard quantity arrangements shall not lead to artificial or unnecessary restriction of home production, or to scarcity prices. If we are to have standard quantity agreements written into the arrangements with the exporters of food to this country it must mean restriction of some kind in production—of course it does. That is

267
what the standard means. Therefore, what we in the Labour Party are concerned with is that there shall be, not unlimited production but a sensible expansion of British agriculture, and we think that that principle must be built into any fixing of standard quantities. We believe that agriculture is entitled to share with industry the planned 4 per cent. production increase. It is no answer to deny this on the ground that in some products there is no room for increased production without increased demand: the same position exists in some industries. We should allow for an overall 4 per cent. increase in agriculture, and we believe that the best way of co-ordinating imports with home production would be to exercise control over imports through a commodity commission and not by, as we see it, the hit-and-miss, and probably wholly ineffective method of the import levy. I have dealt with this matter at some length because I believe that it is by far the most important part of the Bill, and may have very far-reaching consequences.
I now turn, with considerable relief, to Parts II and III of the Bill and the proposals for horticulture. We on this side of your Lordships' House have for years been pressing for production grants for growers and co-operatives; for capital assistance for the small man; for the provision of working capital for co-operatives; for assistance in building up co-operative markets; and for arrangements for extended credit and compulsory grading. All these measures we warmly welcome, and we are grateful that they have come at last, even though they are, as we think, long overdue. But the noble Lord will agree that it is not possible to speak with any certainty of the effects of these Parts of the Bill until we have seen the regulations which will be published, and which we shall examine with great care. There are, however, some points that' I should mention, because I think they reveal obvious defects.
The Bill proposes a possible total of £27 million in production grants. That is a very useful sum, but I would ask: will it be taken up? In 1960, £8 million was made available for a similar object, but to date only some £3 million, I believe, has actually been taken up—and
268
I have no doubt that if that figure is not a very up-to-date one the noble Lord will tell us what is the exact figure to date. But only some £3 million, out of £8 million available for a four-year period, has been taken up for the very reason that growers could not afford to find their two-thirds share; and so far as the small man is concerned, I think it is generally known that he is already far too heavily "in the red" with the banks as it is. This Bill does improve the credit facilities, but not, I feel, sufficiently to ensure that the amounts available will be fully taken up. In our submission, if these proposals are to succeed there must be far more help for the producers' co-operatives; and in Committee we shall suggest improvement, particularly with regard to facilities for credit for producers' co-operatives.
In this connection I warmly welcome the announcement which the noble Lord has made with regard to the Government's second thoughts arising out of discussions in another place on their original idea to give a credit monopoly, as it were; a guaranteed monopoly for the Agricultural Credit Corporation. I welcome the change of heart in principle, but I am not at all sure that the proportions of nine-tenths for this Corporation and one-tenth for the Finance Federation are right, or, indeed, that they will allow credit to go to the quarters where it is most needed. But that is a matter with which I know my noble friend Lord Peddie will be dealing.
Another point on which we are not satisfied is this question of the one-third grant for grubbing-up old orchards on agricultural holdings. I am sure that the noble Lord is perfectly well aware of the kind of old, worn-out, disease-ridden orchard on an agricultural holding which it does not pay the holder to look after properly. He is not going to plough up that orchard for the sake of only a one-third grant. I think the grant will have to be higher, if it is to do any good. We welcome also the plan for compulsory grading, but we are very disappointed that there is no mention of a minimum grade, and also because the proposed quality grading will not apply to retail sales. We take the view that there will be nothing to prevent a retailer from buying cheap, ungraded fruit and mixing it up with graded fruit.

269
If the noble Lord thinks retailers would not do anything so daft as that, I can assure him that he does not know the kind of thing that they get up to.
I should also like to know, when the noble Lord comes to reply, whether it is the Government's intention to use the minimum import price mechanism for horticultural produce. I know he mentioned that action with regard to tariffs is at least four years away, but I should like to make it clear that some of us would not regard the removal of tariffs on horticultural produce as any great loss; nor do we think that they have been of very great help. But what we are concerned about is that, if tariffs are eventually to be removed, it is essential that there should be adequate protection against dumping; and the industry is entitled to know now the Government's intentions in this respect. We hall also discuss in Committee, under Clause 20, the Government's intentions with regard to the pre-packaging industry, which is a subject vital to the future of horticulture.
My Lords, these points, though important, are relatively small compared with the two major defects in the Bill's proposals for horticulture. The first is that action with regard to improvements to wholesale markets is left entirely to local authorities' initiative. The Government, as it were, have only negative powers to say "Yes" or "No" if a scheme is put forward. We all know that in the provision of markets we lag hopelessly behind Europe, and, as the noble Lord says, hopelessly behind what we need in this country. We need not only reconstructed markets, but new markets, and we should like the noble Lord to tell the House how we are to get new markets (and the Bill provides for new markets) if they are to be limited to those existing markets with a throughput of some £5 million a year or more. We shall never get new markets that way.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I believe he wants me to, and I think this will be helpful to him. I did say a "potential throughput". Therefore, if a local authority can say, to the satisfaction of the Ministry, that they have a market with a potential throughput of £5 million, it would be eligible.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for interrupting me. That is a completely satisfactory answer. I am sorry if I misunderstood him. It means that we can have new markets if the possibilities are there. The difficulty is that the Government propose to leave the whole matter to the initiative of local authorities. We believed that you will never get new markets in areas badly served, and you will never get a proper regional organisation within a national plan—which is what is needed—unless the Government take the initiative. On this point the noble Lord will know—it is his Calais on his heart—that we told the Government three years ago about Covent Garden: and we were absolutely right. Three years have been wasted, and the Government have been in a hopeless muddle about it. When we come to give advice on this Bill in Committee r hope they will accept our advice, and we shall make progress.
My final word is on the great error in the Bill in its failure to provide for a permanent body having continuing oversight of development of horticulture, research, teaching, packaging, grading, marketing, et cetera. Apparently the whole complex problem is to be left to a section of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. What possible hope can there he for horticulture in such a setup? The H.M.C. lived a brief span and died, as we said it would, because it had no "teeth". We need a similar organisation but with a clear directive and with power to act and initiate. With such a body, and with this Bill, we could do something to get somewhere with horticulture. Without it, I am afraid it will be another case of hope deferred, but fortunately hope deferred only until a Labour Government are returned to power with the know-how and determination to restore to British agriculture and horticulture the high hopes and certainties of 1947.
5.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: My Lords, I address your Lordships feeling very diffident and rash, in view of the vast experience which your Lordships have on agricultural matters, and I feel that yet another voice may be unnecessary. Nevertheless, since the war I have been, as I am, a practical farmer and fruit grower as well as an owner, and I hope therefore

271
that your Lordships will bear with me for a few minutes.
First, I must say that I welcome this Bill as a non-political and constructive effort by Her Majesty's Government to deal with some of the problems inherent in this island. But there are one or two points which I should like to put before your Lordships. Part I of the Bill is a very important part indeed. It marks a complete change of policy, and to judge from the discussions in another place and among the agricultural unions, perhaps it is the most controversial. I think it is a real attempt to protect, first, the farmer and, secondly, the taxpayer against dumping and wrongly priced goods entering the country. The anti-dumping laws of 1957 can be used against special cases, but they are, as your Lordships will know, slow and cumbersome to act. Speed is the essence of market correction and market management, and I hope that a minimum import price coupled with the levy will be an effective way of dealing with these under-priced agricultural commodities without limiting them by quantity or by direct prohibition.
Let me turn to fruit growing, horticulture. I myself am a fruit grower; therefore, I must disclose a quite considerable interest in this matter. It is true to say that there is disquiet in ail parts of the country because if tariffs and import restrictions are removed, so far as horticulture is concerned, any advantage which may accrue under this Bill will not compensate for that. In fact, horticulture will be gravely damaged. In apple growing, for instance, it has been argued that there is a general levelling up of costs on the Continent of Europe with ours. But when we look at the proper basis of comparison, costs per unit of production that is relating costs to output—I do not think we shall find this is the case. Abroad they have enormous advantages over us. They have many more sun hours than we have: perhaps 500 to 1,000 hours more a year. This brings much more uniformity in their produce, much more colour and much higher yield.
Now in the countries in Europe, by withholding irrigation at certain times of the year they can get what I understand is called bud initiation, or, in other
272
words, they can control bud formation, which is so important in fruit growing. I would again submit to your Lordships that any advantage that this Bill gives the horticultural industry cannot be a substitute for tariffs and quotas. As horticulturists we cannot grow regular crops in this country every year, and it is the short year with higher prices which is so important to the English grower to keep him in business in the glut years which are always there. When we see that in the last twenty years apple production throughout the world has increased by 300 per cent.—and I think that in British Columbia, which is a great apple growing district, this has been called the "apple explosion" your Lordships will see how precarious is the industry.
Let me go on to Part II of the Bill, which deals with improvements of efficiency in small production businesses. There is a production grant for units up to 30 acres, and I welcome this. The small horticultural holding is a means by which the horticulturist can start small and go up to bigger things; it is something in which he can have an aim. I can think of many ways in which this money can be spent—purchasing fruit stock, equipping greenhouses, new heating systems, small irrigation plants and sprayers—and I hope Her Majesty's Government will make this grant available for what I might call movables. So often one sees small men plying away, working away, with "dud", secondhand machinery. I know your Lordships will realise that, as in everything else, no farmer ever gets rid of anything good, so the small man has to buy very poor equipment on the secondhand market. I mentioned sprayers. I know that spraying was very fully debated in your Lordships' House in the debate on chemical sprays. But I think I must here say to your Lordships that, if the country wants the English grower to put clean fruit on the market, he simply must spray.
I attach the greatest importance to grubbing of orchards. I think your Lordships may not realise the very large number of old orchards there are in the country. In 1949 half the acreage of apple orchards in the country was orchards under 10 acres, and I think this accounted for 91 per cent. of the holdings. Old small orchards are the main

