Sitting of 17 March 1964

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
    PRESTON CORPORATION BILL
    As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  CHICHESTER RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
    LIFE ASSOCIATION OF SCOTLAND LIMITED BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time and committed.
  BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (By Order)
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next.

  MERSEY RIVER BOARD
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the Mersey River Board to construct works and to acquire lands in connection with a diversion of the River Irwell in the county boroughs of Salford and Manchester, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under Section 55 of the Land Drainage Act 1930 which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to expenditure incurred thereunder by the Mersey River Board.
  Resolution agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Business Expenses (Travel)
    Mr Wingfield Digbyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of business expenses claimed for travel in the last financial year; and how much of this related to travel by air, road, rail and sea, respectively.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster-General (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I am afraid that this information is not available.
    Mr. Digby: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it must be a considerable figure and will he bear it in mind where he is considering policy for Government help to various types of transport, particularly bearing in mind, taking the example of the railways, that only 25 per cent. of passenger journeys are at full fare anyway, regardless of any indirect Government concession?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.

    Firms (Motor Cars)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total expenditure by firms and companies during the last financial year for the purchase of private motor cars.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The only available estimates relating to expenditure on the purchase of ordinary motor cars by persons carrying on business are of the amounts o f such expenditure qualifying for capital allowances, which exclude amounts attributable to private usage. The latest estimate, which relates to trading accounts ending in 1961–62, is £175 million, of which £120 million was spent by companies and £55 million by individual businessmen and partnerships.
    Mr. Digby: Does not my right hon. Friend think that there might be a case for examining the possibility of having two different forms of road fund licence and a distinguishing mark between the two types of owner?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that there would be very great difficulty in my hon. Friend's suggestion of having different types of road fund licence. There might be very considerable administrative and practical difficulties about that.
    Mr. Houghton: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that about two years ago the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was conducting an investigation into the nature of business expenses. Has he any information to give the House as to when the result of this investigation may be available?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The investigation into Schedule E expenses generally—not specifically for motor cars—is not yet complete for last year.
    Sir J. Barlow: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it would be a good thing to have the owner's name written in large letters on the car?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will certainly consider that, but I imagine that it is rather more a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.
    Mr. Tiley: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, whatever is saved in expenses, the Government get it all back in Purchase Tax when the car is bought?

    Cigars and Pipe Tobaccos (Duty)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of medical opinion that cigar and pipe smoking may be considered less injurious to health than cigarette smoking, he will reduce the duty charged on cigars and pipe tobaccos.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): I will note this suggestion, but my right hon. Friend's predecessor explained in his Budget speech on 9th April, 1962, the practical difficulties in the way of adopting it.
    Mr. Gower: When my right hon. Friend is considering this, will my hon. Friend ask him to take note of the fact that the medical evidence indicates that it might be a positive gain if we could induce some cigarette smokers to change over to cigar or pipe smoking? Will my hon. Friend take account of the fact that in Holland, for example, there is so little duty on cigars and pipe tobaccos that it is more common to see people of all walks of life smoking cigars and pipes than it is here?
    Mr. Macmillan: I do not think that this is primarily a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer but rather for the Minister of Health on the general question of cigarette smoking. On the question of a differential, the experience of Denmark is that the higher tax on cigarettes has been imposed for the purposes of raising revenue and has been successful in doing this just because it
    1160
    has not resulted in reducing cigarette smoking.
    Mr. Lipton: Does it not show a lack of faith in the success of Conservative economic policy when it is suggested that very special additional measures ought to be taken to persuade people to give up smoking cigarettes and to smoke cigars? Are we not all to smoke cigars if the Tories go on governing the country?
    Mr. Macmillan: I am happy to think so. But I think, on the contrary, that it shows the success of Conservative economic policy that even rising taxation will not discourage people, who have enough money, from spending it on cigarettes.

    Companies (Profits and Taxation)
    Mr. Jayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much higher total revenue from Income Tax and Profits Tax on companies would be in the present year if the same proportion of companies' profits were paid in these taxes as in the year 1952–53.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The tax, including foreign tax, on companies' income of 1951, which was assessable, broadly speaking, for 1952–53, was about 55 per cent. of their income after deducting capital allowances. If the same proportion were payable of their income of 1962, their tax bills would be increased by about £270 million.
    Mr. Jay: Is not that rather a remarkable figure, which shows at least one source to which the Government could look if they should need additional revenue in the future?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It also shows the great expansion in the economy that has taken place under this Government. If one compares the growth of company profits with the greatly increased growth of fixed capital formation, it will also be apparent how wise we have been not to overtax companies.
    Mr. Jay: But does this figure show any expansion in the economy? Does it not merely show that companies are paying a lower proportion of profits in taxation?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Not when the right hon. Gentleman ponders on the remark I made about the great growth, far greater than that in profits, in fixed capital formation.
    Sir C. Osborne: Would my right hon. Friend resist the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion to take away all the extra profits made by business firms, as there will be no encouragement for people to be efficient if he does so?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In principle, it is a good idea to reject suggestions made by the right hon. Gentleman.

    Richardson Committee (Report)
    Mr. Staintonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he hopes to publish the Report of the Richardson Committee on the implications of introducing a turnover or similar tax.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Report was presented to Parliament on 11th March as Command Paper 2300.
    Mr. Stainton: Although the effluxion of time has somewhat taken away from the purpose of my Question, I nevertheless have a note to ask my right hon. Friend the following. First, will he convey to the Richardson Committee the House's appreciation of the expeditious way in which it has carried out its task—looking back to 3rd April last, on the one hand, and forward to April 14th of this year, on the other hand—whatever the sacred cows that might have been demolished and others created?
    Secondly, is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep concern felt in many quarters of the need urgently to reappraise the whole revenue-raising base of the public sector, bearing in mind such facts as the recent Government White Paper on public expenditure and the ever-increasing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."—and, in many cases, punitive rates of taxation?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will gladly add my hon. Friend's appreciation to that which my right hon. Friend has already conveyed on behalf of the Government to the members of the Committee, who, I think the House will agree, did a remarkable and expeditious
    1162
    job. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on the second part of his question at this time of year.

    Motor Vehicle Duty (Lorries)
    Mr. Jayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage rise in the motor vehicle duty paid annually on two-ton, five-ton, and 10-ton lorries, respectively, since 1933; what has been the percentage rise in the level of retail prices in the same period; and what would be the additional revenue collected now if the duties had risen in the same proportion as retail prices.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: There has been a 20 per cent. increase in motor vehicle duty since 1933 in each of the instances mentioned. In the same period the retail price index has risen about three and a half times. If the rates of duty had risen by the same proportion, the current rate would have been £57 10s. higher than at present for a 2-ton lorry; £161 higher for a 5-ton lorry, and £391 higher for a 10-ton lorry. It is not possible to give precise revenue figures for these categories of vehicle separately
    Mr. Jay: Are not these also rather striking figures? Is it not remarkable that over a period when the cost of living and wages and salaries generally have risen at least 50 per cent. these taxes have hardly risen at all? May not this fact throw some light both on the congestion of our roads and on the loss of traffic by the railways?
    Mr. Macmillan: It is extremely difficult to deduce from these figures the precise effect on the congestion on the roads. The right hon. Gentleman is doubtless aware of the studies being made of this subject, and it is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me at this time of year to comment on rates of duty.
    Mr. Jay: Nevertheless, will the hon. Member and his colleagues ponder on these figures, even at this time?
    Mr. Macmillan: I think it is fair to say that a t this time we are pondering on these figures and on other similar figures almost to the exclusion of everything else.

    Taxpayers (Personal Files)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that a taxpayer, of whose identity he has been informed, saw, when discussing his tax affairs at the Inland Revenue Office at Harlow, Essex, that his personal file contained a newspaper cutting concerning a strike in which, as a shop steward of the Electrical Trades Union, he had been involved; to what extent it is the practice of the Inland Revenue, when compiling the personal files of individual taxpayers, to include such material; and if he will put a stop to this practice.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir. It is not, of course, the practice of the Inland Revenue to place on their files any document other than one containing material relevant to the tax liability of the person concerned.
    Mr. Driberg: What exactly does that Answer mean? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that this document was included in the personal file and that he agrees that it was relevant?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman has studied the newspaper cutting concerned, he will have seen that it contains, at any rate, one set of facts relevant to this gentleman's tax liability—the dates of his discontinuance and resumption of employment.
    Mr. Driberg: But is it not possible for the Inland Revenue to obtain all the relevant data in the ordinary way from the employer without going into political or industrial activities like this?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is, of course, the duty of employers to furnish material of this kind, but it is also the duty of the Inland Revenue to take any information relating to these matters by way of confirmation and to have it available in the discharge of its normal duties in the course of law.

    Incomes Policy
    Mr. Holtasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he now proposes to take to bring profits within the scope of incomes policy, in view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government's measures against monopolies and mergers are not to take effect within the life of this Parliament.
    Mr. A. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the Federation of British Industries have refused to take action to curb profits in order to further the introduction of a national policy, what action Her Majesty's Government now propose to take regarding such a policy; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Government have repeatedly made it clear that its incomes policy relates to all forms of income. I understand that the Federation of British Industries has considered three possible schemes for discipline over profits or prices, but has felt unable to recommend any one of them. The Government recognise that there are very considerable difficulties both on the employers' side and on the trade union side, in working out an agreed incomes policy. I think that it is important that these problems should continue to be discussed on the National Economic Development Council. Meanwhile, as hon. Members know, the Government are pledged to restrain any undue growth in aggregate profits which may follow restraint in earned incomes, and the National Incomes Commission is required to report from time to time on the need if any for such action to be taken.
    Mr. Holt: Does the right hon. Gentleman now expect that as a result of recent Government announcements about resale price maintenance, monopolies and the like the N.E.D.C. will now feel that the Government have given a strong enough lead in this direction for employers and employees on that body to agree to an incomes policy?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure that in the N.E.D.C., and through the N.E.D.C., the outside world, there is an increasing appreciation of the crucial importance of a sensible incomes policy.
    Mr. A. Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman replied that the Government have at all times referred to incomes and all forms of income. Can he tell us of even one occasion when the Prime Minister has referred to rents, interest and profits? Is it not the case that on every occasion the reference has been to wages? Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that the F.B.I. has refused to come in, whereas

    1165
    the trade unions have said that provided it is fair and equitable and covers all forms of income they are agreeable to work out some sort of scheme?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have often heard my right hon. Friend refer to the fact that our policy covers incomes generally. While, as I said in my main Answer, the F.B.I. has rejected the three schemes it has been studying, it is continuing its studies to see whether a further and better method can be evolved.
    Mr. Hiley: From where does my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer expect to get all the money needed to finance all these schemes if profits decline?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is nothing in my Answer to suggest that profits are likely to or should decline. The words originally used in the National Incomes Commission White Paper referred to undue growth of profits resulting from wage restraint.
    Mr. Houghton: Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer given up hope of making any further progress on this matter in the immediate future? If so, would it not be better for the Government to go to the country so that we can get some stability in the political situation and make some immediate further progress on this matter?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. Friend has certainly not given up hope of further progress in the matter, in which good sense in all quarters points only in one direction.
    Sir C. Osborne: As the F.B.I. cooperated with a Socialist Chancellor, Sir Stafford Cripps, why will it not now co-operate with my right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is quite unfair to the F.B.I. to say that it will not co-operate. It has studied a number of schemes which, on merits, it has found to be defective, but, as I said in an earlier reply, it is continuing its studies and I know has every intention to be helpful.

    Post-War Credits
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current purchasing power of post-war credits worth £100 in 1945.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The current purchasing power of post-war credits worth £100 in 1945 is now approximately £52. Since 1959, interest has been added and would now amount to £11 10s. on £100.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the total figure currently outstanding, and does he not agree that this is a most outrageous example of the modern version of robbery without violence? If he is intent on getting a sense of justice and equity into our society, would it not be advisable for the Government to repay this forthwith?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot give the figure outstanding without notice. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have in recent years considerably accelerated repayments. On his comment about robbery, the hon. Gentleman may be consoled to know that the figure had fallen from £100 to £71 by October, 1951.
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take the necessary steps to ensure that a married woman, whose husband has qualified for repayment of his post-war credits, shall also be able to receive her post-war credits if she has not been working during the same period upon which her husband's successful claim was based.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. The qualifications for repayment of post-war credits are related to the personal circumstances of the credit-holder, and I do not think an exception should be made in favour of married women on the grounds that their husbands have qualified,
    Mr. Wainwright: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise what he is saying? Is he not aware that a married woman who has lived on her husband's earnings since the termination of the war must share his poverty if he is 26 weeks out of work because of an accident? If she shares that poverty, is she not also entitled to obtain her post-war credits? Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that if the woman had been working she would have been able to claim her post-war credits? Is he not aware that some authorities are paying these post-war credits in circumstances of this kind? Will not he do something about it?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member will recall that when my right hon.

    1167
    Friend introduced the system of repayment of post-war credits on hardship grounds he warned the House that this was difficult to do and that if it was to work at all it would be necessary to have fairly clear-cut and definite rules? There was then no question—I do not remember that it was even raised—of passing from the personal circumstances of the post-war credit-holder to those of his wife or the other way round. The hon. Member's suggestion can be considered when the possibility arises of further repayment of post-war credits, but the system was fully discussed and approved by the House.