273
source of rubbish put on the market in glut years, and this is certainly one of the greatest hazards to the English market that commercial growers have to face. Such produce depresses the price. Grubbing these orchards is a very expensive business, particularly because the trees are generally big, old trees, and it costs sometimes £40 to £50 an acre. I agree with the noble Lord opposite that one-third of the cost would not be enough to encourage the farmer, as distinct from the horticulturist, to carry out this work. I would also ask Her Majesty's Government if they will press ahead with producing the fruit census of 1962, which is so important a document, so growers can plan their planting. When they make the census, I hope that they will divide the apple into three compartments—culinary, cider apples, in particular, and eating apples.
Let me deal next with marketing and the provisions in the Bill dealing with help to marketing organisations. It is most valuable that co-operative marketing businesses will be able to receive increased grants for working capital for the first two years to assist their development. I think we should realise that there is divided opinion among growers in the apple industry as to whether to take advantage of one of these cooperative organisations or to sell by grade. Some five or six years ago I took part in a private survey in our district to see whether we should found one for ourselves, and in the end we decided against it. Fruit growers—I am really talking in this sphere about hard-fruit growers, apple and pear growers—are most independent people, and many much prefer to market their own produce. They know that they have a good brand; they have a good repution in the market which they have struggled to earn, and they have kept it over a long period of time. They do not want to be controlled by a pack-house manager. They think that they are doing the job of storing, grading, despatching to market and accounting more cheaply than if it were done by another organisation; and their staffs are largely drawn from the wives of the men whom they employ. Co-operative packhouses, on the other hand, have to employ their staffs on unremunerative, out-of-season jobs to retain them for the late autumn and winter seasons.
274
Private growers feel, too, that they can perhaps more easily dispose of their second-grade produce through the ordinary market channels in small lots, rather than through an organisation which may have to put a big offering of second-grade fruit on the market. Against this point of view, there is the small grower, with perhaps 25 acres, who cannot afford storage and who therefore often sees a considerable advantage in co-operative selling., Again, these co-operative organisations have a buying side in raw materials, as well as a selling side and this helps to reduce the costs of members. On the whole, I submit that the costs of collective packing and marketing have never yet been lower than farm packing, simply because of the high expenses of collective packing. Collective packhouses, I would ask your Lordships to note, are in large buildings, and as a result they are rated by the local authorities.
I come to Part III of the Bill, which deals with grading. This is of enormous importance to the fruit and vegetable industry. I think that all responsible growers welcome Clause 11. Voluntary schemes have failed in the past, and I hope that it will not be long before Her Majesty's Government introduce regulations to this effect. Grading and the inspection of fruit, particularly apples, will not be easy, owing to the immense variations in soils from county to county, from farm to farm, and even from plantation to plantation. The great variation in the appearance of English fruit results. This characteristic makes it most difficult to grow to uniform standards, compared with foreign apples, which are grown on much more uniform soils with much more sun, which in its own right gives much greater uniformity. I would submit to your Lordships that there must be, as the noble Lord opposite said, a minimum grade below which fruit will be rejected. I would submit, too, that the grades should be as simple as possible. I noted this year a variety of apple which was sold in 27 grades. This is much too expensive. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will make quite clear the position about the size of fruit. There is no mention of size in this clause of the Bill. I think that all apples—indeed, all fruit—below a certain size we should try to send to process.

275
Now I come to what is perhaps the most contentious part of the horticulture provisions—namely, the direct sale of ungraded fruit to the retailers. I do not think your Lordships may realise the amount of ungraded fruit which may go to the retailer under this scheme. I note that Clause 11(4) can be used to prevent this. I agree with noble Lords opposite that there will be a great danger that retailers may mix up fruit. They will have a box of first-grade and a box of second-grade; they will mix the two, and perhaps sell them as grade one. Under the Food and Drugs Act that is illegal. However, they may well say that these apples are "extra selected"—as indeed they are. I would say that the inspectorate should be carried on right down to the retail shop. I think it is important that it should be compulsory for retailers to mark ungraded fruit or mixed grades with a label saying "Ungraded fruit". One last point about grading. I would ask Her Majesty's Government to phase the operation over a number of years. Inspectors have to be trained: growers have to be trained, and the market has to be trained. This will take a considerable time. When grading has been successful, as I am quite sure it will be, then will be the time for the industry to advertise. The fruit grower has an entirely beneficial product that he is putting on the market, and I am quite sure that there is great scope for increased sales of English fruit.
To sum up, my Lords, grubbing and grading are vital to the industry. If tariffs and quotas are removed, the industry will he in a most vulnerable position; and that risk will not be counteracted by the grant provisions in this Bill. I hope that it is in order to use an expression which we have in food growing. I have introduced, as have all food growers in this period of grubbing and re-planting, many maidens in entire orchards; but I must confess that the introduction of this "maiden" has caused me far greater concern. I thank your Lordships for listening to me with such patience.
6.0 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, it is with the greatest possible pleasure that I offer my congratulations to the noble Viscount for an excellent maiden speech. It was wellreceived
276
by all your Lordships. He started off by saying that he thought he was rash. He was not rash in any way whatever, but gave us a maiden speech excellent in every way. I can truly say that we hope he will on many occasions join us in our discussions on agriculture and on other matters, so as to give us the benefit of his practical advice. Many of us on this side of the House remember his father, who I think for many years sat on the same Bench as the noble Lord now occupies. We hope that as a younger man he will be spared sitting on that Bench for so long, and that he may come over to this side. We have had three excellent speeches in this debate up to now—speeches which will be read with interest by everyone interested in this subject. The speeches which are to come will be equally important and I am certain will be equally well read.
I look upon this particular Bill as being important. Some Bills which come before your Lordships are good, some are bad, and some are mixed. So far as I can see, from the speeches we have heard and from what has happened outside the House and in another place, this Bill may he classified as mixed—good in parts and not so good in others. It opens up possible additional advantages for agriculture and horticulture. These are much-needed and long overdue. In these days, when free enterprise is still an accepted doctrine of the Government, some of the clauses in the Bill which lean towards planning and control are not surprising or unexpected at this time of agricultural difficulties. The Bill is better by reason of these new departures in Government policy; and although it is not complete and comprehensive I hope that we can regard it as an earnest of better things to come for agriculture and horticulture.
The Bill has received interesting comments from different angles. I am not going into those angles, but they differ and have received the attention of people who are engaged in these industries and whose livelihoods depend on their prosperity. For those reasons we on this side, subject to some Amendments we may wish to make at a later stage, will not delay the Bill's passage at present. It received long-drawn-out consideration in another place. Some Amendments were made; others were unacceptable to the Government—and these may have to be

277
pressed again and new ones introduced. I hope that when that happens the Government will be more understanding and co-operative in this House than possibly they were in another place.
I am intrigued by the wording of the first three lines of Clause 1(1), which read:
"In the interest of maintaining in the United Kingdom a stable market for agricultural or horticultural produce of any description produced in the United Kingdom …"
I trust that the intention behind that sentence can be treated as likely to become a reality. It looks to me to be rather wishful thinking for the future; but I hope it will not stay at that, and will materialise. For if the industry has suffered in the past from any particular drawback, it has been the complete absence of stability in its marketing operations. Haphazard conditions, doubtful practices, a flood of competitive imports, continuous and sometimes violent price fluctuations, as well as increasing costs, have been the bugbears of farmers or horticulturists. To iron these out or get rid of them entirely should not be beyond the wit of man, but the individual in farming cannot achieve this happy position by himself. He must be helped by Government action. To those of us who believe in this, the measure of control to be exercised by the Government in this Bill is thus welcomed. Personally, I hope that the Government will put back into the, Bill the import prohibition which was in Clause 1(2). The Standing Committee in another place, composed as it was of a proportionate number of representatives according to Government and Opposition strengths, agreed on this: but the Government by a narrow majority later struck it out. I should not like in present company to express an opinion on this action. In order not to give offence, I shall have to choose my words.
I come to one or two smaller points. The noble Lord who has just sat down commended the small horticultural producer. Points have arisen as to what is to happen to him in the future. If the area of land occupied and the nature of the product or use of the land have to be taken into consideration (as I understand is the case), I hope the Minister will not be too dogmatic on
278
this point and will stretch it somewhat, according to the circumstances of each individual case. I want to encourage the small producer, the man who works hard and wants to get on. He deserves every encouragement, and if there is unnecessary frustration he may lose his determination and go under. Diligence and a progressive outlook are commendable and should be rewarded.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, touched on grading, and I should like to deal in a few words with this subject. I am hoping that it may be possible for grading to go right through the operation to the consumer; and that, I understand, is the wish of some branches of the National Farmers' Union. Perhaps I might quote from a newspaper report of a meeting of one particular branch in my own area a few days ago, which said this:
"A … resolution, which was endorsed, recommended that if a new Horticulture Act was introduced any grading standards should be compulsorily applied right through to sales by the retailer."
One member,
… who proposed this motion, said the objection of Norfolk Government M.P.s that such an arrangement would be difficult to administer was no excuse at all."
Another member went even further: he said that,
… existing arrangements were not adequate as had recently been suggested by the Minister of Agriculture. He considered that if grading was not compulsorily carried through to retail sales this clause should be withdrawn completely."
I do not think that we on this side of the House hold that view, but we all hope, I think, that grading will go through to the consumer. The noble Lord mentioned the question of apples. It is very difficult, in the ordinary stall markets, for the purchaser to be certain of the sort of grade he is receiving. The five types of produce which were mentioned by the Minister are products which go through to the ordinary market stalls and to shop retailers, and it is therefore important to ensure that the consumer obtains what he is paying for and the quality he expects.
6.12 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I also should like to add my congratulations to the noble Viscount-Lord Falmouth, on his most excellent

279
maiden speech. When one looks at this Bill, on the face of it one would think that the only people who could have any anxiety would be the housewife, because the price of food might possibly go up, and the overseas producer who might have lost a market for his surpluses. But one would have thought that to the agricultural producer it could bring nothing but joy. There is power to prescribe minimum prices and levies on imports, which are valuable new powers enabling the Minister to control imports for which the industry has so long asked. Then, in Part II, we have generous and much needed grants for the horticultural industry to make it more efficient. But, at the same time, one has to realise that the enthusiasm of the producer is in some cases slightly muted, for two reasons; there is the spectre of standard quantities and there is, for the horticulturist, the fear that he may in the future lose the benefit of the tariffs.
One must realise that one is now looking at the Bill against a background—I would not go nearly so far as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham—of a time when many farmers, rightly or wrongly, feel that their incomes are not keeping pace with the rest of the country's. At the same time, they have had some experience of standard quantities, though under completely different circumstances in, let us say, the case of milk and several other products, and their experience has not been altogether as happy as it might have been. I do not propose at the moment to argue the question of farm incomes and so on, because that is a matter to be dealt with much more when we debate the Price Review. But now we see the possibility of new standard quantities being introduced, possibly for cattle and sheep, and probably for cereals. I am not arguing against the standard quantities, but I think one has to realise that they are viewed with a certain amount of suspicion.
I personally support this Bill, and I think it is a bold and imaginative measure. I think that the Government are quite right to take the very wide powers they are taking in Clause 1, so that they can deal with any difficult situation, such as goods coming in at ridiculous prices, as it arises, and far more quickly than they could under the
280
anti-dumping legislation. I think they are right to take wide powers, even though it is the intention at the moment to use them for only the control of cereals.
I must say that I was very surprised at the reception which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, gave to this clause. I am sorry that he has left. I thought that one would have heard perhaps a certain amount of "I told you so" and "I have been asking for this for ten years". But, when he has now got what one would have thought was the sort of thing for which he was asking, what one did not realise was that he would paint the most gloomy and blood-curdling pictures of what was going to happen: either the price of food was going to go sky-high, or it was going to be so low that it would be completely ineffective. In spite of the fact that every new Order would have to have an Affirmative Resolution of this House, he appeared to say that a very wide range of products would immediately be brought in under these powers. The one thing that he never suggested as remotely possible was that the price might be fixed at the right level; only that it could be so low that it was useless, or so high that the price of food went up.
I should like to congratulate the Minister on the successes of the negotiations with our suppliers of cereals, and I hope that in the future similar agreements may be reached with our suppliers of meat, because I am quite sure that, as a great exporting country, we must do these things by agreement with our suppliers. We cannot afford to take unilateral action except in the last possible resort. Of course, we do not know what the details of the cereal scheme are going to be. They will come out at some time, presumably, with the Price Review. But I hope that any scheme that is brought out, if it involves standard quantities, will be fair to the home producer, the consumer, the taxpayer and to the foreign producer; and in particular, that the home producer will not be put into too much of a straitjacket. After all, standard quantities do not necessarily mean putting the industry into a straitjacket. I would have thought that they are really—and I think this is a part of the Agriculture Act.

281
1947, that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, must have missed—such part of our requirements as it is in the national interest to produce. That was one little bit that I think he overlooked.
After all, standard quantities, whether they are restrictive or not, depend on the point where you start them, how much you allow for what is already in the pipe-line and the factors you allow for reasonable growth. I would have thought that in a more stable market, with the worst of the "lows" ironed out, the home producer was really in a better position to compete with imports and, by doing so, to have the standard quantity progressively raised. What I should like from the Government is an assurance that those are the lines on which they are thinking: that if the home producer can compete successfully and win more of the market, then that part will become part of the standard quantity. After all, in an expanding market there is no reason whatsoever why the home producer should not be able to do that.
I hope that this attempt to put stability into the market will be only the start of our trying to put stability into a large number of the markets in primary commodities, because I do not believe, and I think very few people now believe, that violent fluctuations are in the interests either of the consumer or of the producer. They have a disastrous effect on the countries of origin, where these primary products are grown; and, of course, with their development plans, they reduce the rate of improvement in the standard of living and put back the time when those countries can become more markets for our exports. So I welcome Clause 1 of the Bill.
I also welcome Parts II and III, which I think are quite uncontroversial. In particular, I think that the small horticultural business grant, combined with the extension of the horticultural improvements scheme and, at the same time, the improved credits, really should go a long way to help the smaller producers. Of course, this will be a new and quite big job for N.A.A.S., because it will give advice not purely in the technical sense of how to grow the things, but on management, which is the side which is growing so much at
282
the moment. I think that these grants should be a very great help.
The only other point I should like to mention is the marginal producers—the noble Lord, Lord Wise, mentioned it—the people who have just under four acres but are still viable and have useful holdings. It is probably not possible, or it may not be possible, to deal with this in the Bill, but I wonder whether there is not something which could be done to bring more of these people into the scheme.
I think these provisions should go a long way to help horticulture become more efficient. And, as the noble Lord said, they also contain the guarantee that the duties will not come off on the sensitive products for at least four years. Four years is really quite a long time, and they should have some chance. What is more, it is very difficult to forecast at all what the international situation will be in four years' time, and how much other people will have improved. So I think that, at the moment, we should consider increasing the efficiency of the industry and let the other matter wait. I feel myself that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will, together with the 1947 Act and the 1957 Act, make a very great contribution to agriculture.
6.29 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I welcome the Bill within certain limits. I welcome it because I think it is a step towards the co-ordination of imports and home production, which perhaps was not so important when the 1947 Act was framed as it is now. But it is a very great change. The noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, whom I should like to congratulate on an excellent and most knowledgeable maiden speech, is one of the few people who pointed out quite how major a change it is. By Conservative standards, it seems to me, it is positively revolutionary, because it involves changing the whole existing support policy to a policy of protection; and that in itself involves a major shift in international trade relations. It seems to me that before we make a change of this kind we must scrutinise the major economic principles of this plan, to make sure that we are setting sail on the right course, to make as sure as we can that we are taking not just the only available course but the best course that is open to us.

283
This Bill is, after all, the outcome of the breakdown of our negotiations to enter the Common Market. Of course I regretted the breakdown of those negotiations; and I still hope that at some time in the future we may get back into the European system. Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill, because I feel that, within that context, this is probably the best available course open to us. I say "probably" because there are certain aspects of the Bill about which I have grave misgivings. Government policy here may be right—in fact, in the circumstances I think it probably is right. But there are aspects of it which worry me, and which I should like to examine a little. Some of them are points which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, touched on in his speech.
What they amount to is this. The present support system—that is to say, the system of deficiency payments, food subsidies and so on—had very great advantages; but it appears that now, under the stress of changed conditions, it is breaking down. The advantages were, first of all, the question of cheap food. I think that under the old system we undoubtedly had the cheapest food in Europe—though I sometimes wonder whether this is not an illusion. After all, whether you pay for the food by subsidy or by protection, the consumer still has to foot the bill: it is only a matter of internal transfers of payment. I sometimes ask myself whether cheap food is necessarily the right policy at present. Should not the consumer pay for what he consumes at the price it costs, without this illusion? I made the same point in a different context last week, during the Transport debate, when I said I felt that car users were not paying for the services they had, and should be made to do so. I wonder if this does not apply also to food. We have the illusion of cheap food because we support it by subsidy and deficiency payments; but it is the consumer who pays just the same. Can we not help the poorer consumer in some other way or by some other means?
The next advantage which the existing system had was export subsidy. I feel that not enough is made of this point. It is not fair to the agricultural industry always to be talking in terms
284
of subsidy to agriculture, when in fact no small part of the subsidies paid are subsidies to the exporter. As a farmer myself, I feel this very strongly. The point is always made about what idle, useless dogs we are, and how much public money we get, when, in fact, a great deal of the public money is used to support people other than ourselves. Thirdly, the system, as we have been using it, was acceptable under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It is possible that this system has now become unworkable; indeed, it is possible that it was never entirely workable under a free market system. And so we are proposing to change over to something entirely new—protection. I do not think that people realise just how much we are abandoning the old system of deficiency payments. I think that the Minister rather suggested that we are continuing a great deal of these. So we are. But the power to change over completely to protection is written into the Bill. It is a sweeping change altogether, not only a sweeping change in agriculture but a sweeping change in our whole taxation policy and our whole import policy; and this, it seems, to me, involves very great dangers.
First, there is the real danger that the terms of trade may be damaged against us. This is fundamental to us. In many ways it is more important than the whole agricultural industry. If we damage our terms of trade it is no good our trying to support agriculture, because there will not be any agriculture to support. Secondly, whatever one says, the cost of living will go up. There must be a rise in wages, and this must, in turn, affect our export costs. Again I ask myself; does this matter? This is part of the illusion. Should we not, in fact, be paying for what we consume at the price it costs? It is possible that a quite small increase in the cost of imports—something like 10 per cent.—would cover the whole cost of the agricultural subsidies bill. I am not absolutely sure of my figures, but I believe that a rise of about 10 per cent. would yield £300 million, an amount which comes near to balancing the subsidies bill.
Another grave danger is indirect taxation, a point which the noble Lord. Lord Stonham, raised. Again I ask:

285
how much does this really matter today? The old concept, particularly from these Benches, was to regard all indirect taxation as anathema. I think we are now changing our views here—I do not mean only on these Benches; but I feel that the old distaste for indirect taxation is perhaps not so great as it used to be. Is it really shifting the burden of taxation, as the noble Lord suggested, on to those who cannot afford it? Cannot one possibly devise means of helping them in other ways? At all events, I put forward the idea that perhaps indirect taxation is not quite so great an evil as has been suggested. Fourthly, there is a very great danger of this kind of system, the protection system, slowing down the whole process of the exchange of agricultural goods over Europe. Any form of protection restricts trade; it does not expand it. That, in itself, is bad.
Those, my Lords, are the four dangers which come out of the new system; and they are dangers which must be scrutinised closely before one adopts a changeover, as we are doing, to this totally different and new system. Again, we do not really know how this new system is to work. There was an interesting interchange just now between the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on the latter's figures. He, in turn, criticised the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, as to how this was going to work. We do not know; the Government do not know—they are only guessing.
My Lords, that covers the feelings I have over my major worries and difficulties, over the major implications of this. But there is also one particular implication that I should like to air again: I refer to the question of standard quantities. When I first looked at this question of standard quantities in the Bill I was very worried about it: I felt that it put a noose around the farmer's neck. Then I thought, "Poor chap! he always has a noose around his neck anyway, living in an industrial country like England, in which agriculture is only 5 per cent. of the economy. That smallness of interest is a noose in itself." The more I looked at it, the more I felt that it was the corollary of a limitation of imports. If farmers are going to ask for a limitation of imports—and that is what this Bill is designed towards—then the
286
industry must be prepared to expect a limitation on what they themselves grow and produce. We cannot possibly expect to get agreement with the buyers for our own exports unless we are prepared to do this. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, pointed out that the 1947 Act carried the germ of this idea with it. Although one might dislike the idea, obviously it is the only possible one in the circumstances. It, too, has its dangers. After all, it restricts production exactly as any form of protection reduces production rather than expands it.
Noble Lords on these Benches, like noble Lords on the Benches to my left, have felt that it might be done better by some system of commodity commissions. I think that both our Parties have said a good deal on these two points. I would go further and have a wholly managed market. I am not quite sure how far noble Lords on my left are prepared to go towards that, but I am convinced that, in the long run, it must be a wholly managed market.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, where we have commodity commissions, there would be a wholly managed market.
LORD HENLEY: Yes, my Lords, I think that is more or less what I believe it to be. At any rate, some kind of world commodity agreement might be a more helpful way of dealing with this problem than the adoption of the standard quantity conception. But I just do not know. One is entirely in the dark in this matter. Nevertheless, I am inclined to accept the concept of standard quantity as a quid pro quo in return for protection. That we must produce less, strikes me as the best available, though I hope temporary, solution of this rather difficult problem. It seems to me probably as reasonable a compromise in the context of the Act as we can hope for.
Having said that, within these limits, I welcome the Bill, I would end with a plea. It seems to me that this country, as the biggest importer of food in the world, is able, as no one else is, to take the initiative in laying the foundation for a sounder food and agriculture policy over the whole world. Although we have been excluded from Europe, it seems to me, that this Bill takes us a little nearer to the Common Market. I am

287
sure that here I am at odds with the noble Lords on my left, but I feel that, consciously or unconsciously, this Bill is getting us a little nearer to the Common Market and that this is to be welcomed. That, in its turn, is a step in the direction of a managed world market; and I feel that, in the long run, a managed world market is absolutely essential. It is not only ourselves who are bedevilled by these difficulties in agriculture. Every other country—Russia, America, the Commonwealth, and the countries of Europe—is faced with this problem, one of the most difficult and intractable in the world. At one moment, the world is flooded with surpluses; the next moment, the larger part of the world is plunged into hunger. There is this extraordinary dichotomy between these two aspects of agricultural industry, and this applies to the whole world. And it can be solved only by having a wholly managed market, not only for this country but for the world as a whole. So that, in spite of my misgivings on the Bill, I welcome it as a step in the right direction.
6.46 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity of joining in the congratulations that have been extended to the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, on his maiden speech. He gave us the benefit of his practical experience and his speech itself carried many shafts of clear, cool wisdom, particularly where he agreed with this side of the House. It is my intention to deal with only Part II of the Bill, and particularly with Clauses 9 and 10. But, before I do that, in the light of the comments we have just heard, I will make a brief reference to Part I, which makes provision for minimum import prices and levies, which are presumably designed to make the cheapest imports dearer. I am kindly to the viewpoint, just expressed, of concern about the possibility of substantial increases in the price of foodstuffs. The policy that is being put forward ends the practice of free imports of basic agricultural products and, I would agree without question, makes it easier for this country to join the European Economic Community.
I think a case has been established that deficiency payments have become far too expensive. Already we have had reported
288
the crazy situation of deficiency payments for grain being held down by producers being asked to charge more. This new method may be better, but it shifts the burden of deficiency payments from general taxation to a direct tax, which, so far as I can see, is more likely to be imposed upon the most efficient importer. That in itself is not a good principle.
Only 4 per cent. of the population of this country are engaged in the production of food, of all kinds, but 100 per cent. of the population eat it. While protection for the agricultural industry is important—indeed, I would concede, necessary—it is equally important that the population should not necessarily pay high prices, because high prices for foodstuffs can have important repercussions upon the economic system itself. Ask any industrialist or anyone responsible for the negotiation of wage rates about the influence that the price of food has on these negotiations.
To turn to Clause 9, I must say that I welcome the statement that was made by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, that Her Majesty's Government have had second thoughts in regard to their attitude concerning recognition of the Agricultural Finance Federation. This makes it unnecessary for me to express a great deal of the criticism I should have expressed had it not been for that statement. I am sure that the change of heart and policy on the part of the Government is welcome, but, nevertheless, I think it is in itself a tribute to the persistent logic and emphasis of those in another place who pressed the point upon the Government.
However, I should appreciate it if the noble Lord would give the House a few more details. I understand from the noble Lord's statement that the facilities to be afforded to the A.C.C. will be precisely the same as those afforded to the A.F.F. The suggestion is that one-tenth of the £100,000 will be made available to the A.F.F. I am speaking personally now, but I think there is little justification for the figure being 10 per cent.; it ought to be more. At the same time, I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that there will be no difference in the treatment afforded to the A.F.F. as against the A.C.C.

289
There is a strange story of the attitude of the Government in these negotiations. While we welcome the comment that has been made, at the same time we deplore the circumstances surrounding the attitude of the Government so far as their relationship with the A.F.F. is concerned. It is, as I say, a strange story, and it indicates that throughout the whole period these negotiations must have been held exclusively with the A.C.C., despite the fact that, surely, the importance of the Agricultural Finance Federation must have been recognised in this field of effort. Indeed, I believe that in the early stages, following upon the obvious alarm that was expressed by the Agricultural Finance Federation, a communication was addressed to that body indicating that there was no possibility of their recognition. But on Second Reading a different story was told.
I am glad that there has been this change of heart, because had it not been so it would without question have been an indication of favouritism and a refusal to recognise an organisation that is doing work equally as important and useful as that of the A.C.C. As I have said, it is not necessary for me at this stage to bring forward many of the points I should have done to justify recognition of the Agricultural Finance Federation. This has been done, and I am glad to hear that the guarantees given will be in precisely the same terms as those afforded to the A.C.C.
I should now like to turn to Clause 10 of Part II, which authorises grants not exceeding one-third towards the cost of extending, building or reconstructing wholesale markets. A substantial sum of money—£20 million over a period of ten years, which could possibly be increased to £25 million—is being allotted for this purpose by the Government, and I feel that in the debate so far insufficient attention has been devoted to the significance of this action. I think all noble Lords would agree that the great majority of urban wholesale fruit and vegetable markets need improvement. Most of them, if not all, are too small to deal with the current volume of home and foreign produce. The majority of them have bad layouts, which make it difficult to employ those modern methods of handling produce which could effect economies in operation.
290
It is essential to remember that the location and form of many of these markets are the result of historical factors in transportation and pattern of consumption rather than present-day requirements. Few of the wholesale markets in this country to-day really conform to the demands that are set by present-day requirements. These factors add substantially to the operational costs and, what is more, they add to our traffic problems. Therefore, the offer of financial aid over the next ten years to local authorities will, as I am sure we all agree, give a stimulus to the modernisation problem.
Nevertheless, I think it is as well to give some thought to the influences that will be brought to bear upon the prosecution of the policy which the Government obviously have in mind. In the first place, inadequate markets have been with us for a long time. It is interesting to note that less than half of the local authorities to-day have any firm plans for market redevelopment; and I believe there have been only two new wholesale markets constructed since the end of the war. There are a number of reasons, also, to cause one to believe (I should appreciate some comment from the noble Lord opposite on this) that even the offer of this assistance can be no guarantee that a comprehensive modernisation programme will be launched if it is left exclusively to local authorities, because there are difficulties involved which would in many cases justify non-activity on the part of local authorities.
We were discussing some of these difficulties yesterday when dealing with the problem of urban renewal. Let me recount some of them. In the first place, there are the complexities of town planning, including the difficulty of purchasing land and its fantastic cost; and the need to secure agreement among traders who frequently occupy sites in the markets with a full recognition that a transfer to another site will mean a substantial increase in rent: in other words, the changeover from the rent established by conditions of a generation ago to the economic rent that would be demanded by the new markets.
Another point—and there has been no indication that the Government recog-