    "The Perfumed Garden"
    Mr. D. Footasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when "The Perfumed Garden", a translation by Sir Richard Burton, was placed upon the list of books prohibited to be imported; by whom the decision was taken; how many copies were seized by the Customs authorities; when this book was removed from the prohibited list; and how many copies have been returned to their owners.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: For many years this book was liable to be seized by Customs officers as obscene on the instructions of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. Four copies have been seized in the last two years. After the book was published in this country revised instructions were sent to Customs officers early in February. Before the instructions arrived one further copy of a British edition was detained by mistake on 1st February last. This copy was returned to the traveller. The four copies previously seized have not been restored to their original owners, but no further copies have been held.
    Mr. Foot: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I purchased a copy of this book at London Airport, when I was leaving the country last December, but that when I returned to London Airport in January it was seized by a Customs officer and returned to me a few days later? Is it not a sheer absurdity that the Customs should prevent the importation of a book which can be purchased freely by anybody at any bookstall in this country? Is the attitude of the Government that of an official in one of Evelyn Waugh's early novels: that even
    1168
    if we cannot stop literature being produced in this country at least we can stop it coming in from outside?
    Mr. Macmillan: I deeply regret that it should have been the hon. and learned Gentleman who was inconvenienced in this way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I said in my original reply that the further copy was seized by mistake. This situation arose from a slight difference in definition between the duty imposed upon the Customs under the Customs Consolidation Act and the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, and the definition of obscenity in the Obscene Publications Act, 1959. The Government take the view, shared by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that it is ridiculous to seize books which are published in this country or likely to be published in this country without prosecution. That is why revised instructions were sent to the Customs officers. I regret that the process of transmission was overtaken by the speed with which the company concerned managed to produce their English edition.

    Economic Development Committees
    Mr. Oramasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the composition and functions of the committees proposed as links between the National Economic Development Council and specific industries; and what proposals he has for financing them.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The economic development committees will be composed of representatives of management and unions, other members with special knowledge and experience, the Government Departments concerned and the National Economic Development Office. The committee's terms of reference were set out in my right hon. Friend's reply of 6th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison). There is provision for the Office to meet the expenses of these committees, although I understand that a number of the industrial organisations concerned intend to meet the expenses of their own representatives.
    Mr. Oram: While these committees obviously can do a very useful job, was it not unfortunate that at least in the

    1169
    initial stages there were doubts about their financing, and can he say whether those doubts have now been removed to the full satisfaction of all parties? Should it not be a full Government responsibility? As on the first five committees that have been set up the chairmen in all five cases do not include trade unionists, is there not some danger that the usefulness of these committees will be prejudiced if there is bias in their choice of personnel?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the personalities from all sections of society who have said that they will be good enough to serve on these committees command great confidence. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, the National Economic Development Council has the power to pay in the appropriate cases the travelling expenses of members attending meetings and I do not think that there is any reasonable cause for concern about that matter now.

    National Incomes Commission
    Mr. Oramasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which employers' organisations have refused evidence to the National Incomes Commission about wage negotiations in their industries.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understand that, with the one exception mentioned in paragraph 168 of the Second Report of the National Incomes Commission, no employers' organisation which has been invited by the Commission to give evidence about wage negotiations has failed to do so.
    Mr. Oram: I presume that that paragraph refers to the Engineering Employers' Federation, since that important body refused to give an important part of evidence to the N.I.C.? As this comes on top of the trade unions' refusal to co-operate in this organisation, are there not even stronger doubts about the usefulness of continuing this body in existence?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. The one exception referred to in my Answer is the Exhibition Contracting Employers. As to the second part of the supplementary question, I am certain that the National. Incomes Commission is playing a very important rôle and will continue to play it in our affairs.

    Toll Bridges
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to ascertain the annual incomes derived from the ownership of tax-free toll bridges; and whether he will introduce legislation at an early date to ensure that such incomes become taxable.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is no statutory power to require full particulars of the annual incomes derived from tax-free toll bridges. As regards the second part of the Question, legislation in a Finance Bill would be required, and I cannot be expected to comment on such matters at this time of the year.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I raised this question two years ago and I have been getting the same, or a similar, Answer all that time? These bridges have been tax-free for nearly 200 years and, on the evidence of one of his own hon. Friends, the current income from one of these bridges in Yorkshire is £70,000 a year tax-free. If the right hon. Gentleman and his Government want an incomes policy to include all incomes, which he said that they did in answer to Question No. 11, had he not better start on these tax-free toll bridges?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I know the hon. Gentleman's point of view but I hope that he will study my Answer. I am glad that it is the same as he has received previously—it only shows the consistency of Government policy.
    Mr. Jay: Does the use of the words "tax-free" in this connection means that income received from these bridges is exempt from Income Tax, and can the right hon. Gentleman explain how that can be so under existing Income Tax law?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The freedom from Income Tax on incomes from these toll bridges derives from 18th century Statutes under which they were set up, which conferred that immunity.
    Mr. Jennings: Is it not time that these bridges were toll-free?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is another question and, in any event, not one for me.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the precise difficulties? He is quite right when he says that he is consistent; he is consistent in doing nothing at all about it. Can he confirm the figure that was given by his hon. Friend of £70,000 a year from the bridge near Selby in Yorkshire and, if his hon. Friend can get the figures, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman get them?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot confirm or deny my hon. Friend's figures for the reason that I gave in my Answer, namely, that there is no power to require this information.
    Mr. Houghton: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot tax them, will he nationalise them?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That would make quite certain that they would not make a profit.

    Undated Government Stocks
    Mr. P. Browneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the problems of small investors in undated Government stocks; what action he proposes to take; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I have considered this matter with sympathy and care. I have examined a number of different suggestions for special action to benefit people in various categories who have experienced a fall in the capital value of their holdings of these stocks. It is with great reluctance that I have had to conclude that the objections to all of them are overriding.
    Mr. Browne: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am extremely grateful for the careful consideration which he gave to the latest scheme that I put up to him? Does he not appreciate, however, the very real hardship suffered by holders of Government stock, particularly the elderly folk who hold 3½ per cent. War Loan? Does he not think it is time that instead of the Government regretting bitterly that they cannot do anything about it, they did something about it? I know that they can.
    Mr. Macmillan: The difficulty in doing something about it is that it is almost impossible to do so without
    1172
    creating a worse anomaly than the one we are removing, or being unfair to other people who have attempted to resolve this problem themselves, or without stirring up for the future a worse evil than the one it is attempted to remove at present.
    Mr. A. Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that before the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) became a Minister he took an active part in this campaign and, together with his hon. Friend, made various statements in favour of this suggestion? What has changed since the hon. Gentleman became a Minister compared with the situation when he was a back bencher?
    Mr. Macmillan: I said that I had examined different suggestions for special action to help people in various categories. Those I examined included one which I had supported in the past. It was examination with somewhat fuller information than I had as a back bencher that made it quite clear to me that, deeply as I regretted it, whatever one did the situation was likely to be made worse rather than better.

    Companies (Tax Repayment Claims)
    Mr. O'Malleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will name the companies concerned in the recent report of the Comptroller and Auditor General that certain parent companies have been able to claim repayment of £12 million Income Tax in respect of dividends received from subsidiary companies although tax was never paid in the first place.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is the longstanding practice not to disclose the tax affairs of particular taxpayers.
    Mr. O'Malley: Since this is an abuse of the intention of existing tax laws, and since it is at least possible that some of the amounts mentioned will not be recoverable by the taxpayer, may I ask why the Government do not act in this matter? Is it true that a large steel firm is involved in these transactions? Are the Government, with taxpayers' money, subsidising firms which are prominently supporting Tory propaganda?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That does not arise out of the Question which asks

    1173
    me to break a long-standing Inland Revenue rule. The question of the merits of the matter seems to arise on the next Question.
    Mr. Milanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the amount of tax which will be payable in the current year to parent companies in respect of dividends received from subsidiary companies, although such tax will not in fact have been paid in the first place.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Millan: But why not? Will not this amount increase because of the increasingly beneficial capital allowances? Is not the present situation wide open to abuse by groups of companies, and is it not a fact that some of this tax will not be recovered and that even when it is recovered the tax repayments will at least have been given as interest-free loans from the Revenue to these companies? Why do not the Government do something about it? It is not terribly difficult to avoid this abuse.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member is quite right, but this is a situation which in some measure, at any rate, derives from the big increases in capital allowances which, with the general assent of the House, have been made in recent years. The matter is raised in a Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General to the Public Accounts Committee. We shall certainly study the Public Accounts Committee's Report when it makes it. The Question itself asks for the figures. This would involve going into the whole intricate series of tax repayments of companies which have subsidiary companies and would involve an inordinate amount of labour.
    Mr. Houghton: Is not this matter relevant to the general question of the level of the taxation of company profits? Has the right hon. Gentleman studied the information in the Gordon Richardson Report in this context? Can he assure the House that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have something to say about this in his Budget statement?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member is directly and explicitly invit-
    1174
    ing me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement. That, of course, I will not do.

    Public Works Loan Board
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to ensure that Public Works Loan Board interest charges are not increased beyond -their present rate of 5¾ per cent. in view of the effect which increased charges would have on house building programmes.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: No, Sir; the rate was in fact increased to 6⅛ per cent. on 14th March.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that; his raising of the rate, after I put the Question down, means that if interest is paid for 60 years on a £2,600 council flat it will cost no less than £9,833, or £538 more than it did a week ago, an increase of 3s. 5d. a week in rent? Secondly, would the hon. Gentleman state what the new rate will be, starting next month, for the 20 per cent. quota of P W.L.B. loans? The local authorities are most anxious that there should be a substantial decrease and they do not yet know what the figure will be.
    Mr. Macmillan: On the first part of the supplementary question, I think that the effect o changes of this kind when taken in one isolated instance like that can be exaggerated. Most of the big local authorities consolidate their borrowing and the immediate effect is not as great as all that. Secondly, as the hon. Gentle man himself suggested, under the new arrangements local authorities may borrow up to one-fifth of whatever they borrow long-term from the Public Works Loan Board, at the Exchequer rate. Exchequer rates are now varying between 5⅜ per cent. and 6 per cent., depending upon the period of borrowing. One of the reasons for maintaining the P.W.L.B. rate at round about the market rate for local authorities is to maintain this differential.
    Mr. Allaun: But does the hon. Gentleman not know that all these rates of interest have been affected by the Bank Rate, not only for councils but for owner-occupiers and for housing societies? Is it not true that the Alliance Building Society has decided not to

    1175
    reduce the borrowing rate as a result of the Bank Rate going up?
    Mr. Macmillan: The Alliance Building Society has not, as far as I am aware, increased its rate. Movement in the Public Works Loan Board rate is adjusted to the local authority market rate which, as the hon. Member suggested, is affected by interest rates generally. The local authorities, under the new arrangements, are enabled to borrow a proportion of their long-term requirements at the lower rate.

    Superannuation Awards (Dismissed Employees)
    Mr. Manuelasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Superannuation Act regulation entails the forfeiture of the right to any award when an employee is dismissed for disciplinary reasons.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is no power under the Superannuation Acts to make any award to an employee who is dismissed for disciplinary reasons.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Question relates to a constituent of mine who for 23 years served loyally in a Royal Ordnance factory and that particulars of the case are held by the War Office? Is it not wrong to punish an individual twice for the same offence, and do not the best firms in the country give severance allowance, or gratuity as it is called in the Government service, after a stipulated number of years even though dismissal takes place as a result of some matter of discipline? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to amend the regulations which prevent such payment and consider the possibility of an ex gratia payment to my constituent?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understood that the case which the hon. Gentleman had in mind in putting down the Question was the one the merits of which he has raised with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War. As my main Answer makes clear, it is not a question of amending regulations. These pensions are governed by the Superannuation Acts, and there is no power under them to pay superannuation in these circumstances.

    Philharmonia Orchestra
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will designate part of the increased Treasury allocation to Covent Garden to the Philharmonia Orchestra, in view of its musical significance.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. It is for the Arts Council to decide what grant should be given to the Philharmonia Orchestra, which has not, I am informed, asked it for any increased assistance.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Treasury, the taxpayer, subsidises the maintenance of the Royal colleges of music, that we pay large grants out of the taxpayer's pocket for students, but that in the long run there is not sufficient money to cover the end-product? Is it not rather absurd to spend large sums encouraging people in the arts if in the end there is no outlet for what they have been trained to do? Would not a Royal Commission to find out where we stand in all these matters be satisfactory now to all people at present working in the arts and to the people of the country who are interested in the future of the arts?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As my hon. Friend is aware, Government expenditure on support for the arts has risen very substantially in the last few years. This particular orchestra, whose departure everyone would deeply regret, is, of course, the property of a private citizen who, in the announcement he made about the difficulties of maintaining it, referred to the difficulty in maintaining standards and the contraction of work for gramophone recordings. He did not refer to the inadequacy or otherwise of the grant which is already received by the orchestra from the Arts Council.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I should not support any encroachment on the grant to Covent Garden, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the disappearance of this orchestra would be a very serious blow to the prestige of British music which it has done so much to enhance? Will he at least have discussions with

    1177
    the Arts Council and, if necessary, provide some funds to enable the orchestra to be saved and to be placed on a sound financial footing?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have said—I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman echo it—that I should very much regret, as I am sure the House would regret, the closing of this very fine orchestra. But, as I explained earlier, the reasons for its closure given by its proprietor do not relate to the adequacy or otherwise of the subsidy which it receives. I am sure that the Arts Council will keep in touch with the position, but I cannot go beyond that.

  MINISTERS (INFORMATION)
  Mr. Marshasked the Prime Minister if he will instruct Ministers that they should provide hon. Members with the information they require where the national security is not involved.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I assume that there is some specific piece of information which the hon. Gentleman wants. If he will let me know what it is, I will go into the matter or ask one of my right hon. Friends to do so.
  Mr. Marsh: I am always interested in the right hon. Gentleman's assumptions, but I should have thought that the Question was fairly clear. Is he aware that I recently put down a Question to the Secretary of State for War and received the answer that 132,758 non-automatic rifles had been sold to private arms contractors in this country, but I have been steadfastly refused any indication as to where they were exported? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this is a subject of some public importance? Why is it not possible for the Question to be answered?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had put a Question in that form, he might have had a better chance of getting the answer he wants. It is not usual to give publicly the names of firms. The hon. Gentleman has sent me some information he had about arms exported to the Yemen. As far as I can trace them, the facts are these, if he is interested. No licences have been issued in recent years for rifles and
  1178
  ammunition destined for the Yemen. The quantity of rifles licensed for export to Saudi Arabia in recent years has been negligible. The quantity of rifles licensed for export to Belgium has been very small. I will look further into the hon. Gentleman's information and ask the Minister of Defence to do so, but that is the preliminary answer to his question.
  Mr. Marsh: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that if he had answered the question which he was asked instead of reading the brief with which he was provided we might have had the answer to a very simple question? Will he say that Ministers should answer Questions unless questions of national security are involved? Does not he think that there is a growing tendency for Ministers to refuse to answer merely because Questions are embarrassing to them and the Government?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir; if Ministers refuse to answer Questions or cannot answer Questions because national security is involved, this is something which the whole House understands.
  Mr. Marsh: Of course.
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will in future put down plain Questions he will get plain answers.
  Mr. K. Lewis: If hon. Members opposite took more notice of the assumptions—so-called by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh)—and the information given by the Prime Minister regarding, for instance, the trade figures for February, would not they be better informed?
  The Prime Minister: I see what my hon. Friend is getting at, but I do not think that even I could bring it into a supplementary answer on this Question.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Will the Prime Minister tale it that we welcome the fact that he has been so forthcoming this afternoon in giving figures and statements about export licensing decisions in respect of the shipment of arms to the Yemen? This is a big breach in the line taken in the past by himself and other Ministers. Does it mean that the

  1179
  Prime Minister will now be prepared, for the first time from that Box, to answer any Questions which we put to him about licensing decisions—refusals and permits—for export to South Africa?
  The Prime Minister: I should like to see any Questions on the Order Paper before I decide on the answer.

  POLARIS SUBMARINES
  Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister what consultation he had with President Johnson on the subject of Polaris submarines.
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister to what extent he discussed the question of Polaris submarines with President Johnson.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the right hon. and hon. Members to the Answer which I gave on 12th March in reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Does the Prime Minister recall saying to the Committee of 18 in Geneva just two years ago this week that
  "The task of the Committee is to move towards general and complete disarmament as quickly as possible from 0 per cent. to 100 per cent."?
  How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that with the assertion by the Minister of Defence on 26th February that in all circumstances we should go on constructing Polaris submarines for eight years?
  The Prime Minister: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is obliquely referring to President Johnson's proposal for the control of strategic nuclear delivery systems. As I have said before, what President Johnson said at that time, and what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary echoed at Geneva, was that we are perfectly willing, with the Russians and the Americans, to consider such a limitation. But it will not affect our Polaris programme or the American programme of missile construction.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: What I was referring to was the Prime Minister's speech two years ago, and I was wondering whether his fair words then have been forgotten
  1180
  just before the General Election. Since he has raised the question of the freeze, perhaps I can ask him this: does it not make nonsense of the freeze if we add 80 strategic missiles to a stock which President Johnson has offered to stabilise at 500?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's facts are quite correct. Of course, I said two years ago that we should proceed from the position in which we are now as regards disarmament, which is nothing, to 100 per cent. if we can. But I am not in control of the pace of the Committee of 18's deliberations. We will do what we can to help it, but it has not made much progress.
  On the question about the number of missiles, the right hon. Gentleman will perhaps remember that before the missiles and the Polaris submarines come in, the bombers will have fallen out.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: When the Prime Minister was discussing the question of Polaris submarines with President Johnson, did he raise the question of whether the American Government should make some financial contribution to the mothers of illegitimate children left behind by Polaris submarine sailors? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the illegitimate birth rate and the venereal disease figures in the area show a considerable increase? If he doubts that, will he disguise himself as an American sailor and go to Dunoon on a Saturday night and find out for himself?
  The Prime Minister: I did not discuss any of these by-products of the Nassau Agreement.
  Mr. Grimond: Reverting to the Question of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), is the Prime Minister saying that, even if the Russians offered to drop their current programme for further nuclear arms, under no circumstances whatever would we give up our right to acquire Polaris submarines?
  The Prime Minister: No. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that I said nothing of the kind. I said that we were willing to discuss with the Russians and the Americans the

  1181
  form of any such agreement. But if the right hon. Gentleman really thinks that the Russians will give up their nuclear programme, he had better go and talk to Mr. Khrushchev.
  Mr. Monslow: In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the reply to the Question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

  NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAMME
  Mr. Pentlandasked the Prime Minister when he expects the Government will conclude their study on the Powell Committee's Report; and when he expects an announcement will be made on the country's future nuclear power programme.
  The Prime Minister: I hope that an announcement can be made immediately after the Easter Recess.
  Mr. Pentland: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that the forthcoming White Paper on atomic energy will provide for adequate machinery to deal with the conflict of interest which exists in the atomic energy industry? I feel sure that he must he aware that this conflict and the lack of a decision by the Government on our future nuclear power programme is causing tremendous confusion and uncertainty throughout the atomic energy industry.
  The Prime Minister: If it has caused confusion, I do not think that it will do so much longer. The hon. Gentleman has only about ten days to wait.

  SCOTLAND (EDUCATION)
  Mr. Woodburnasked the Prime Minister what co-ordinating machinery is proposed to enable primary and secondary education in Scotland to be linked with university policy to ensure continuity of education in Scotland; and how this will be linked to the Government's plan for unified control of higher education and science.
  The Prime Minister: Consultations between my right hon. Friend the Secre-
  1182
  tary of State for Scotland and the Minister responsible for university affairs have always been close and continous. The arrangements, for such consultations will be adapted or expanded as may be necessary in the light of experience.
  Mr. Woodburn: Would the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State, or the Minister of Education, take steps to give at the earliest possible moment the arrangement likely to be made which we hope will prevent any disruption in the continuity of education from the primary school to the university? There is the feeling in Scotland that there will be a break in these relationships, that this may not be a harmonious development, and that there may be some difference between the finish of secondary education and the beginning of university education which will handicap students in passing from one to the other.
  The Prime Minister: I think that I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance immediately that there will he no break and that my right hon. Friend, when he becomes Secretary of State for Education, will deal most sympathetically, as his predecessors have always done, with the Scottish universities and Scottish schools. We will try to coordinate the policies as closely as we possibly can.
  Mr. Ross: Is the Prime Minister aware that he has the unique distinction of having put an English departmental Minister for Education in charge of a part, and that it a growing part, of Scottish education? How can the right hon. Gentleman possibly explain this with satisfaction?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can have observed what has happened in the past, because up to now the Treasury has always been in charge of these matters. The only change is between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the new Secretary of State for Education.

  SPORT (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILTY)
  Q.5. Mr. Wainwrightasked the Prime Minister if he will transfer to the Minister of Housing and Local Government and

  1183
  Minister for Welsh Affairs the responsibility for sport which is now held by the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Wainwright: Does the Prime Minister realise that the Lord President of the Council is either too busy to be interested in sport or is just not interested in sport? If the Lord President of the Council plays the game in the way that his interest in sport is being shown, it must be a very dull game. Will the Government do something about sport in this country? Would the Prime Minister consider setting up a sports development council, thus making some contribution to sport?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must not be deceived by appearances. My right hon. Friend has a very athletic mind.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (EMPLOYMENT)
  Mr. McMasterasked the Prime Minister whether, following his official visit to Northern Ireland, he will step up existing measures being taken in the United Kingdom by Her Majesty's Government in co-operation with the Government of Northern Ireland which are designed to reduce unemployment and increase the rate of industrial expansion in Northern Ireland.
  The Prime Minister: Some existing measures have already been improved; details were given in the debate on regional development on 4th December. More recently we have announced the assistance to be given for the Skyvan project, and we have agreed to a substantial scale of investment in a Northern Ireland roads programme.
  Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I could not hear in the uproar, but I did rise in my place and you have entirely overlooked my Question No. 6.
  Mr. Speaker: In fact, it is marked "off" on my Order Paper. As a consequence, I was under the illusion that the hon. Lady had either withdrawn it or postponed it. Therefore, I did not call it.
  Dame Irene Ward: I should not like there to be any misunderstanding. I asked for the Question to be postponed only if it was not reached, but it has been reached.
  Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry. There must have been some misunderstanding. It communicated itself to me in the form of the appropriate squiggles that cross it out. The only way that I can get round to the Question now is to ask leave of the House to go back to the hon. Lady's Question.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. McMaster: On a point of order. While not wishing to obstruct my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), may I ask whether I shall be allowed to put a supplementary question?
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member will be patient for a moment, we will see how we get on.
  Later—
  Mr. McMaster: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply to my Question. In view of the very heavy and continuing unemployment in Northern Ireland, which is up to 8 per cent., and the news of serious redundancy at Short Bros. and Harland if more orders are not placed soon—on top of the fall in employment in the shipbuilding industry in the past few years—would not my right hon. Friend agree that some special extra measures should he taken, and a fresh review made of the situation?
  The Prime Minister: We have the important matter of the difficulties in Northern Ireland all the time in mind and try to help so far as we possibly can
  Mr. Stratton Mills: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will reaffirm that the undertaking of the Government to Short Bros. and Harland in relation to employment still stands?
  The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend would say what particular undertaking he has in mind, I could answer the question.
  Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when considering any assistance for this firm, he will

  1185
  ask whether an applicant for employment by the firm is asked about his religion; whether there is an inquiry about the religious faith of the applicant? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that religious discrimination in Northern Ireland in relation to employment is ended?
  The Prime Minister: I have no reason to believe that the hon. Gentleman's question is based on fact. When we are considering whether to place an order—for instance, for Skyvan or another of these proposals which may come to us—certainly in our country we take no notice of any religious question.
  Mr. McMaster: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the implications in the last question, which would be deeply resented in my constituency——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman had risen to give some notice. This other matter does not give rise to a point of order.

  SHIPS (NUCLEAR PROPULSION)
  Dame Irene Wardasked the Prime Minister what arrangements he has made to co-ordinate the policies of the Minister of Transport and the Minister for Science on the merchant ship to be propelled by nuclear power; and what action Her Majesty's Government proposes to take to implement recent statements of policy.
  The Prime Minister: The Working Group on Marine Reactor Research reports jointly to the Minister for Science and the Minister of Transport, both of whose Departments are represented on the Group. A statement on the Government's future policy will be made as soon as Ministers have considered the report by the Working Group which is expected shortly.
  Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the statements made by various Ministers over a period have been most encouraging? Can my right hon. Friend explain why, when the Ministers were so definite, there has been a retreat? Is this due to deliberate policy to hold
  1186
  back? Is it that there is no money left for atomic research to continue the investigation into this matter? What has happened to prevent the Ministers' prognostications—including my right hon. Friend's predecessor—from being put into effect?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the answer to my hon. Friend is that I should like to know the facts—all the facts—before taking a decision.

MALTA
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Some weeks ago, the Prime Minister of Malta, Dr, Borg Olivier, informed me that the Maltese political parties were still unable to agree upon joint proposals for their independence constitution or upon any procedure by which the issue could be referred to the electorate for decision. He therefore asked the British Government to settle the matter on their own responsibility.
Since the points of difference centre upon delicate to issues affecting the relations between Church and State, I was naturally anxious that any decisions I might have to take should be based upon as wide a measure of assent as possible. Therefore, before replying formally to Dr. Borg Olivier's request, I invited him and the leaders of the other parties to discuss the position further with me. I also sought the views of the Archbishop of Malta.
I had hoped that it might be possible, if not to reach agreement, at least to narrow somewhat the gap between the opposing points of view. Unfortunately, the talks were unsuccessful and revealed no basis for any compromise.
In the circumstances, Dr. Borg Olivier decided to defer his request to me to adjudicate, pending the holding of a referendum. It is his intention to present to the Malta Legislature a Constitution drafted by his Government. Provided that this is endorsed by the Assembly, he will submit it to the electors through a referendum in which they will be asked the question. "Do you approve the proposed Constitution for Independence?"