291
nised this—is that additional market organisation ranks very low in the order of priorities so far as municipal authorities are concerned. The markets may be inefficient, but they are performing a function; and when the local authority are considering doing what the Government want them to do, and they have in mind matters of much greater and immediate concern to the voter, such as slum clearance, re-housing, provision of schools, roads and the like, it is perfectly obvious that the majority of them are not likely to pursue the development of new markets merely because of an offer of assistance of the character the Government are suggesting. One could say more with regard to that.
There is a second point which I would mention. Even if the local authorities were persuaded to modernise their markets, it is very doubtful indeed whether local authorities or anybody else has any precise idea about what sort of markets should be built at the present time. As an illustration, what thought has been given to what extent the construction and functioning of wholesale markets should be modified to conform to a trend whereby specialisation in food retailing is being replaced by the growth of organisations handling all types of foodstuffs, including fruit and vegetables? Whilst I would agree that the Chambers Report of 1963, I think it was, provided some information on food and vegetable market design and construction, it was certainly not comprehensive. Largely, the problem of market location remains a completely unexplored field. My noble friend made reference to the problem of Covent Garden Market, which is an indication not only of the complexity but of the difficulty in this matter of siting.
My third point in this regard is my final point. It is by no means clear that local authorities generally would at this stage be wise to embark upon the big-scale problem of market redevelopment without a detailed examination of the trends that are taking place in distribution, both wholesale and retail to-day. There is a great growth in the volume of retailing organisations, and an increasing tendency to integrate the wholesale function into their activities and deal directly on a specification basis
292
with large-scale growers. This trend may become the dominant factor in the determination of marketing in the future.
May I also refer to the question of grading? Grading, if carried much farther than this Bill carries it, could in the future be a factor affecting wholesale markets. If grading is carried to its practical and logical conclusion, I suppose a case of fresh tomatoes could be bought as easily, and with as great a certainty of quality, as one could buy a can of peas. If we arrive at that situation, the whole conception of wholesale marketing will be quite different. I mention those points because it is obvious to me that Her Majesty's Government have given not the slightest attention to the real question of marketing. Have they given this sop of some financial aid so that they will be able to say to the municipal authorities, "Why have you not got on with the job?" Yet the slightest investigation on their part would reveal the tremendous obstacles and difficulties in the path of municipal authorities who may desire to take up the offer that is made by the Government.
Our problem to-day, I agree, is to replace these 19th century buildings and markets—and sometimes they are older—and to create in their place the form of marketing that will not merely handle the produce of to-day but will be able to deal with the sort of trade, both wholesale and retail, which we may get in the next 20, 30 or 40 years. Therefore, unless we give attention to this, it is possible—I place it no higher than that—that municipalities will be persuaded or coerced to engage in certain market developments which, before the passing of more than one or two decades, will he considered complete white elephants.
7.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I rise to welcome this Bill and should like to confine my few short comments to the horticultural section of it. I am pleased to see that the Government are taking positive steps to assist the horticultural industry, and I must say that the industry as a whole is very vulnerable and badly needs Governmental assistance. This industry now has an annual turnover of £160 million and, in the recent words of

293
the Minister, makes an important contribution to the national economy. Direct assistance by production grants to the small producer will, I am sure, be warmly welcomed, but I do not feel that a maximum of £500 per holding will go very far to assist the small grower to expand his business. As no doubt many noble Lords are aware, the present-day costs required are enormous, and I am told that one acre alone of glasshouses would cost over £20,000. I should like to suggest that this figure of £500, as provided in the Bill, should be reconsidered and increased to a higher sum.
The grant available for co-operative societies, I feel, needs careful examination. I consider that the marketing organisation should be a local government responsibility, and not be left to the co-operatives. The history of co-operatives has not been in every case a story of success; and although a number started after the war, the total co-operative sales today represent only 2 to 3 per cent. of the horticultural market. There have been a number of failures, and I wonder whether a grant to be made available under this Bill will necessarily be a good public investment. So often the reason for a co-operative society failing is that there is no control over their members. So often the members use the society's facilities to dispose of their produce as a last resort when other outlets have failed.
I cannot believe it right for public money to be made available for the benefit of only a few growers: I do not believe there is any proper benefit to the industry as a whole. Members of a society may be far more anxious to see the society succeed where only their own money is at stake. As to the setting up of new co-operative markets, I would humbly suggest that the existing markets in numbers are quite adequate. We should improve the existing facilities rather than set up new, costly markets that will be in direct competition with existing markets.
The provision of compulsory grading has received certain criticisms from the trade. The main concern is how many inspectors the Government are expecting to need, and who will pay for them—the trade, the housewife or the Government. Many of the wholesalers take
294
the view that, in any case, buyers of horticulture themselves visually grade, and they do not feel that lower quality goods on the market have any real detrimental effect on trade. It is felt that to set up an efficient team of graders will require a great number of staff and considerable expense.
Much as one welcomes the Bill as an immediate assistance to the industry, there is a growing fear among the industry that the real problem is that British growers cannot compete on equal terms with Continental growers, and if, in the future, this competition is allowed to come about, the present injection into the industry will be of no real value. The conception of the Bill, one is told, is to encourage growers to improve their competitive production in relation to foreign suppliers by improving the marketing. The Bill, of course, does benefit the industry, but I do not believe that it will have any lasting effect on the reduction of growers' costs; and this, surely, is the reason why we cannot compete on equal terms with foreign competition. As I understand it, the Minister has given the industry four years before reducing tariffs. This I regard as an ominous warning for the livelihood and the future of the grower.
7.11 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I will start my speech by offering my warmest congratulations, not only formally but sincerely, to my noble friend Lord Falmouth for his maiden speech. I am also most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for making many of the points which I was going to make, for I am thereby able to shorten my speech, to the benefit of your Lordships. I shall speak only to the horticultural part of the Bill.
I welcome this Bill, which is a good Bill so far as it goes, but I feel that in some respects it goes rather in the wrong direction. There have been enormous changes in horticulture since the war and the dominant one is that the buying is getting into fewer and fewer hands, and the small man is getting a worse and worse deal. Inevitably, the big buyers go to the big sellers for their produce, and the small man, for the most part at present has to go to the wholesaler, who acts on commission. That is, in my view, an entirely wrong principle. I

295
come from an area of smaller growers than there are in the East and South-East counties, and it seems to me that the small grower is not likely to take up much of the grants on the 33⅓ per cent. basis which has been offered to him. Under the 1960 Act only a very small amount was taken; and I think that that was a good thing, because there is a grave risk of getting over-capitalised. The grower has increasingly become not only an accountant but a salesman and a mechanic, and to-day the "green fingers" end of it is another man's job altogether.
I regard the industry as in two parts: first, growing and, second, grading, packing and selling. The latter is really a factory job, which I should like to see handled right throughout the country by co-ops; the co-ops taking produce at a fixed price, selling it to wholesalers in the big markets at a fixed price and not on commission. Then, we should not see produce of first-class quality being retailed in the shops at double the price which the grower obtained initially. An outstanding case of growers getting over-capitalised is in the erection of cold stores, which cost roughly £100 an acre—a very large amount of money to put up for equipment which will be used only for a few weeks in the year. Cold storage, to my mind, should be done by the co-ops, and the wholesalers, who have an opportunity of using their big stores for other purposes throughout the year.
I welcome the clauses regarding grading, but grading only for the wholesale market is nothing like sufficient. We must somehow get the rubbish off the market; and one is apt in these days to include as rubbish the small fruit which has become very unfashionable, although some of it is good. But this past season it has been quite unsaleable. For myself, I give all my small dessert apples to the local education authority to be eaten in the schools, thereby promoting the doctor's dental scheme, and they have been extremely grateful. It would not cost other growers anything to do the same thing, and in a season of scarcity the local authorities might very well buy up small apples and feed them to the schools. That is only one suggestion.
296
Another way of getting rid of—not necessarily rubbish, but a glut of other produce is by processing. The recent record of processing has not been particularly helpful. During the last war two drinks were introduced as producing vitamins. One was blackcurrant juice, in the form of Ribena and the other was rose hip juice. Unfortunately, in recent years a tax has been put on Ribena, which has promoted the sales of rose hip juice, which is very good juice anyhow. The result has been a catastrophic drop in the price for blackcurrants, which makes it practically impossible to produce blackcurrants at a profit in the many parts of England where they can be produced only at a rate of one ton or one and half tons an acre. A few areas are luckier, but in a great part of the Eastern Counties they cannot produce more than about one ton to one and a half tons per acre, and at a price which does not pay the grower. If that tax could be taken off Ribena it would help the blackcurrants growers enormously.
There is another outlet for processing. In recent years numerous attempts have been made in this country to promote the consumption of apple juice on the sort of scale on which Hitler made an appeal to the youth in Germany. I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say that in this country all the attempts have been failures. I understand that in the State of Washington, in America, one company has spent an enormous amount of money on research and development. I have written to try to get some details, but so far I have not succeeded. This company take in a matter of 300 to 400 tons of apples a day, process them and produce a very saleable and popular drink. I gather that the process has been enormously expensive, but that is the sort of thing the Government might well subsidise.
So much for processing and getting rid of the "smalls". I think the present system of marketing (to which the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, made some reference) to the wholesale commission agents is entirely wrong. There are good and bad wholesale commission men, but they nearly all have an interest in selling foreign produce; and in many respects the foreign produce is more specious than ours. The Italians, in