1187
The ultimate responsibility for deciding the constitutions of dependent territories rests with the Parliament here. Nevertheless, we always try to take full account of public opinion and of any special circumstances in the countries concerned. I therefore assured the Prime Minister of Malta that, provided the referendum is held under conditions which, in the opinion of the British Government, are fair and free, we will endeavour to be guided in our decisions by the wishes expressed in it by the Maltese people.
With the agreement of the Prime Minister of Malta, I would propose to appoint observers to witness and report upon the conduct of the referendum.
Mr. Bottomley: Earlier, the Prime Minister of Malta decided against a referendum because the leaders of the Opposition there did not agree. Can the Secretary of State say whether the Opposition leaders have agreed to the holding of a referendum? Can he give an assurance to the House that there will be freedom for all parties to hold meetings and to use broadcasting facilities and that, as in this country when we have an election, there is no undue influence to prevent an elector registering his vote according to his wishes?
Can the Secretary of State tell us something more about the observers? How will they be appointed? Where will they be appointed and what kind of person will be appointed? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how long will be the period of the referendum and when the result will be known?
Mr. Sandys: As I explained, the talks had revealed that there was no agreement either on the form of the Constitution or upon the procedure for consulting the people. There was a complete deadlock.
I did not particularly want to settle these rather delicate ecclesiastical questions, and, in view of that, the Prime Minister of Malta—I think rightly—thought that it was better for him to take the responsibility for putting some question to the electors in a referendum.
We hope that the referendum on the Constitution—which he is to draft and lot which I have no responsibility—will
1188
at any rate clarify the views of the people of Malta on this question.
With regard to the conduct and the conditions of the referendum, as I explained, I propose to appoint observers and, through that method, to satisfy myself as to the conditions under which it is held. In the light of the report of these observers, I shall decide the importance to attach to the results shown by the ballot box.
Mr. H. Wilson: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he must insist, in the drafting of this proposed Constitution, on safeguards for the voter comparable and equal to the safeguards which have been written in the Representation of the People Act in this country about undue influence and putting the voter in spiritual jeopardy in the exercise of his vote? Would not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a widespread feeling on both sides of the House that the citizens of Malta should have the same rights in this respect as everyone in this country?
On the question by my right hon. Friend about the timetable, will he recognise that however desirable is the need to get independence agreed quickly it is more important to get this problem dealt with rightly rather than speedily, and that no one in the House would want to have further Mediterranean island difficulties which could be avoided—by patience in this case—and by very careful consideration of the particular problem which I know the right hon. Gentleman has so much in mind?
Mr. Sandys: I have very much in mind the question of human rights and liberties. This is a matter which arises in every constitution for independence which we have to prepare. My views are, I am sure, quite well known to all concerned and I have made it clear to the House that Parliament here has the last word in these matters.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the important thing is to get it right if we can, but I would also like not to have avoidable delay.
Mr. Wall: Does my right hon. Friend's statement mean that any dispute between Church and State in Malta is now a matter for the Maltese Parliament? If so, I congratulate him on having the judgment of Solomon.
Mr. Sandys: I think that I have made it clear that this Parliament must have the last word and must decide what shall be the constitutions for those countries to which we give independence.
Mr. Grimond: Is the question which the Secretary of State read out to be the only one in the referendum? If so, is he satisfied that it is sufficiently clear and unambiguous so that if a person votes against the question he will be taken, I imagine, to be against the constitution but not necessarily against independence? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this again to see that the wording is clear?
Mr. Sandys: I made it clear that it is not my referendum, although I have proposed various formulæ at different times. This question will enable people, with the different views which are held by the three main groups in Malta, to express themselves by the ballot box.
Mr. Woodnutt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all the minority parties in Malta have been asking for a referendum and that they will be extremely pleased that the decision has now been made? Is he also aware that it is extremely difficult to draft the referendum in such a way that it will be possible to answer it with a straight "Yes" or "No"?
Knowing Maltese politics as we do, is it not very likely that one pressure group or another will boycott the referendum and say that it is not to be answered? Has he made any provision for the possibility that fewer than 50 per cent. of the electorate will answer? What does he propose to do if the referendum is answered only by a minority? Will he accept it as being the wish of the people in that circumstance?
Mr. Sandys: I hope that my hon. Friend is right about the referendum being welcomed by at least the centre parties. The first information I have is that some of them are thinking of boycotting it. But I must again remind the House that this is not my referendum. I will have to judge the results as best I can in the light of what happens. I cannot foretell what that will be.
Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the conditions under
1190
which the last General Election took place in Malta were quite irregular and that the election ended with the Government now in power? Will he take greater precautions to see that the people of Malta have full opportunity to express their views in the referendum? Will he take steps to send not only representatives from this country, but representatives from the United Nations, which would be an unbiased body, to observe the position?
Mr. Sandys: I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should assume that an election is irregular because it produces a victory for a party of which he does not approve. With all respect to the United Nations, it has not been our practice to bring in outside authorities to conduct elections in British territories and I do not intend to begin now.
Mr. Dudley Williams: May I refer back to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—the question of independence? Does not my right hon. Friend know that there has been considerable expression of opinion in Malta that the vast majority of the people there do not want independence at all? Will he give an assurance that there will be ample provision in the referendum for people who hold that view to express it?
Mr. Sandys: I have said that those who wish to, express their views in the referendum will be able to do so on this formula.

BRITISH LION FILMS LTD.
The Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about British Lion.
At the end of last week the Board of the National Film Finance Corporation unanimously advised me to accept the offer from Sir Michael Balcon's Group to purchase British Lion Films Limited.
This offer complies fully with the conditions for the sale of the company which I summarised to the House

1191
during the debate on 4th February and which have subsequently been formulated in detail by the Corporation.
The N.F.F.C. consider this offer to be more advantageous than the other two firm offers which were received.—that from the Freedom Group and that from Mr. Sidney Box's group, the latter of which did not fully meet the conditions.
I have today authorised the National Film Finance Corporation to accept this offer. Sir Michael Balcon's group is well qualified to take over the ownership and running of the company. It has the assurance of efficient and proven management and the support of five groups of film makers including, in two of the groups, Mr. Frank Launder and Mr. Sidney Gilliat, and Messrs. John and Roy Boulting.
I have been advised that the financial arrangements proposed by Sir Michael Balcon's group should provide adequately for the efficient running of the company and will not conflict with the stipulated conditions.
I believe that the House will agree that this is a satisfactory outcome to these negotiations.
Mr. Jay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House have never attempted to choose between one film group and another, but nevertheless, on the method of selection and the issue of public control over British Lion, we much welcome the fact that, in this instance at any rate, he has in some measure listened to criticisms from the House?
Mr. Heath: I thought that, after the rather grudging introductory statement, the right hon. Gentleman would offer a compliment. I am sorry that he did not find it possible to do so. However, I think he will agree that where a choice had to be made it was made on the unanimous advice of the National Film Finance Corporation and that it is a satisfactory outcome.
Sir L. Ropner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the two major circuits will welcome the prospect of an increase in the production of high-quality films?
Mr. Heath: Sir Michael Balcon's group has indicated that its policy will be to work harmoniously with the two
1192
major circuits, at the same time maintaining the independence of the company.
Mr. Lubbock: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that this is the solution which I proposed in the debate on 4th February? As a result, does he realise that we shall not hold against him now the criticism which he expressed of our view on that occasion, since he has come to the right decision?
Captain Orr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whoever proposed the solution, it is one that will be warmly welcomed by everybody who has the independent future of the company at heart? Can he say now, having secured the independence of the company, when he will be able to make a statement on the Report of the National Film Advisory Council on the long-term question of monopoly in the industry?
Mr. Heath: I cannot give the exact date. We are giving the subject urgent consideration and I will inform the House as soon as possible.
Mr. Swingler: Is it not the normal Parliamentary courtesy that an hon. Member who has a Question on the Order Paper on a certain subject should be informed that a statement on that subject is to be made? I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not observe that courtesy in this case. I had a Question on the Order Paper for answer next Thursday. It has been there for several days.
Has not the right hon. Gentleman turned an extraordinary circle? He first tried to sack the Boulting brothers, who now appear in another disguise. Is not the sum total of his achievement the sell-out of public interest in an extremely enterprising company?
Mr. Heath: No discourtesy was intended in making a statement today. It was perfectly natural that I should do so at the earliest opportunity. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's version of events. I explained, during our debate in February, the circumstances in which the Corporation exercised its option. Since then the matter has been open to tender. There were three firm ones and the Corporation has made a unanimous recommendation as to which should be accepted, and I have agreed.
Mrs. White: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having decided on the right group, although he might have reached this decision last December. On the important matter of the possible disposal of Shepperton Studios, in certain circumstances, can he tell us whether it is not obligatory for the N.F.F.C.s special director to consult the Board of Trade, which many of us would think in those circumstances should be an obligation on the special director?
Mr. Heath: I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Lady says, but it would be natural for the special director to consult the N.F.F.C.—he is the company's director—and it would then be for the N.F.E.C. to consult the Board of Trade.
Mr. Callaghan: If no discourtesy was intended to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would have been appropriate to inform him that this statement was to be made?
Mr. Heath: I will certainly say that it would have been more appropriate, but I was not aware that whenever there was a Question on the Order Paper it was always the practice to inform those concerned whenever a statement was to be made.
Mr. Swingler: On a point of order. To explain the point I raised, may I say that I have had on the Order Paper since the middle of last week a Question concerned with the Government's policy on British Lion. I have always thought that it was the convention of the House that when a Member had a Question on the Order Paper—in this case addressed to the Secretary of State for answer next Thursday—aid a prior statement on that subject was to be made, the Member would normally be notified. I merely wish to say that in this case that was not done.
Mr. Speaker: The trouble is that there are rules of order which concern me and conventions which officially do not. If I may illustrate the distinction, such things as pairs exist, but I know nothing of them.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock, and that if the first five Resolutions reported from the Committee of Supply of 11th March shall have been agreed to before half-past Nine o'clock Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'clock by paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [13TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  REPORT [11th March]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1963–64; CIVIL ESTIMATES AND DEFENCE (CENTRAL) ESTIMATE, 1964–65 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT); DEFENCE (NAVY) ESTIMATES, 1964–65; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1963–64; CIVIL ESTIMATES (EXCESS), 1962–63.
  Resolutions reported,
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1963–64
    CLASS I
      VOTE 3. TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS
      1. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £216,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury and subordinate departments and of the First Secretary of State, the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and two Ministers without Portfolio.
    CLASS VII
      VOTE 4. DEPARTMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
      2. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £209,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, including certain subscriptions to international organisations.
    CLASS IX
      VOTE 2. PUBLIC BUILDINGS, ETC., UNITED KINGDOM
      3. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,991,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for expenditure on public buildings in the United Kingdom, including a grant in aid, a purchase grant in aid and sundry other services.
    CLASS IV

      VOTE 10. MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT
      4. That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £267,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in
      1196
      course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Transport, the Coastguard, certain Tribunals and Committees and sundry other services including subscriptions to international organisations.

    CLASS V
      VOTE 7. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (AGRICUL- TURAL AND FOOD SERVICES)
      5. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for expenditure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in connection with sundry agricultural and food services including grants, grants in aid and certain subscriptions to international organisations.
    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND DEFENCE (CENTRAL) ESTIMATE, 1964–65

      (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
      6. That a sum, not exceeding £1,779,406,100, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil Departments and for the Ministry of Defence for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965:—

      CIVIL ESTIMATES

      CLASS I

      £

      1.

      House of Lords

      102,000

      2.

      House of Commons

      595,000

      3.

      Treasury and Subordinate Departments

      1,600,000

      4.

      Privy Council Office

      18,000

      5.

      Post Office Ministers

      2,500

      6.

      Customs and Excise

      7,400,000

      7.

      Inland Revenue

      21,200,000

      8.

      Exchequer and Audit Department

      290,000

      9.

      Civil Service Commission

      312,000

      10.

      Royal Commissions, etc.

      260,000

      CLASS II

      1.

      Foreign Service

      12,664,000

      2.

      Foreign Grants and Loans

      11,150,000

      3.

      British Council

      1,800,000

      4.

      Commonwealth Relations Office

      9,920,000

      5.

      Commonwealth Grants and Loans

      10,243,000

      6.

      Colonial Office

      2,400,000

      7.

      Colonial Grants and Loans

      6,400,000

      8.

      Development and Welfare (Colonial Office)

      3,750,000

      9.

      Department of Technical Co-operation

      14,500,000

      10.

      Central African Office

      2,990,000

      11.

      Development and Welfare (Central African Office)

      693,000

      12.

      Commonwealth War Graves Commission

      440,000

      CLASS III

      £

      1.

      Home Office

      4,100,000

      2.

      Scottish Home and Health Department

      944,000

      3.

      Home Office (Civil Defence Services)

      4,400,000

      4.

      Scottish Home and Health Department (Civil Defence Services)

      266,000

      5.

      Police, England and Wales

      26,160,000

      6.

      Police, Scotland

      194,000

      7.

      Prisons, England and Wales

      7,350,000

      8.

      Prisons, Scotland

      942,000

      9.

      Child Care, England and Wales

      2,123,000

      10.

      Child Care, Scotland

      296,000

      11.

      Supreme Court of Judicature, &c.

      100

      12.

      County Courts

      312,000

      13.