297
particular, send over here round, rosy rubbish with skins like a cricket ball and absolutely devoid of taste. The wholesalers find that they have a greater appeal to the housewives than a good English Cox has, and sell at a higher price. That, I think, is wrong; and if the commission agents could buy their stuff outright and not sell it on commission, I believe that it would be for the benefit of the home growers.
The only other point that I wish to bring out is the question of publicity. A few years ago there was a scheme for publicising the consumption of apples. It was not well supported by the growers, merely because it was on too small a scale. There was an appeal for money. I think £30,000 was put up, but £300,000 was needed. So people lost heart and did not subscribe, and the effort died out. If a publicity scheme for home-grown apples and home-grown produce could be introduced it would assist enormously in the revival of the industry.
7.22 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I also would start by adding my congratulations to those of other noble Lords to the noble Viscount who made such an admirable maiden speech, so full of his own practical experience and wise thought and I, too, with my noble friend Lord Wise, hope we shall hear frequently from him again. Perhaps I may begin by saying that there was one point on which I disagreed with him, when he said, in a slightly different context, that no farmer ever gets rid of anything good. But I would remind him that farmers assisted in getting rid of something that was the best thing they ever had, and that was Tom Williams, my noble friend Lord Williams of Barn-burgh, and the Government of which he was a prominent member some twelve years ago.
Where I agreed with the noble Viscount very strongly, and indeed with other noble Lords who made the point after him, was on the question of grading fruit and horticultural produce, and whether that should he carried through to the retail end or riot. After all, what is the point of grading? Why is there this provision in the Bill that there should be compulsory grading? It must surely be simply because it is to the
298
benefit of the consumer; otherwise there is no need for it at all. It is not inserted in order to benefit the wholesaler or the retailer and to make life easier for them; it is to make it better for the consumer, so that he knows what he is buying. And yet by failing to follow this through to the shop itself, the whole purpose of the provision is being defeated. I hope the Government will reconsider this matter very seriously and make what is a wise and reasonable provision really worth while instead of stopping just short of the target they wish to achieve.
There was another point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, and also by one or two other speakers later on—I think the two noble Earls who last spoke also made this point. It was implicit in some of the things they said, which I do not think they meant in quite that way, and I hope they did not; it was to the effect that the British grower of horticultural produce is at an inevitable intrinsic disadvantage when compared with foreign growers. That, of course, is true in certain respects for certain commodities. There are some things which we cannot grow so easily or so well as foreign producers. Obviously, we cannot grow peaches so well as the Italians or the South Africans; we cannot grow artichokes so well as the Bretons, although they have great difficulty in getting rid of produce at a reasonable price.
But there are some things we grow infinitely better, some we can grow as cheaply, even tomatoes—Worthing growers can compete in their growing costs with the Dutch, but when it comes to marketing costs it is a different story. When we turn to raspberries or strawberries, so far as quality is concerned we are away ahead, and when we turn to what the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, mentioned, the Coxes, there is no apple in the world to beat it or come anywhere near it. I think it would be a great misfortune if it were thought that noble Lords in this House, with their great experience, really felt that the British horticulturist could not produce things as good as, or better than, the foreign producers. I must say I can never understand why people in this country insist on buying these extraordinary, soft, shiny red things called apples which come all the way across the Atlantic,

299
and will often pay more for them than for some of the rather smaller but absolutely first-class apples which the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, has to give to his local authority—and they are very lucky to get them.
I, on occasions, when I go abroad to rather distant climes, especially into the Caribbean, occasionally have a hankering for an apple. I go into a multiple store there and all I find once more are these soft pieces of cotton wool with glossy red paint on the outside. Why cannot we export apples? They are good enough, and would be a very good export if we could build up demand for them and make people realise what a good apple can taste like. I hope we shall not be content with trying to improve horticulture at home simply for home consumption, but that we shall realise that we have something which is better than is grown anywhere else in the world, and we could build up an export trade on it.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, surely the point is the cost, not quality. I personally was discussing cost. I quite agree that on quality Britain cannot be bettered.
LORD WALSTON: I am afraid I could not quote off-hand how much apples cost in the shops to-day, but I do not think the price differential between second-quality Cox's and the imported apple is so very great. I think we can compete with them, and that those not considered good enough to sell at all could certainly be sold.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: The noble Lord mentioned tomatoes.
LORD WALSTON: Yes. There the point I wished to make was that our producers in certain areas—and I specified Worthing—were competitive in costs with the producers in Holland, but when it came to distribution, there, for some reason which is too involved to go into at this stage, our costs shot up and theirs remained very low.
Perhaps that can lead me on to the second point—I wished to make only two points on the horticultural section of the Bill—and that is the question of wholesale markets. I agree with every word my noble friend Lord Peddie said
300
on that matter. It is a subject that clearly is of the utmost importance in the problem of reducing our costs and making us competitive; and it is quite intolerable that we should be satisfied with a condition whereby it is in fact cheaper, or appears to be cheaper, to take a tomato or lettuce from a horticultural holding in Holland and bring it into a London shop than take it from the Lea Valley to the London shop. That is something we cannot accept with equanimity.
It is good that the Government have made some financial provision in this regard, but of course my noble friend Lord Peddie is absolutely right in saying that it is not simply a question of having the money to do it: you must know how to spend the money wisely. It is no good simply leaving it to the local authorities in the hope that they will spend that money wisely. They may have a market that has the requisite turnover; it may be a very backward market, and therefore presumably they will rank for this grant. But it may well be that in the type of wholesale distribution which will be coming in the years ahead and in the type of regional development that will take place also, that particular market should not exist at all and should be phased out and some neighbouring market be made the main market for the centre, or possibly all those markets should be abolished and one entirely new market should be made. These things cannot be decided by the local authorities; it is not their job, and they do not have the overall vision. It must be decided on a regional basis, and the initiative must not be left to the local authorities but taken by some other body, which I suggest, in the first instance, should be the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
We must remember, too as both my noble friends have reminded us, that the example of the Covent Garden business is not an encouraging one. We waited years before the Covent Garden Authority was set up. We have now waited three years since it was set up, and not one step forward that one can see has been taken. Even if they start immediately with their plans, we shall have to wait at least another three years before any benefit can possibly come from this project either to the grower or to the con-

301
sumer. So if we are to follow anything like the speed that we have seen with the Covent Garden Authority, the outlook is indeed grim, and the millions which the Government are preparing to spend on these schemes will stay in the Treasury coffers for a long lime. If, on the other hand, it is simply doled out to any local authority which has or thinks it is likely to have a turnover of £5 million, then I am afraid a lot of this money will be squandered.
I will not deal any more with the horticultural side of this Bill. Important though it is, it has been most adequately covered. I will turn to deal solely with Clause I of Part I of this Bill and all that that implies. This Bill has been described by the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, as a penetrating attack upon the problems which exist. Of course, why these problems exist at all after he and his colleagues have for so long graced their offices is another question which we may discuss at some later stage. But, at any rate, he feels that this is a penetrating attack upon these grave and serious problems. The noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, described it as a "bold and imaginative measure."
Let us look at this a little more closely. What in fact is being done, and why does it need to be done? As my noble friend Lord Stonham has so forcefully expounded to your Lordships, we have from time to time suggested that the present system of agricultural support is a bad one and is not working. In fact, on more than one occasion, I think, I have drawn attention to the rather curious state of affairs, whereby, although in our churches in this country prayers are often offered up for a bountiful harvest, and at Harvest Festival thanksgiving is made for the bountiful harvest, if we remove ourselves from the churches and go into the Ministry of Agriculture or into the Treasury we may well find people offering up prayers—if, indeed, they do pray in such places—for a thin harvest, a poor harvest, because if there is a big one, as we well know, there will be a glut on the market, prices will drop, the deficiency payments will rise and the total amount which is called for in deficiency payments will be that much larger, and so the burden on the Treasury and on the taxpayer will be colossal, and Ministers will even have to go to another place and ask for Supplementary Estimates.
302
That is what has happened under this particular system, and of course, as has been pointed out, there are grave difficulties in this. No wonder the Government have finally realised that this is so. So what do they do? They bring in this "bold and imaginative measure" to make a "penetrating attack" upon this problem, and the way they make this penetrating attack is to go along to the four countries from whom we buy most of our cereals—on the whole, four rich countries: not underdeveloped, not countries suffering from malnutrition or anything like that: Canada, the United States, Australia, and the Argentine, which is not quite so rich—and say to them, "We are having difficulty at home. Our market fluctuates too much, and so, in the interests of market stability"—those are the words of the noble Lord—"we want to make some arrangement with you to help us solve this problem."
The arrangements they ask them to make are, not to restrict what they are going to send us, not to give us a long-term contract at a fixed price or anything like that, but simply to promise not to charge us as little as they have been charging us in the past. That is just as cock-eyed as this other system whereby it suits the Government to have a poor harvest, and it is difficult for them if we have a good one. That in itself is cock-eyed, and it must be cock-eyed to remedy an existing evil by asking the people who are selling us produce to charge us more for it.
I do not want to give the impression that I am against this Bill; I am not. We welcome—I think that is the official word; I would say "we accept"—the Bill as it is, and I am certainly not in favour of leaving these vital commodities, the food of this country, to the free play of the market. That far we go hand in hand with noble Lords opposite, because they now at last realise that it is not wise to leave these things to the free play of the market. That is a great victory for those of us who talk of a managed market, as did the noble Lord. Lord Henley.
Nevertheless, if we are going to move away from the free market to a managed market, surely it is not good sense or good housekeeping simply to ask our suppliers to charge us more. They do

303
not mind charging us more; it is quite nice for them. But cannot we obtain some quid pro quo? We have a selling price as well in the world. I know that the noble Lord opposite will say to me in a little while that of course we have, that we have the International Wheat Agreement with an upper and lower limit. But these are pretty wide limits. Apparently the lower limit is not low enough to satisfy the noble Lord, so it must be different from that. The International Wheat Agreement is not adequate to cope with this.
Therefore, I believe that we could yet get some benefit for ourselves as well as for the exporters of the world, instead of going rather plaintively, as it appears we are, and saying, "Please will you help us with our own internal difficulties and"—I do not think I am reading too much into what the noble Lord said "in return we will agree not to expand our production and, provided that our Price Review figures are correct, we will then come in with you". We are going as suppliants to them instead of doing what, surely, we should have done—saying, "Here we are, the largest importers of foodstuffs in the world. We are in a masterly position in the world food market. We can do what we like with it. We can wreck it or we can make it." Let us make use of that, but do not let us wreck it. Let us make it into a good food market. Is the noble Lord anxious to interrupt?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes, I am. The noble Lord is speaking as if the food market were the only market in the world.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I was going to come to the other factors. There are other world markets, as other noble Lords have mentioned. I suggest that our competitive position might be worse if we pay more for our food. I will not repeat their argument. But we as the biggest importers of food in the world at present—whether we always shall be I do not know—should say to these other countries that we want to regularise our food market; we want to take the fluctuations out of it and we do not want prices to drop too low—the International Wheat Agreement tried to do that, but for one reason or another,
304
which the noble Lord did not explain, it was not satisfactory—and also we do not want prices to go too high; let us make some arrangement between ourselves that will achieve that.
If possible, I should like us to go still further, and to say—perhaps this is asking for too much—"Let us have specified quantities; not only standard quantities for the British farmer but standard quantities for the foreign farmer as well". I do not see why we should bind the British farmer to produce a certain amount which has been calculated as being desirable, while allowing other countries to be free, subject to certain price regulations, to export to us as much as or as little as they want.
Let us remember that these long-term agreements are not always solely in the interests of the exporting country. At the present time the price of sugar fluctuates between £75 and £105 a ton, but we are buying it at something like £45. It may be that in the next few years, if Russia and China come into the market as they are beginning to do with wheat and sugar, we shall find a hardening in cereal prices throughout the world. Would it not be prudent for Her Majesty's Government to take that into account and to have a maximum as well as a minimum price for all these commodities?
As my noble friend Lord Peddie said, this is a big change from the old system of free food imports. The Government have taken a significant step forward, and we certainly welcome that. We are glad that they have done so and we believe that it is the beginning of something which makes us feel that they are at last seeing sense. We do not expect them to see the blinding light on the road to Damascus, but to see a little glimmer from a faint candle held afar. That glimmer, I hope, will grow brighter, and before long I hope they will again see a little more light and come closer to our way of thinking, so that we shall eventually find that we in this country have an agriculture which is not entirely subordinated to imports and is not completely protected from more efficient producers outside, but an agriculture where a balance is held between the two, where efficiency is increased, and, above all, where the price of food to the consumer is lowered.