      Legal Aid Fund

      1,884,000

      14.

      Law Charges

      325,000

      15.

      Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland

      134,000

      16.

      Supreme Court of Judicature, &c., Northern Ireland

      29,000

      CLASS IV

      1.

      Board of Trade

      2,650,000

      2.

      Board of Trade (Promotion of Trade, Exports and Industrial Efficiency and Trading &c., Services)

      3,260,000

      3.

      Board of Trade (Promotion of Local Employment)

      13,610,000

      4.

      Export Credits

      100

      5.

      Export Credits (Special Guarantees, &c.)

      100

      6.

      Ministry of Labour

      10,023,000

      7.

      Ministry of Aviation

      88,000,000

      8.

      Ministry of Aviation (Purchasing (Repayment) Services)

      7,000,000

      9.

      Ministry of Aviation (Special Materials)

      20,000,000

      10.

      Civil Aerodromes and Air Navigational Services

      4,000,000

      11.

      Ministry of Transport

      1,865,000

      12.

      Roads, &c., England and Wales

      60,000,000

      13.

      Roads, &c., Scotland

      7,773,000

      14.

      Transport (Shipping and Special Services)

      689,000

      15.

      Transport (Railways and Waterways Board)

      55,000,000

      16.

      Ministry of Power

      1,190,000

      CLASS V

      1.

      Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

      8,000,000

      2.

      Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

      3,000,000

      3.

      Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies)

      43,000,000

      4.

      Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies)

      4,400,000

      5.

      Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Price Guarantees)

      68,000,000

      CLASS VI

      1.

      Ministry of Housing and Local Government

      4,710,000

      2.

      Scottish Development Department

      1,300,000

      3.

      Housing, England and Wales

      29,500,000

      4.

      Housing, Scotland

      10,800,000

      5.

      General Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales

      208,393,000

      6.

      General Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland

      30,140,000

      7.

      Rate Deficiency, &c., Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales

      54,750,000

      8.

      Equalisation and Transitional Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland

      9,782,000

      9.

      Ministry of Education

      50,500,000

      10.

      Scottish Education Department

      11,185,000

      11.

      Ministry of Education (Teaches' Superannuation)

      100

      12.

      Scottish Education Department Teachers' Superannuation)

      100

      13.

      Ministry of Health

      1,602,000

      14.

      National Health Service &c. (Hospital Services, &c.), England and Wales

      173,210,000

      15.

      National Health Service (Executive Councils' Services), England and Wales

      61,969,000

      16.

      Miscellaneous Health and Welfare Service, England and Wales

      16,211,000

      17.

      National Health Service, (Superannuation, &c.) England and Wales

      100

      18.

      National Health Service, &c., Scotland

      32,000,000

      19.

      National Health Service (Superannuation, &c), Scotland

      100

      20.

      Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance

      2,900,000

      21.

      National Insurance

      75,100,000

      22.

      Family Allowances

      49,700,000

      23.

      National Assistance Board

      82,800,000

      24.

      War Pensions, &c.

      39,250,000

      CLASS VII

      1.

      Universities and Colleges, etc., Great Britain

      45,000,000

      2.

      Office of the Lord President and Minister for Science

      80,000

      3.

      Atomic Energy

      25,000,000

      CLASS VIII

      1.

      British Museum

      630,000

      2.

      British Museum (Natural History)

      275,000

      3.

      Science Museum

      140,000

      4.

      Victoria and Albert Museum

      280,000

      5.

      Imperial War Museum

      32,000

      6.

      London Museum

      23,000

      7.

      National Gallery

      253,000

      8.

      National Maritime Museum

      50,000

      9.

      National Portrait Gallery

      20,000

      10.

      Tate Gallery

      151,000

      11.

      Wallace Collection

      20,000

      12.

      Royal Scottish Museum

      58,000

      13.

      National Galleries of Scotland

      71,000

      14.

      National Library of Scotland

      66,000

      15.

      National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland

      21,000

      16.

      Grants for the Arts

      2,150,000

      CLASS IX

      1.

      Ministry of Public Building and Works

      10,150,000

      2.

      Public Buildings, &c., United Kingdom

      18,040,000

      3.

      Public Buildings Overseas

      2,375,000

      4.

      Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Defence (Navy Department)

      8,250,000

      5.

      Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Defence (Army Department)

      20,485,000

      6.

      Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Defence (Air Force Department)

      15,833,000

      7.

      Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Aviation

      3,350,000

      8.

      Works and Buildings for Royal Ordnance Factories

      383,000

      9.

      Houses of Parliament Buildings

      184,000

      10.

      Royal Palaces

      278,000

      11.

      Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

      462,000

      12.

      Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments

      501,000

      13.

      Rates on Government Property

      12,500,000

      14.

      Stationery and Printing

      8,200,000

      15.

      Central Office of Information

      2,650,000

      16.

      Government Actuary

      20,000

      17.

      Government Hospitality

      90,000

      18.

      Civil Superannuation, etc.

      16,500,000

      19.

      Post Office Superannuation, &c.

      100

      CLASS X

      1.

      Charity Commission

      106,000

      2.

      Crown Estate Office

      60,000

      3.

      Friendly Societies Registry

      45,000

      4.

      Royal Mint

      100

      5.

      National Debt Office

      100

      6.

      Public Works Loan Commission

      100

      CLASS X

      1.

      Broadcasting

      22,000,000

      2.

      Carlisle State Management District

      100

      3.

      State Management Districts Scotland

      100

      4.

      Pensions, &c. (India, Pakistan and Burma)

      3,631,000

      5.

      Supplements to Pensions, &c. (Overseas Services)

      650,000

      6.

      Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, &c.

      370,000

      7.

      Irish Land Purchase Services

      545,000

      8.

      Development Fund

      700,000

      9.

      Secret Service

      3,000,000

      10.

      Miscellaneous Expenses

      356,000

      Total for Civil Estimates

      1,770,906,100

      Defence (Central)

      8,500,000

      Total for Civil Estimates and Defence (Central) Estimate

      1,779,406,100

  DEFENCE (NAVY) ESTIMATES, 1964–65
  7. That a sum, not exceeding £77,331,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, for expenditure in respect of Navy Services, viz.:—

  Vote

  £

  4.

  Research and Development and other Scientific Services

  28,025,000

  5.

  Medical Services, Education and Civilians on Fleet Services

  14,615,000

  8.

  Lands and Buildings

  962,000

  9.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  11,692,000

  10.

  Non-effective Services

  22,036,000

  11.

  Additional Married Quarters

  1,000

  £77,331,000

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1963–64
  8. That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £48,902,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending

  1201
  on the 31st day of March 1964, for expenditure in respect of the following Supplementary Estimates, viz.:—

  CIVIL ESTIMATES

  CLASS I

  £

  1.

  House of Lords

  11,000

  2.

  House of Commons

  10,000

  6.

  Customs and Excise

  758,000

  7.

  Inland Revenue

  984,000

  8.

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  4,000

  9.

  Civil Service Commission

  49,000

  CLASS II

  1.

  Foreign Service

  1,000

  2.

  Foreign Grants and Loans

  582,000

  4.

  Commonwealth Relations Office

  4,007,000

  5.

  Commonwealth Grants and Loans

  2,124,000

  6.

  Colonial Office

  1,000

  7.

  Colonial Grants and Loans

  137,000

  9.

  Department of Technical Co-operation

  1,000

  10.

  Central African Office

  1,297,000

  12.

  Commonwealth War Graves Commission

  36,000

  CLASS III

  2.

  Scottish Home and Health Department

  80,000

  4.

  Scottish Home and Health Department (Civil Defence Services)

  68,000

  6.

  Police, Scotland

  57,000

  7.

  Prisons, England and Wales

  1,000

  11.

  Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.

  1,000

  12.

  County Courts

  27,000

  13.

  Legal Aid Fund

  562,000

  14.

  Law Charges

  73,000

  15.

  Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland

  27,000

  16.

  Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland

  1,000

  CLASS IV

  1.

  Board of Trade

  356,000

  2.

  Board of Trade (Promotion of Trade, Exports and Industrial Efficiency, and Trading, etc., Services)

  1,000

  4.

  Export Credits

  1,000

  5.

  Export Credits (Special Guarantees, etc.)

  1,000

  6.

  Ministry of Labour

  1,000

  7.

  Ministry of Aviation

  1,000

  11.

  Roads, etc., England and Wales

  2,600,000

  12.

  Roads, etc., Scotland

  1,043,000

  13A.

  Transport (Shipbuilding Loans)

  1,000

  CLASS V

  1.

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  615,000

  2.

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  1,000

  CLASS VI

  2.

  Scottish Development Department

  1,000

  4.

  Housing, Scotland

  233,000

  5.

  General Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales

  7,000

  6.

  General Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland

  3,636,000

  8.

  Equalisation and Transitional Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland

  90,000

  9.

  Ministry of Education

  4,474,000

  10.

  Scottish Education Department

  820,000

  11.

  Ministry of Education (Teachers' Superannuation)

  1,000

  13.

  Ministry of Health

  145,000

  14.

  National Health Service, etc. (Hospital Services, etc.), England and Wales

  2,467,000

  15.

  National Health Service (Executive Councils' Services), England and Wales

  1,557,000

  16.

  Miscellaneous Health and Welfare Services, England and Wales

  763,000

  17.

  National Health Service (Superannuation, e t c.), England and Wales

  1,000

  18.

  National Health Service, etc., Scotland

  1,068,000

  19.

  National Health Service (Superannuation, etc.), Scotland

  1,000

  20.

  Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance

  530,000

  23.

  National Assistance Board

  7,747,000

  CLASS VII

  1.

  Universities and Colleges, etc., Great Britain

  5,082,000

  2.

  Office of the Minister for Science

  15,000

  3.

  Atomic Energy

  1,000

  5.

  Medical Research Council

  125,000

  7.

  Nature Conservancy

  18,000

  CLASS VIII

  1.

  British Museum

  33,000

  2.

  British Museum (Natural History)

  17,000

  3.

  Science Museum

  2,000

  4.

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  27,000

  5.

  Imperial War Museum

  3,000

  6.

  London Museum

  4,000

  7.

  National Gallery

  9,000

  8.

  National Maritime Museum

  2,600

  9.

  National Portrait Gallery

  3,000

  CLASS IX

  1.

  Ministry of Public Building and Works

  1,450,000

  3.

  Public Buildings Overseas

  63,000

  4.

  Works and Buildings for the Admiralty

  400,000

  7.

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  25,000

  10.

  Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments

  30,000

  14.

  Government Actuary

  1,000

  16.

  Civil Superannuation, etc.

  485,000

  CLASS X

  2.

  Crown Estate Office

  1,000

  3.

  Friendly Societies Registry

  3,000

  5.

  National Debt Office

  1,000

  6.

  Public Works Loan Commission

  1,000

  8.

  Land Registry

  1,000

  11.

  Ordnance Survey

  90,000

  13.

  Scottish Record Office

  1,000

  14.

  Registrar General's Office

  1,000

  CIVIL ESTIMATES (EXCESS), 1962–63

  10. That a sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to make good an excess on the grant for the National Assistance Board for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1963.

  Class and Vote

  Excess of Expenditure over Estimate

  Appropriations in Aid

  Excess Vote

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  CLASS VI

  23.

  National Assistance Board

  99,049

  14

  6

  99,039

  14

  6

  10

  0

  0

  Total, Civil Estimates (Excess)

  £10

  0

  0

  First Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

  MINISTERS WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (SALARIES)
  3.53 p.m.
  Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move, in Class I, Vote 3 (Treasury and Subordinate Departments), to leave out "£216,000" and to insert "£213,700" instead thereof.
  I move this Amendment for the purpose of focusing attention upon the position of Subhead N in the Votes, namely, Ministers without Portfolio. What I am seeking to do is to deprive them of their salary. I cannot, of course,

  £

  15.

  Registrar General's Office, Scotland

  2,000

  16.

  Department of the Registers of Scotland

  1,000

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1963–64
  9. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £616,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, including international subscriptions; and certain grants in aid.
  deprive them of their office. They are entitled, if the Prime Minister so wishes, to serve without remuneration, but I am certainly entitled to ask that they should receive no remuneration; and that is what I do in this case.
  The office of Minister without Portfolio is very ancient. For example, I am told that the Duke of Wellington insisted on serving as a Minister without Portfolio. However, it is true that until the First World War there were very few illustrations of Ministers serving without a portfolio. During the First World War the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. David Lloyd George, said that Ministers who were concerned with the conduct of great Departments could not have the oversight of the general war situation, too, and he therefore created a number of Ministers without Portfolio.
  On the other hand, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) did not create such specific Ministries during the last war except, in the case of the late Lord Jowitt, for dealing with the Beveridge Report, which he followed later by the appointment of the late Mr. Arthur Greenwood. Then the practice dropped out during the period of the Labour Government. It was revived in 1954 when the Earl of Munster became Minister without Portfolio in order to lead Government business in another place. He was followed by Lord Man-croft, who was followed by the Earl of Dundee.
  The present Government seem to have found it necessary to have a number of Ministers without Portfolio, and we should like to ask the Prime Minister the basis for the creation of these appointments. I do not know whether we are to be favoured by the presence of the Prime Minister this afternoon, but I hope that the Treasury Bench will convey to him our request that he should be present. This, after all, is not a subject on which the Minister without Portfolio himself should reply. It is a matter on which it is the duty of the Prime Minister to account to the House. It is not the Minister without Portfolio who appoints himself, but the Prime Minister who appoints him.
  If I may call attention to an earlier occasion, the last time that this subject was debated in the House, in 1921, Mr. David Lloyd George, who was the Prime Minister, defended his proposal to appoint Mr. Alfred Barnes as Minister without Portfolio because that was the fair and proper thing for him to do. He said that he did not intend to expose Mr. Alfred Barnes to criticism, but intended, as Prime Minister, to make it clear why he had appointed him.
  I do not know whether the Prime Minister intends to come here today, but we wish to register the view that it is the Prime Minister's duty to be here to account to us for these appointments. I hope that the Treasury Bench will convey that to the Prime Minister. The debate can continue for some time and I repeat our request that he should be present to give us his reasons and the principles on which he acts in these appointments.
  The House has always been very concerned about the appointment of Ministers without Portfolio, because they are persons who are responsible only to the Prime Minister and who have no assailable front. It is very difficult to question a Minister without Portfolio; it is very difficult to get him to account for himself to the House of Commons, which is the fundamental principle of all Ministers. In these days there is a great deal of loose talk about the growth of the presidential system, but there is no presidential system in this country. Ministers are responsible to the House of Commons. That is why we should discourage the idea that there are Ministers who are particularly responsible to the Prime Minister through holding no portfolio and, therefore, not having to account for themselves to the House of Commons.
  The Minister without Portfolio cannot tell us what is in the Prime Minister's mind in these appointments and it is, therefore, reasonable that the Prime Minister himself should tell us what lies behind these appointments. There are ancient and honourable offices which are open to the Prime Minister if he wishes to make appointments of Ministers who have no especial responsibility. There are the offices of Lord Privy Seal, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Lord President of the Council. Those are all ancient and honourable posts to which in the past have been appointed Ministers for whom the Prime Minister had special reasons for not weighing down with departmental responsibilities. We have the recent example of Lord Mills, who, for a time, was Minister without Portfolio, but who, before that, always held a departmental office. I take exception to the fact that we now have two Ministers without Portfolio, with all the difficulties which are incumbent in the House of Commons upon their answerability. It is for this reason, among others, that I move a reduction in their salaries.
  I understand that the latest Minister to be appointed as Minister without Portfolio—one of the two with whom we are dealing—is to have special responsibilities for foreign affairs. I certainly would not say that the Foreign Office should lack assistance. The burden upon it is heavy and is, no doubt, growing. Is it necessary, however, to have a Minister without Portfolio for this purpose? This is

  1207
  the question to which I should like an answer. Why do not these other offices in the Cabinet provide the Prime Minister with the elbow room which he needs for appointments of this sort?
  We have, for example, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I do not know how much work he does in his Department, but if it is anything like normal it will be about an hour and a half a week. He is also the Chairman of the Conservative Party and I suspect that the greater part of his time is taken up not by his work as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but by his preoccupation as Chairman of the Conservative Party.
  I regard it as scandalous that the taxpayer should be required to pay the salary of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to carry out his responsibilities as Chairman of the Conservative Party. I doubt whether, since he was appointed in October, his speeches in the House of Lords, which I have had checked, total three hours of speaking time. His remuneration is not bad if one works it out per hour. I am sure that a lot of engineers would like to do as well.
  I have also worked out not only his work in the House of Lords which is Ministerial, but his work in the country, to see how the taxpayers' money is being spent. The Chancellor of the Duchy, who, in my view, could well do the job of Minister without Portfolio, has spoken a number of times in the country. I have a list of them. On 24th October, he made a speech at the Luton by-election because the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) found that he could not be present in support of the Conservative candidate. On 2nd November, the Chancellor of the Duchy addressed the West Midlands Area Council of the Conservative Association in Birmingham. On 14th November, he addressed the Disabled Men of the Year Lunch, which I thought was a non-party occasion until I read his speech, which, from beginning to end, was a eulogy of the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan)—no doubt perfectly proper, but not at the expense of the taxpayer.
  On 15th November, he found time to spare from his onerous duty as Chancellor of the Duchy to visit the Sudbury adoption meeting of the Conserva-
  1208
  tive candidate. On 29th November, he addressed the Foreign Press Association. This might have been an opportunity and an occasion for him to put over a speech that would have "sold" Britain to the foreign Press in a way that he might have done, especially as he was there, no doubt, during his time as Chancellor of the Duchy. But not at all. He started his speech by telling the foreign Press that the party was united. He went on to talk about the resurgence of confidence in the country which was overtaking the Conservative Party. It was a purely party speech.
  On 14th November, he went to address the Churchill Tea Club. [Laughter.] I agree that that is an odd juxtaposition of terms. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) would not approve if he knew of the existence of this club. In fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, however, I am bound to say that on this occasion the Churchill Tea Club had dinner. The Chancellor of the Duchy was in great form, beginning his speech by saying:
  "Let us be honest with each other. The most important task is to concentrate on perfecting our constituency organisation."
  On 22nd February, he went to the Wessex Area Executive Committee of the Conservative Party and made another party speech. On 7th March, he addressed the Conservative Trade Unionists' conference as follows:
  "I wish to address you in my new post as party Chairman."
  There is not one speech from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the country which is other than a party speech in his capacity as Chairman of the Conservative Party.
  Why should we be asked to vote the salary of another Minister when there is a Minister like the Chancellor of the Duchy, who carries out practically no official duties, who spends very little time in the House of Lords and who spends the taxpayers' money upon his job as Chairman of the Conservative Party? Before we vote on a matter like this, and give the Government this money, we are entitled to ask the reason for it.
  It is no use the Minister without Portfolio coming here to tell us the reason. He does not know what is in the Prime Minister's mind. He cannot tell us why

  1209
  the Prime Minister does not think that Viscount Blakenham, the Chancellor of the Duchy, is not fit to do the job at the Foreign Office for which we are now being asked to vote other money. We are, however, entitled to ask the Prime Minister the principles on which he is acting in this matter.
  What does the Minister without Portfolio do? I suppose that he will be able to tell us something of what he does——
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: He made a speech last week.
  Mr. Callaghan: I quite agree. It is not for me to comment upon it. The right hon. Gentleman's purpose is nakedly and avowedly to put to the Press the best possible complexion upon governmental policies. He will not deny that that is his rôle and that his job is to explain as best he can what the Government are doing.
  I regard it as something that this House should question when, in a Cabinet of 23, we have two Ministers one of whom is responsible for party organisation and the other of whom is responsible for party propaganda, costing us salaries and costing the taxpayer his money. This is unprecedented. It is only the Conservative Party—[Interruption.] I quite agree, if the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) is saying that Mr. Khrushchev would recognise this sort of thing, that he would feel it proper to have a Minister for Party Propaganda and a Minister for Party Organisation in his Government. We, on the other hand, have always tried to keep a distinction.
  If hon. Members recall the days of the Labour Government, they will find that the distinction was kept. Although Herbert Morrison, as he was then, was in charge of party publicity, he used to say that he tried to keep this very clear from his official job. As every hon. Member who was here at the time knows, he did a heavy job as Leader of the House. His official job was extremely onerous. What I complain of in these present appointments is that their holders have no official jobs that are onerous. Both of them are purely party lobs. I see no reason why the House of Commons should be expected to assent to the creation of yet another Minister
  1210
  when, quite clearly, his task could be performed by at least one of the two Ministers now engaged purely upon party work.
  In my view the decent thing would be for Viscount Blakenham to resign as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I quite understand that in the pre-election period the Conservative Party Chairman's time is fully taken up and that there is a great deal to do. I put it to hon. Members opposite, however is it decent that the Conservative Party should ask the taxpayer to pay his salary? I challenge any hon. Member opposite to answer this.
  Mr. William Ross: The Prime Minister should be here.
  Mr. Callaghan: I agree, because the Minister without Portfolio is the one who is being attacked. The Prime Minister, however, has a habit, apparently, of being absent on occasions that are awkward. He was absent last week from the Resale Prices Bill debate.
  Mr. David Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I have no option. As I understand, he is moving that the salary of the Minister without Portfolio be not approved. There is nothing before us relating to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and yet a great part of the case which the hon. Member is making refers to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Are we in order in discussing that matter as well, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Speaker: The Estimate is not in my hand, bet my recollection is that it covers all these Ministers without Portfolio. That is right, is it not?
  Mr. Callaghan: I well understand the sensitivity of the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton), but I should have thought that the obvious way to argue that one should not vote additional money would be to say that other Ministers are capable of doing the job. If I can say, as I am doing, that 90 per cent. of the time of the Chancellor of the Duchy is spent on party work, I have a right to argue that if he dropped his party work we would not need to have an additional Minister without Portfolio.

  1211
  That is my case. I can put it in one of two ways. If Viscount Blakenham is essential to the Conservative Party as its Chairman, let him resign from the office of Chancellor of the Duchy. It is not essential that the Chairman of the Conservative Party should be a member of the Government. Lord Poole was not. He was the former joint-chairman with the right hon. Member for Enfield, West. He was not a member of the Government.
  I see no reason at all now why it should be argued that it is essential that the Chairman of the Conservative Party should be a member of the Government. I therefore say that if he were to resign, in which case we would not have to approve this Minister without Portfolio, or, alternatively, if he were to undertake the duties for which he is paid instead of the party chairmanship, we would not need this money——
  Mrs. Barbara Castle: To enable us to get this matter into perspective, would my hon. Friend remind us of the size of the salaries involved in these two cases?
  Mr. Callaghan: There is £5,000 for the Minister, and I believe an additional £750 which would be paid to the right hon. Gentleman—he will, no doubt, be able to tell us himself—in his capacity as a Member of Parliament. We are asked to approve an additional £3,000, which is made up as to £2,300 in respect of his salary for part of the year, and another £700 for his staff. How far the staff are employed upon Conservative Party work and how far they are employed upon the duties of the Chancellor of the Duchy or the Minister without Portfolio, I do not know, but no doubt the Prime Minister could have told us if he had taken the trouble to come today.
  Another reason that I would advance is this. The Government are always claiming to hold a lot of records. One record they certainly hold is that they have appointed more Ministers than any other Government in recorded history. We have reached a total of 97 Ministers —that includes the Whips—of whom 76 are in the House of Commons. I do not ask everybody to agree with everything that I have said, but I think that
  1212
  everybody would agree that at least the growth of Ministers as against private Members is something that should be scrutinised very carefully indeed, for very obvious reasons. If we approve this further appointment we shall have reached a position in which out of 630 Members, 76—well over 10 per cent. of the House of Commons—are beholden to the Government. If those Ministers had not voted for the Government last week they would have been in dire straits.
  Every time we agree to the creation of another Ministry and vote the salary for it, we are making it more and more difficult for the House of Commons to exercise its true function in controlling the Executive. We are creating the Executive in this House. Therefore, it is on those grounds, too, that I say there is every reason why the Chancellor of the Duchy should resign his office, in which case we would not need this extra Minister. We could keep at least one in this House.
  Sir Cyril Osborne: While I agree that there is a danger of making far too many Ministers in this House——
  Mr. Ross: And knights.
  Sir C. Osborne: —is it not true that hon. Members opposite have from time to time, in recent months, made suggestions for the creation of many more Ministries?
  Mr. Callaghan: I anticipated this question and the hon. Gentleman has not surprised me. It is true that we believe there is a substantial case for the creation of a number of Ministries——
  Mr. Speaker: We are inevitably getting rather wide of the subject matter of the debate. We should remember the content of the Estimate under discussion.
  Mr. Callaghan: That is the reason I did not raise the question myself, Mr. Speaker. I fully realised that it would be going rather wide. However, I am quite willing to debate it with the hon. Member at any time.
  I was dealing with the point, which is strictly in order and I return to it, that the creation of additional Ministers strengthens the power of the Executive in the House and weakens the power of private Members. Therefore, it seems