305
That is what we aim at doing. The reason why we welcome this Bill is that we believe it is a first, faltering, tentative, hesitant step away from the system of completely free food prices, in which importers of food do what they like and make what they can out of it: a step towards a more orderly and better form of agricultural regulations. For that reason, we welcome this Bill.
7.42 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I should first of all like to join other Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Falmouth on a memorable maiden speech. He said in opening that he felt diffident and rash. Almost all of us, no doubt, felt diffident and rash on first giving tongue in your Lordships' House, but few, I think, with so little reason as my noble friend—and I am certainly not among those few. His mastery of the subject and clarity of exposition are comparatively rare, even in this House of experts, and I know that we all hope he has been given sufficient encouragement to speak with great frequency in the future.
My noble and friendly opponent, Lord Stonham, opened the debate for the Opposition. I am always refreshed by a brush with the noble Lord. So far nothing has happened as a result of those brushes to undermine our friendship, and I am sure that nothing will. Tonight I found him at his intolerant and inconsequential best. He said in paraphrase, it seemed to me, that we, the present Government, ought to have done this years ago, as he had been telling us to do, but that because it was we who were doing it, it must be entirely wrong. That was my reading of his speech. He said that we were balancing on a knife-edge. I should prefer to call it a tightrope, which is rather more comfortable. But what he ignored was that the measures in this Bill enable us, instead of falling on one side or the other of the tightrope, as we have been doing on occasion in past years, to have a kind of balancing bar so that we are able to walk from end to end of the tightrope with confidence and to return the following year with equal confidence.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would remind the noble Lord that they use an umbrella on a tightrope, not a balancing bar. What I said was that
306
the Government is at last doing the right thing in the hopelessly wrong way.
LORD ST. OSWALD: It is always the wrong way, of course, from the noble Lord's point of view; and the more successful it is, the more wrong it is. I quite appreciate that. He asked me whether there would be no limitation on fatstock under this system this year—he put it, in fact, as a rhetorical question. There will not. And he wanted an assurance that there would be no repetition of the drop in prices in our fat-stock market due to over-supply which we were going through at this time last year. We hope that there will not be. I would remind him that if he refutes the methods we are adopting in cereals he would be inviting the same sort of drop which he thinks is a possibility for fatstock. It is precisely against that sort of danger that we are, by these measures, guarding.
The noble Lord talked in terms of our controlling imports and thus having a managed market for cereals—
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, has the noble Lord finished with meat, because I asked him a direct question? I asked, in view of the circumstances the noble Lord has just described, whether the Government intend to use this Bill to fix a minimum import price for meat.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Clearly, we do not intend to use it this year. We have said, in words of great clarity, I thought, that for the present we intend to use it only for cereals. But we have enabled ourselves to use it for other commodities right across the field of agriculture and horticultural produce, as and when it seems wise, and if and when Parliament approves it, commodity by commodity.
However, to return to the point I was taking up, the noble Lord talked in terms of our controlling imports and thus having a managed market for cereals. This would not be the effect of the arrangements the Government are proposing to introduce under the powers which Clause I would provide. As I explained in opening this debate, the Government intend that the deficiency-payments system should continue to form the basis of our support arrangements for cereals producers. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was suggesting, we are not abandoning our

307
deficiency-payments system. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, recognised, it would be folly to ignore the pressures on this system from unrealistically low-priced imports, which even in relatively small quantities can do considerable damage to our market as a whole. The arrangements which the Government would bring forward under the powers in Clause 1 would be tailored to deal with this situation.
There is no intention on the part of the Government (though I am not clear whether this is the case with the noble Lords opposite) to control imports of cereals by physical means. The Government's proposals, on which we have already reached agreement in principle with our four major overseas suppliers (and I should have thought we might have received a greater measure of congratulation on this) would provide for the imposition of levies, when necessary, to maintain the minimum import prices, which would be set at levels designed not to raise the general level of import prices, but to eliminate the very low troughs of prices, of which the noble Lord is aware and to which he has referred.
It is clearly impossible to forecast how the introduction of minimum import price arrangements will affect food prices or the prices of feedingstuffs, because no-one can foresee how world prices are going to move over the next few years. One would require to know that. But if minimum import prices at the levels we have in mind had been in operation over the last few years, the effects on the cost of imported cereals as a whole, and so on the balance of payments and the cost of living, would, in fact, have been small; and those are figures that we have studied.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? He was rather complaining that nobody had congratulated him on reaching agreement with these overseas suppliers. But would he seriously expect to be congratulated by his friends if he had persuaded his tailor to provide him with a suit at £10 more than the tailor had originally intended to ask him?
LORD ST. OSWALD: The noble Lord knows perfectly well that that is not the
308
case here. That is a fair piece of twisting of the situation: I do not complain, but the noble Lord knows perfectly well that that is not the issue.
My noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney expressed surprise at the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, about Clause 1 of this Bill. I have no doubt that he must be equally surprised by the corresponding remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who wound up for the Opposition. I do not expect them to be in complete agreement with what we are proposing, but I cannot help feeling that their exaggeration of their case will one day embarrass them when they read it. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, seemed to give the impression that, with the failure to reach agreement on the recent meat-sharing talks, the Government would be making no further efforts in this field—I thought I read that into his remarks. I might remind him of an Answer given by my right honourable friend in another place on this subject:
"The Government will continue its efforts to secure comprehensive and satisfactory arrangements on these lines and will participate in the work of the G.A.T.T. Meat Group. Meanwhile we are seeking the cooperation of our overseas suppliers in coordinating the level and phasing of supplies to the United Kingdom market in the interest of maintaining market stability in the coming months."
But that is not, of course, invoking the enabling possibilities of this Bill, which I think was the question he put to me. I seriously believe that this approach is more likely to succeed than the splendidly jingoistic attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, from which, as he prompted me to remind him, one might have judged that this country was buying food and receiving no trade advantages whatever from the rest of the world.
My noble friend Lord Falmouth was suspicious, I was sorry to hear, about the tariff removal, but he welcomed the small horticultural business grant, knowing some of the uses to which it might be put. I should like to explain to him that those horticulturalists will qualify who can produce a comprehensive business plan. It will have to be approved by the Agricultural Advisory Service officer, and, if it is approved, a grant will be given for the improvement and rejuvenation of the holding.

309
After what I have said, I was happy to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, give a degree of commendation to the horticultural provisions of the Bill. Members of your Lordships' House and many others outside know and appreciate the sustained interest and effort which the noble Lord has devoted to the cause of the horticultural industry. He is one of its best-known and most effective proponents, and it is, therefore, all the more heartening to hear some degree of approval from him. But it was only to be expected that the noble Lord should differ from me about some of the means we intend to use in this part of the Bill.
Perhaps the chief point he has advocated is the need for what he calls a central directing authority for horticulture. As I understand it, in his mind this would be a body rather like the old Horticultural Marketing Council—in fact he referred to that—but with more extensive and more rigorous powers. I am bound to say that I see objections to such a body. In the first place, I do not need to remind your Lordships that the old Horticultural Marketing Council failed through lack of support and, indeed, through actual opposition within the industry. I find it hard to see how the sort of body which I feel the noble Lord has in mind, with its necessarily greater powers of control over the individual members of the industry, could hope to succeed in these circumstances.
Secondly, it seems to me that a body such as the noble Lord has in mind would need to be almost omniscient, in order to undertake the tasks which he would like to see done. Thirdly, I find it difficult to see how this body would be supposed to direct the running of horticultural markets. These markets have been run successfully—I do not think the noble Lord challenges this—for many years by local authorities. Their day-to-day business is not such as could be properly directed by a central body. The local authorities are very anxious to fulfil their duties in this field, and we think that the grants under this Bill will help them to overcome some of the frustrations from which they have suffered in recent years. The noble Lord disagrees. He thinks that they will not be given sufficient incentive, but there we must differ; we think
310
they will. I really cannot see why the noble Lord wants to go further than this and overthrow the centuries of traditional responsibility which the local authorities have fulfilled and jealously maintained.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, and my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney, mentioned the question of the minimum size of holding eligible for grant under the extended Horticulture Improvement Scheme. This question has been discussed at some length in another place, where it was suggested that the appropriate Minister might be given discretion to pay a grant in respect of a business which does not pass all the normal tests of eligibility. If he was satisfied as to that, it would be reasonable for him to do so. The objections to giving the Minister so wide a discretion are fairly obvious, and I do not think I need to enlarge upon them.
My honourable friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary undertook to consult with the National Farmers' Union to see whether any way could be found of including those growers with under four acres who are genuinely viable, while still excluding the many who are clearly not. This gives rise to very difficult problems which the National Farmers' Union appreciate, and I may say that they agree with us that as a general rule the four acres limit is a reasonable one. Our discussions with them are still proceeding, and if we can come to a solution it will be incorporated in the schemes that will in due course be laid before the House and debated. But I must emphasise that the difficulties are considerable.
During the course of the debate some noble Lords have referred to the expansion of the Horticultural Improvement Scheme, and I think it would be of interest to the House if I filled in, briefly, some detail as to the background and effect of our proposals. As I have already said, Clause 7 provides more money, not only for the new grants in Clauses 2 to 5, but also for extending the Horticulture Improvement Scheme which was made under the Horticulture Act, 1960. This scheme was confined largely to facilities needed by growers and their co-operatives for improving the marketing of their produce. The 1960 Act, however, gave all the powers we need to extend the Scheme to facili-