  1213
  to me that the House of Commons as a whole has an interest in watching the creation of these additional Ministers. This Cabinet is 23 in number—I suppose the largest in my 19 years in the House of Commons. There are two functionaries of the Conservative Party represented in it. They could both drop out, and if they did we would have a Cabinet of more reasonable size and, moreover, one which would be fulfilling its functions of doing the country's work in so far as they are capable of doing it; but at least we would not be put into a position in which we are asked to vote money to enable the Conservative Party to continue its propaganda in the country,
  I take the greatest exception to Subhead N. and unless we get a satisfactory answer from the Prime Minister we shall ask the House to vote against it.
  4.17 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: I have little to add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has said. I am grateful to him for raising this matter, because I was never very clear what was a Minister without Portfolio. Indeed, I was not even clear what a portfolio was. Whether we now have two Ministers without two portfolios or whether we have two Ministers without one portfolio I am still utterly unaware.
  I regret that I have to take an unpopular line today, because I want to refer to some of the difficulties which have confronted the Prime Minister and to which my hon. Friend has not done justice, and some of the advantages that flow from this appointment. I have sought information. I consulted Samuel Johnson, but he had never heard of the term in his day. Even if it was known in Wellington's day, it appears to have been something that was imported from Italy at the time that the Italians say that we were exporting venereal disease. Roget classifies it as a list of containers, in close proximity to such things as "nosebag" and "swag" as giving some indication of its meaning.
  I am sorry to have to confess that there is an authoritative document on this matter to which I shall have to refer again, even if I am being tactless in recalling it. I have with me the autobiography of Lord Inman who, luckily, is still with us, although not at the
  1214
  moment in active politics. His experiences are noteworthy and throw some light on the duties and activities of these very important Ministers.
  First, let me say a word about the Prime Minister. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) has left the Chamber, because I never believed the story that he discovered the Prime Minister on Blackpool sands, that, walking in the sea breezes, he smelt the characteristic smell of herrings, that the wind came from the North; he heard the sound of the flowers of the forest, that he looked up at the residential apartments which are so prominent there and, recalling pleasures and palaces, thought of "Home Sweet Home". In fact, the Prime Minister had been tolerably well known for quite a time before this. I had met him myself. But when he made these appointments it was 22nd October. He was then Prime Minister, of course. He was also a belted earl.
  Therefore the appointment could not be announced to the House. It was not sitting then, but we sat two days later. One of the problems was the one which confronted Lord Attlee when he appointed Lord Inman, and that was the Act of 1937. There was also the problem that he had to have in the Cabinet someone who knew him and someone whom he knew, and at that time the situation between Cyprus and the mainland was nothing like as serious as the situation between the Isle of Mull and the mainland at Kinross.
  I remember that at the time it was suggested that Robert Kennedy was flying to Glencoe to make an appeal for non-violence. It was a difficult situation. Some appointment had to be made, and he had to have a majority in the Cabinet. A majority in the Cabinet is almost essential to any Prime Minister. The Prime Minister could always do what he had done before, and consult Jeeves about it, but he and Jeeves were not on specking terms at that time, and there was the clear advantage in the appointment of Lord Carrington, that whatever the advantage of his going into his new office there were greater advantages in his leaving his old.
  I remember that when Lord Inman was appointed, Mr. Stanley Evans—whose going I always regret because he

  1215
  is a man of great charm, though I do not agree with him about politics—made a request to Lord Attlee that he should circulate the photographs on postcard reproductions of the members of the Cabinet so that the Labour back benchers could familiarise themselves with their features. That was, I think, unjust to Lord Inman, who was known as one who had worked in the Socialist sphere for many years, and had been a Labour candidate at Middlesbrough, though a long time ago. The story that the Prime Minister's private secretary rang up to find out whether he was a card-carrying member of the party, and he asked, "What party?" is, I think, apocryphal.
  I was referring to my unhappy correspondence with Lord Carrington at the Admiralty. A lad who had been trained as a musician joined the Navy and was subsequently employed in the mess. His mother said that she had not trained him as a musician so that he could carry gravy about the mess, and the lad wrote and asked whether I could secure his release for something much more important. I was also dealing with the case of the unfortunate husband who was serving in the Navy, whose wife was ill and pregnant, and who wanted a discharge on compassionate grounds.
  That correspondence went on for some months, and at one stage I rang the Admiralty and was told that the Department had been kept waiting for a reply from Haslemere. When I asked what was at Haslemere, I was told that it was an Admiralty establishment and that it had not answered the Admiralty's letters. I offered to go to Haslemere to see the authorities there, but the Admiralty said that that would not do, either.
  I then received a standard Admiralty reply, and I hope that this sort of thing does not happen now. The husband, who, by the way, had bought himself out of the Navy, could not get out because, after he paid the money, for weeks no transport was available for him. He had informed his officers that I had misunderstood him when he said that he had been told that he could not write to his Member of Parliament about such matters, and I received the official reply to say that he now denied that he had ever been told that.
  1216
  Of course he had not. What he had been told was that the Navy did not ask him to join, that it did not ask him to get married, that it did not ask him to have a family, and that if he "mucked about" with politicians, it was too bad. The lad signed a statement saying that under no pressure, under no compulsion, and that of his own volition he had decided that he wanted to pursue his studies in the Navy.
  I recall the story of the perfect witness, the lad of 12 who was injured by a burst hot water bottle. He gave evidence, and the vital piece of evidence concerned what was said to him when the hot water bottle was sold to him. The judge intervened and asked, "What did the tradesmen tell you, my child?" He replied that the tradesman had said that it was in good and marketable condition and reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was to be used. The judge said, "How strange—the very words of the Sale of Goods Act, 1895", and the boy said, "Yes, my Lord, Section 42."
  I used to have a timber merchant friend in the Navy. He told me the story of his being court-martialled for failing to salute the admiral. I think that his thoughts turned to timber only when he lost his leg in the Navy, but he became prosperous after that. His defence was that the admiral had been appointed to Portsmouth only the day before, and that as he was walking down the street in mufti he had not recognised him. The court said that it was a serious offence. It said that as he was a petty officer he ought to know the rules, and that as a new admiral had been appointed it was his duty to buy a picture postcard to familiarise himself with the admiral's features. The man was quite severely dealt with.
  I felt that I could not face that possibility in the House of Commons, so I went to the Library a few minutes ago and asked whether it had a portrait of the noble Lord the Minister without Portfolio. I was told that there were a series of portraits of Members of the House of Commons, but that there are a lot of Lords and, unfortunately, their portraits were not readily available. However, the Library authorities found the portrait of him when he was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty

  1217
  on ceasing to be the High Commissioner in Australia.
  Belloc called attention to the career of Lord Lundy which ended, as so often, in his being made Governor of New South Wales, but they never came back until nowadays. No one can complain that since the General Election of 1951 the Government have not done their best to get Ministers. They have appointed any number as colonial, ex-colonial and Commonwealth High Commissioners who, sitting on the Front Bench, have failed to make the grade——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am enjoying the voyage of the hon. Member very much, but I have been reading this Estimate with great care and have not found sufficient ingenuity with which I can relate his present observations to anything in it.
  Mr. Hale: Mr. Speaker, I apologise for not having heard every word of what you said, but I gather that you are not expressing agreement with me, and I come, if I may, to the Minister without Portfolio, who is representing the Prime Minister here today.
  We congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on performing a Parliamentary duty. I have been looking to see what he deals with. I find that he answered a number of Questions put by one of his colleagues, and put there by mistake. It also seems that he answered a couple of Questions in the early hours of Monday afternoon in January, and two or three more on 9th March. That represents pretty well the sum total of his Parliamentary activities for a considerable time. If anyone wants to find what he answers about, it is very difficult to do so.
  I was delighted to meet, in Nairobi, my friend Achung Oneke, who is Minister of Broadcasting Information and Tourism. That is specific. So far as I know, not only is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Chairman of the Conservative Party, but the right hon. Gentleman is to be something like a Press officer and liaison officer for the Prime Minister. This is rather an expensive luxury.
  I come back to Lord Inman, who was made Minister without Portfolio, and
  1218
  has been quite frank about it, I think. He was made Chairman of the B.B.C. in January, 1947. He recalls how he called at the B.B.C. to commence duties and found that the previous Chairman had never had the assistance of a secretary, and did not even have an office. He said that he asked for a secretary and was told that it would be difficult to provide one, but that efforts would be made to do so. He was also told that efforts would be made to find him a desk. He was provided with a secretary and one day she burst into tears and said she did not like the work because when he dictated letters she had to show them to the Director-General before they were despatched.
  After three or four months he must have very much welcomed a message from the Prime Minister inviting him to be Lord Privy Seal. Nobody knew what a Lord Privy Seal was, and nobody has ever found out. On the Sunday night in Harrogate, while he was hestitating out of modesty, he received a message from the Prime Minister's secretary to say that his appointment would be announced. He explains himself that he did not then realise that he was being appointed because they had to have regard to the provisions of the Act of 1937 and to maintain a balance between Ministers in the two Houses, and they were one short in the peers so they chose to nominate him.
  This was a temporary situation, and a very sensible arrangement, and I hope that no words of mine will be taken as expressing doubts about the validity of the decision. He then went to a house in Whitehall—I forget the name—and they showed him three empty rooms, and said, "We hope to get them going, some time." Once again, he said, "What about a secretary?" They said, "That might be a little difficult." Later, however, they said that they had got him a girl, but that at the moment she had German measles. They told him that she would be coming along as soon as she had made a recovery. He records with great gratitude that dear Arthur Greenwood arranged for his secretary to answer the telephone for him. Lord Inman also used the services of a secretary—who had nothing to do with politics—to write the letters that it was necessary to write. He was put on eight Cabinet committees, all without a secretary.

  1219
  Then, a few months later, the telephone started to work again and he was summoned to the Prime Minister's office, apparently to be told that the balance necessary under the 1937 Act had changed, and that he could be made Minister without Portfolio. He declined and became Chairman of the Hotels Executive. At the time there was a discussion in the House about this.
  It is probably for such reasons that The Times has said that the appointment of a Minister without responsibilities is politically undesirable. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) is on record as saying that they brood over the duties of other Ministers and, generally speaking, are of very little value. I do not have the right hon. Gentleman's precise words before me. In those circumstances, we are entitled to ask—and as a Lancashire Member I am particularly entitled to ask—what the right hon. Gentleman's duties are. The duties of the Duchy in relation to Lancashire have not been performed for a considerable time; indeed, I believe that there have been Chancellors who have rarely, if ever, seen Lancashire.
  Last week I had the privilege of conducting two distinguished young guests around the Crypt of the House of Commons. We had the services of an attendant—and these services are always rendered very efficiently. The attendant spoke to us about the sufferings of the saints, as illustrated on the roof. Apparently my lady guest had a considerable knowledge of the lives of the saints. I forget which saint was being referred to; it may have been St. Terence, being flagellated by the whips, but my lady guest said, "What is the authority for the proposition that St. Terence ever submitted to that particular punishment?"
  This stopped the attendant in full flight. He seemed to lose confidence, and he said, "Well, it is the Ministry of Works." I said, "Surely it should be the Ministry of Faith and Works." Considering the duties of the Minister of Education today, I would say that we really want a Minister of deeds and not words.
  I did say that I had managed to obtain a portrait of the noble lord. My
  1220
  first Parliamentary recollection was of seeing a notice which said, "Vote for Smith Carrington", in 1910. There were two Carrington families, one of which was a Smith and one a Smythe, and it was always understood that the Smythes were a little snooty about it. But I got the portrait, and was later agreeably surprised to find that though I had expected to see a soft-boiled egghead he was nothing of the kind. The samples of his correspondence that I found did not do full justice to the range of his activities.
  I hope that now that Lord Jellicoe has fired a shot at Haslemere, co-operation has been restored, and that the most dangerous situation that has faced the British Navy since the Medway has now been put right.
  But we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman just what his job is—just what he is doing and why, and just what his staff is. We are entitled to ask why we want a Minister of Information when there is little information available about anything. He is responsible for information, but I have never heard statements from the Front Bench so regularly inaccurate as they have been during the last few weeks. In fact, the conduct of the Prime Minister, since he ceased to be belted, is one of the few arguments that I have ever heard in favour of corporal punishment.
  Let the right hon. Gentleman "come clean." Let him face the future. Let him tell us the nature of his activities. Let him tell us what staff he is to occupy himself with—and heaven knows, I would not like to complain of a Minister's not having too small a staff; although when the staff is almost nonexistent it is another matter. How far does he share this portfolio with the noble Lord the Minister of State, and what does it contain? Is it really full of political propaganda?
  4.37 p.m.
  The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. W. F. Deedes): I feel that I should not begin without acknowledging the remarks which have just been made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who has been in his best vein. Only one joke in the whole course of his speech had a familiar ring to me.