311
ties required for growing produce, as well as for storing it, preparing it and transporting it to market.
Clause 6 of the Bill, by raising the limit from £8 million to £24 million or possibly £27 million, will enable us to use these powers to the full. As soon as possible after the Bill has been enacted, we intend to lay before Parliament a draft Scheme for approval by Resolutions of both Houses. There will then be opportunity for debate on the scheme itself. I think it was also the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who doubted whether sufficient of the available £24 million or £27 million would be taken up, pointing out to me how little of the money available under the present Scheme has been taken up. I would very briefly refer him, if he would forgive me, to one passage in my opening speech, in which I said:
"Our experience in operating the horticulture improvements scheme up to the present has shown that a good many growers have held back from taking advantage of it, due to the difficulties in raising their two-thirds of the cost."
Now, of course, in another manner, in this part, also, we are assisting them to do that and to overcome, we hope, that real difficulty which the noble Lord mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and my noble friend Lord Falmouth, said they thought the rate of one-third grant for grubbing orchards would be insufficient. We have given thought to this question, but we are not convinced that a higher rate of grant for grubbing orchards would be justified. There is already provision in the existing Horticulture Improvement Scheme for grants in respect of grubbing up as part of the normal operation of replacement of orchards. I cannot see a strong case for singling out grubbing for a higher rate of grant than any other facility. Secondly, the farmer or grower who has a worn-out orchard will, if it is a grass orchard—and the majority of them are—get a ploughing grant of £5 for each acre. This, together with the one-third grant we are proposing, seems to me to be sufficient incentive. What matters is that grant aid for grubbing should be extended to the farmer—and that is what the clause does.
I have been debating with myself whether I should blushingly admit to the
312
noble Lord that last year I did in fact grub out, without any grant at all, one-and-a-half acres of old apple trees, leaving him to accuse me of unwisdom and lack of prescience; but such is my loyalty to the argument I am proposing that I feel I should use it.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, could I ask the noble Lord to tell me how much it cost him to grub up that one-and-a-half acres, how many trees there were in it and how old they were?
LORD ST. OSWALD: They were very old; I do not know the number of trees, but it cost me about £85.
The noble Lord, Lord Peddie, has suggested—and this was one of the two main themes of his most interesting and powerful speech—that we need a much greater degree of central planning than is envisaged in the appropriate clause: that we need, in effect, a planned regional markets system. This might well be true if—and I must emphasise the "if"—our major markets were not, broadly speaking, where they ought to be. I contend that they are. Since our markets system has grown up freely and naturally, it could hardly, I should have thought, be otherwise. Where there has been a demand for large-scale supplies of horticultural produce, that demand has automatically been satisfied. I ask the noble Lord: where would the all-wise planner put his markets? It is where they are already—near the centres of consumption and distribution and conveniently close to the buyers who serve those centres.
Where I agree with the noble Lord, and where there is no argument between us, is that they are badly sited in the sense that many of them are too near the centres of the cities that they serve; but they are not badly located in the sense that they need moving to a different city altogether. I was able, however, to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, during his speech, that grant-aid will be available for the provision of new markets as well as for the improvement of existing ones. We need only a fair way of assessing which are the major markets, and that, we believe, we have found.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, went rather further. He said that we were introducing grant-aid for markets

313
without the slightest consideration of the future pattern of marketing, or whether or not its object would be achieved. The inter-Departmental Committee set up a year ago by my right honourable friends the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland have been many months inquiring into these very questions, both here and abroad. They visited over a score of markets in seven other countries, and every important market in the United Kingdom. It was in consequence of their findings that my right honourable friends decided upon the policy embodied in Clause 10; and, unlike, I am sorry to say, the noble Lord, we are confident that it will in fact lead to the results that we all, he as much as we, wish to see.
Several noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Stonham, and Lord Wise, and my noble friend Lord Falmouth come to mind—suggested that the Bill would be strengthened and consumers given valuable protection if compulsory grading were to be extended to retail sales. This subject was discussed at some length in another place, as noble Lords will know, and the Government have given it considerable thought. In our view it is not necessary to extend the Bill in this way. In the first place, this is an agriculture and horticulture Bill. As I explained earlier, one of the purposes of all the horticultural provisions of the Bill is to enable the industry to cope more effectively with fair competition from abroad, and the introduction of compulsory grading in this country is intended to put home-grown produce on the same footing as imported produce.
To achieve this it will be sufficient to ensure that supplies of home-grown produce are properly graded before they reach the retailer, just as imported produce is at present. The retailer does not now sell imported produce as being of a particular grade, and from the point of view of enabling home-grown produce to compete on equal terms it is unnecessary to take compulsory grading right down to the consumer. That is not to say, of course, that the consumer will not benefit. The consumer will have the assurance that what he or she buys has been graded and has been subject to official checks. He or she will notice a great uniformity of quality, a characteristic hitherto confined to imported
314
ported produce and the small proportion of home-grown produce marketed by growers who have voluntarily adopted grading standards.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, on that question of imported goods, may I ask the noble Lord a question on tariffs? The Minister is quoted as saying on December 12 that he would assume the tariffs would be dropped or lowered on imported goods within four years. Would the noble Lord confirm this?
LORD ST. OSWALD: No, my Lords, my right honourable friend did not say that. He said that in four years' time we should feel free to look again at the tariffs on sensitive items. He did not say that any definite action would be taken, but, in consideration of the impetus which is being given to the industry at present by the terms of this Bill, we should hope that, by the end of four years, the industry would be in a better position to compete on what are at present regarded as sensitive items. If that is so—and the decision will be judged on circumstances—I feel sure that my noble friend will be as pleased as myself. I think I should also say (unless noble Lords are getting weary) that fears have been expressed that the grades may in some way be undermined and brought into disrepute by the exemption of retail sales. We do not feel that there is any real basis for these fears.
I turn now to the points arising under Clause 9, and I am happy that the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, is now better pleased with what we are proposing than he was when the debate opened. I felt that he would be, because what we are doing is conceding a principle requested by his honourable friends in another place. Her Majesty's Government have responded to that request by offering that a proportion—a generous proportion, objectively assessed, I would say, of 10 per cent.: at least 3 per cent. more than the co-operatives' share in horticultural business—should be available to the Agricultural Finance Federation with the backing of credit co-operatives. As I mentioned earlier, my right honourable friend has now offered the Federation a share of the sums to be made available annually under the clause and to put them on

315
an equal footing in the administration of the clause. That, I think, is the assurance the noble Lord wanted.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. He made reference to business transacted with the co-operatives. I take it that the facilities extended to the A.F.F. will not be confined solely to the business done with co-operatives, but will be on exactly the same terms as those afforded to the A.C.C.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, may I look into that point? I cannot give the noble Lord an answer at the moment.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I may be able to help the noble Lord. I merely asked—and, of course, he indicated it earlier—whether the terms will be the same as those afforded to the A.C.C.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, my wording was that they will be "on equal footing in the administration of the clause".
LORD PEDDIE: In the operation of the clause, I take it.
LORD ST. OSWALD: In the administration of the clause. For reasons which the noble Lord will appreciate, I had better not go further than that. I hope it means what the noble Lord thinks it may; but I feel that I ought not to go further at the moment, since this is a very recent agreement. But I will look into the point and get in touch with the noble Lord.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, it seems obvious that "administration" will refer to "operation"; and I accept it as such.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes, obviously there will be an Amendment at the Committee stage, which I suppose the Government will move, to clarify this point: because I am quite sure my noble friend will not mind if I say that it is not he alone who wants to know about this point.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I realise that.
My Lords, I was very encouraged by Lord Walston's confidence in the ability
316
of the British horticultural industry to compete with anyone: notably in selling apples to people who prefer apples to cotton wool. When the improvement in distribution and the guidance to consumers by dependable grading are brought in, I feel they will respond with a new lease of life; and I hope that my noble friend Lord Kinnoull also feels reassured by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Walston. My noble friend Lord Fortescue will not expect me to say anything about the purchase tax on blackcurrant juice, except that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has undertaken to consider representations that have been made to him on behalf of the growers and manufacturers. My Lords, on such a note of sweetness I choose to end this debate.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DIVORCE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
8.13 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 2 [Temporary cohabitation with a view to reconciliation not condonation]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the two Amendments I have on the Order Paper are, I think, obviously matters of drafting. It would be a mistake to have the wording in the three subsections of Clause 2 different in each case, as they are now; and the two Amendments that I have put down are to ensure that the wording in each case shall be "for any one period not exceeding three months". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, after ("for") insert ("any"). —(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, after ("any") insert ("one"). —(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (ANAESTHETICS) BILL [H.L.]
Report received (according to Order).
  APPLICANTS FOR MEDICAL SCHOOL PLACES
  APPLICANTS FOR MEDICAL SCHOOL PLACES
  WOMEN STUDENTS IN MEDICAL SCHOOLS
  WOMEN STUDENTS IN MEDICAL SCHOOLS
  HOMELESS IN TEMPORARY CARE OF WELFARE AUTHORITIES
  HOMELESS IN TEMPORARY CARE OF WELFARE AUTHORITIES