  1221
  I very much hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) will accept me as the Minister to reply. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There is a respectable precedent for this, in that on a similar occasion last year, when this sort of Amendment had been moved in respect of the First Secretary, it was the First Secretary who briefly responded, on behalf of his office. I am sure that that will be within the recollection of the hon. Member.
  The first question he asked was whether I knew anything about the history of the office of Minister without Portfolio. My researches have not gone far back. The first Minister without Portfolio that I recall was Anthony Eden, as he then was, in 1935. The hon. Member will be aware that the Minister without Portfolio has a Commonwealth and international relationship, and that he has counterparts in other countries. In some countries, notably France, these counterparts have different functions.
  At one stage the hon. Gentleman thought that I should not reply. At the same time, he said that it was difficult to bring me to account. In reality, I welcome being brought to account, because I think that it is better to tell hon. Members what I am trying to do than that they should be led to the sort of surmises of which the hon. Member has been speaking. My activities are a great deal more innocent, than the hon. Member may have given the House reason to think.
  Perhaps I may begin by noting a remark made by the First Secretary last year, speaking of his own office, when he said that
  "in a Government of whatever complexion it is rather useful to have Ministers without Portfolio who can perform duties within that Government of correlation, co-ordination and chairmanship of committees."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,19th March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 323.]
  That has been accepted by Administrations of both parties.
  Mr. Callaghan: But he was not Minister without Portfolio.
  Mr. Deedes: This covers the functions of Ministers without Portfolio.
  Mr. Callaghan: There is a difference between being a Minister without Portfolio and holding an honourable and
  1222
  ancient office, which is what the deputy Prime Minister of the day did as First Secretary and also being Minister without Portfolio.
  Mr. Deedes: I thought that the hon. Member was seeking to prove that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Minister without Portfolio were covering the same duties. He cannot have it both ways. In 1948, Lord Attlee went so far as to say that in the appointment of Minister without Portfolio or with small departmental duties it was not the custom, except in certain circumstances, to have particular duties assigned to him.
  Nevertheless, I think that I owe to the House some account of the cost of my office, which is exceedingly small and contains a staff of three. Since the hon. Member thinks that part of my work is to report to the House what we are doing, I should state the facts. The nub of the argument is not whether Ministers should be responsible for coordinating information policy, because it has been common ground that that is acceptable practice by Governments formed by hon. Members from either side of the House who know that this should be a full-time occupation.
  During the six years that Labour held office, the hon. Member is quite right in saying, this function was treated both at home and overseas as a part-time one. It was first held by Lord Morrison, when he was Lord President of the Council, and it was taken over by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), when he was Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. Subsequently to 1951 there have been a variety of arrangements in relation to the information services. It is true that in July, 1962, when this Minister without Portfolio was appointed, that was the first occasion when a Minister with Cabinet rank and no departmental responsibilities was appointed with the home side of information responsibilities as a whole-time job.
  The gist of the argument of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), I understood, was that a Minister with only these responsibilities is not entitled to a salary of Cabinet rank, which is £5,000 a year with the addition of £750 for Parliamentary

  1223
  duties. This is contained in the books of reference. The second part of the argument was that this arrangement was designed to extend to an unfair extent the propaganda activities of the Government, which ought not to be a charge to the taxpayer.
  There are two separate points: first, that the arrangements are wrong and that the Opposition would not include them in any Administration they might form; and, secondly, that they are put to improper use and used for the forwarding of party propaganda. The first proposition is at least arguable and I shall offer some arguments on it, but the second I most strenously contest. It is quite inevitable that at certain times—if I may say without offence, at times when we are near a General Election—attempts will be made to prove that Government information services are being used and those in charge of them are using their office as instruments of propaganda.
  Mr. Callaghan: Of course they are.
  Mr. Deedes: Any suggestion that the Government information services are being improperly used is not, in reality, a reflection on the Minister or on the information services, but on the good sense of the Press, the broadcasting interests, and so on, which have to be supplied with this information. What they want, as the hon. Member knows quite well, is information which is fair, factual and fast. It is absolute waste of time to try to offer anything very different. The hon. Member knows quite well that the Press—and this goes for other interests—carries its own safeguards against misplaced and misused propaganda from any quarter. The Minister without Portfolio does not need to stress the good sense of the people that he has to deal with.
  No one could be in this job for five minutes without being aware that he will be accused of stealing an unfair advantage and acting in his party's interests as he ought not to do if he receives his salary from the taxpayer. I can only say that anyone who occupies this office is well advised to lay down fairly strict rules, such as I think I can claim to have done. If the hon. Member knows of any breach, I hope that he will
  1224
  offer chapter and verse, because I have certain rules and I do distinguish between information services and party propaganda. On occasion, I make speeches, as we all do, on behalf of my party. But when I am acting on behalf of my office and the Government information services I keep on that side of the line.
  This office has been occupied now for 20 months by the present Minister. If any word had reached any hon. Member of the Opposition that anything improper had occurred, we would have heard about it before now. I cite an example and I shall be grateful if the hon. Member will confirm what I am about to say. One item of information I have introduced has been regular Government broadsheets on British economic affairs. These are now issued about once a fortnight. In the course of time we have raised the circulation to about 200,000 and they are circulated among teachers, universities, schools, trade unionists, and so on. A copy of every one is laid in the Library of the House. Some hon. Members may have read them and some may not. If by one syllable or one sentence one of those broadsheets had been guilty of what the hon. Member suggested I had been guilty of, the hon. Member for Oldham, West would have had the satisfaction of hearing me answer a Parliamentary Question.
  I return to the first, and main, argument, that a Cabinet Minister in charge of home information services only is not earning his salary.
  Mr. Callaghan: The main argument, I thought, very simple. If Viscount Blakenham were to do his job as Chairman of the Conservative Party and draw a salary for it we would not need this Vote. That was the main argument.
  Mr. Deedes: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to refer to the Answer which the Prime Minister gave on the subject of the office of the Duchy of Lancaster on 23rd November. I understood that it was my salary which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East seeks to reduce and that it is for me to answer the charges made.
  Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he has got it wrong. It is not his salary; what we

  1225
  are debating is the additional provision for Lord Carrington. That is not his salary, but the £2,300 for Lord Carrington. There would be no need to pay a salary to Lord Carrington if the Chancellor of the Duchy were to do his job.
  Mr. Deedes: Perhaps it may be of help if I seek to explain how this Minister earns a full-time salary. The scale and scope of information services depend not simply on the Government's desire to make the best of their case, but on the demands created day by day by the needs of the Press, television, broadcasting and other news channels. I have no desire to exaggerate this, but it is fair to point out that since the days of the Labour Government, in 1951, these demands have increased very considerably. They have increased not least in response to public demand—this is something which every hon. Member will welcome—for information about public affairs on every scale and through every means.
  A major factor is television. The demand of television for participation in public affairs has increased and is increasing—and it is no part of my argument to say whether it ought to go on increasing. Not the least of the problems of the Government information services for which I am responsible is that of holding a fair balance between the media of the written word and of television.
  Whatever view the Opposition may hold about this office, it is my view that the Government have a plain duty to meet these demands, which increase in speed as well as in scope. One consequence of television—and hon. Members on both sides of the House know this to be true—is that the whole apparatus seeking to cover public affairs in this country moves closer all the time to the Government, to the Opposition and to the whole machinery of government. In the Departments the Ministers are responsible for making their own case, but they can be saved time and distraction if someone such as a Minister without Portfolio has a co-ordinating rôle and is responsible for seeing that the information services in about 30 Departments are aware of what each is doing. Where, as often happens, there is an announcement, a problem, an item of policy involving more than one Department, such
  1226
  a Minister can make sure that the information service is co-ordinated.
  The Opposition may feel that all this is a great waste of time and public money. Presumably, from their previous experience, if the Labour Party was ever returned to office it would revert to the practice of making such a Minister part time. I respect its view, of course, but I must tell the hon. Member that I think that he will find it less easy in practice than it was 13 or 14 years ago.
  I will not take up much more time, because the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East is complaining quietly to himself that I am not answering the charges which he wanted to bring.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: If we accept the whole of the argument which the Minister has advanced, that it is useful to have somebody doing this job of co-ordinating the information services and giving the Press and television information which it requires, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer a specific question: what part does he play in that process? Does he write the handouts which are given to the Press and television?
  Mr. Deedes: Each Department has a chief information officer and an information division which is responsible not only for its own policy, but for the presentation of its own policy to the country. A function of the Minister without Portfolio is to co-ordinate the 30 Departments, and certain outside and smaller bodies which have similar arrangements, and to see that as far as possible each knows what the other is doing. This is important in the information services. Where there is a joint operation he sees that the Departments work together and establishes the procedure and certain rules for particular circumstances. The bulk of the work, of course, is done by the staffs of the information division.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East raised the subject of speeches. I gather from a remark which he has just made that he will not broach the point. There is a rule for all Ministers that it is thoroughly accepted that Ministers have a right to make party political speeches on party political occasions. When I am speaking on behalf of my Department—and when they are speak-

  1227
  ing on behalf of their Departments—I make another kind of speech. I should have thought that this rule was invariably observed.
  Mr. A. Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a few occasions on which he has spoken on a non-party basis? Will he tell us when he has spoken on behalf of his Department on other than party political occasions? My hon. Friends and I find that every time we pick up a newspaper it is a party political speech which he has made. I should like to know when he has made a non-party speech.
  Mr. Deedes: That may be the hon. Member's impression, but I have rules about this. I am invited to appear on a number of platforms which are absolutely unpolitical. On those occasions I make speeches on the information services, on communications and on other subjects about which I am expected to know something, and they are of a non-party political character. If they were not, I should very quickly be brought to book by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), or somebody else.
  I believe that any Government ought to welcome as well as to take cognisance of the enormous increase in public interest in public affairs. Whatever may be the view of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East about Ministers without Portfolio, or the information services, this increase in public interest ought to be welcomed. In my view it has been partly, but only partly, stimulated by television. Nevertheless, it has aroused needs which must be competently met.
  There is no question of party advantage. I have already mentioned one way which I have taken to assist public participation in public affairs—the broadsheets—and I will mention one other. I am responsible for, and I regularly take the chair at, what has become a women's consultative council, which has been formed in conjunction with the National Council of Women and which includes all the principal women's organisations in this country and has the co-operation of representatives of the Labour Party.
  The object is that the principal women's organisations shall have an
  1228
  opportunity of sharing information on current matters of importance with Government Departments and shall be in a position to ask questions and to receive answers and to obtain information which they seek.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: When Ministers speak to this body of women do they always speak in a completely non-party-political way? I have information of one occasion on which it was the very opposite.
  Mr. Deedes: I hope that if the hon. Lady has any evidence of that kind she will let me know, because in the year's proceedings which have been conducted under my chairmanship, as far as I know they have been conducted in a strictly non-party-political way. Perhaps she will give me chapter and verse. I should be very sorry to hear this, because there are three representatives of three parties present—
  Mr. A. V. Hilton: I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would clear up a point about the activities of Lord Blakenham. Can he explain how Lord Blakenham, when the other House is sitting—and in view of his post in the Cabinet—has time to tour East Anglia and other places, including my own constituency, and to speak on the preparedness of the Tory Party in my constituency, giving the Tories a "pep talk" on how to defeat me on the forthcoming General Election—all at the expense of the taxpayer to the extent of £5,750 a year? If the right hon. Gentleman could give an explanation of this, I should be grateful.
  Mr. Deedes: The explanation is most likely one of which all hon. Members are well aware. Most of us work not a five- or six-day week, but a seven-day week, and this will become increasingly the case between now and the General Election. Most of us probably make too many speeches during the course of a weekend.
  Mr. Hilton: It was not a weekend.
  Mr. Deedes: I do not know what day it was.
  Mr. Hilton: We understand that weekend speeches are made, but I am referring to an occasion on which the other place was in session, during the week.

  1229
  How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the fact that taxpayers have to pay a servant of the Tory Party to do Tory Party propaganda—because that is all that this amounts to?
  Mr. Deedes: I appreciate, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, that we are getting very sensitive about people who make speeches in our divisions. I am not prepared at this stage, and cannot be expected, to answer for the diary of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Many speeches are made at weekends.
  Miss Herbison Miss Herbison rose——
  Mr. A. Lewis: On a point of order. Before you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said at the end of his speech that the matter under discussion on this Vote would be such that he thought that it was imperative that the Prime Minister should be here, because questions would be put which the Minister without Portfolio would not be able to answer. The Minister has just risen and said that he is not in a position to answer the questions. Surely the Prime Minister should be here to deal with the questions?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): The hon. Member will know that the occupant of the Chair is not responsible for who replies from the Government Front Bench.
  Mr. Lewis: Further to that point of order—[HON. MEMBERS: "It was not a point of order."] On another point of order.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman has a different point of order, pray make it.
  Mr. Lewis: On a different point of order. As the Minister said that he is not able to answer the questions, would you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, accept a Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, so as to enable the Government Front Bench to get someone, here, preferably the Prime Minister, who is in a position to answer our questions?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not, in fact, a point of order, and I would not accept such a Motion.
  Miss Herbison: If the Minister were to ask one of his colleagues, now sitting on the Front Bench, about the matter of which I spoke, he would learn that it was the present Prime Minister, when he was Foreign Secretary, who made a speech to those women and astonished both the Minister who was in the chair and every woman present, no matter what her political opinion was.
  Mr. Deedes: I am glad that the hon. Lady has reminded me. The fault on that occasion lay not with the Foreign Secretary of the day, but with myself, I imagine. The Foreign Secretary was inadequately prepared before he arrived about the nature of the occasion. It was sheer inadvertence, but he made certain remarks that he would not have made had he been fully aware of the nature of the company. The moment he discovered his mistake, an apology was tendered.
  I had hoped that the apology which was then made had concluded the incident. I can assure the hon. Lady that there is nothing to conceal about this incident. It occurred some months ago and our meetings have resumed, I am happy to say, and I hope that the hon. Lady is happy about this too, without any difficulty at all since.
  Miss Herbison Miss Herbison indicated assent.
  Mr. Deedes: In conclusion, may I say that I have endeavoured—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East has been getting very impatient with my remarks. I have endeavoured to give the House, as the hon. Gentleman asked, some account of the activities of the Minister without Portfolio. I have sought to prove that there is the need, and it will be an increasing need, for a Minister to look after the co-ordination of information services, certainly on the home front, and also on the overseas front. I have also mentioned certain other activities for which I am responsible, which I assure the House can by no stretch of the imagination be interpreted as party propaganda or political instruments. They are designed in a modest way to increase and encourage this public interest in public affairs which I think the Government have a right and an obligation to foster.
  Mr. Callaghan: Before the Minister concludes, does he intend to tell us why we need this additional Vote? It is not his salary on which we are voting. He comes into it, of course. Does he intend to tell us why we need this extra £2,300 for a new Minister, when there is another Minister in the Government who is almost wholly engaged on party activities? This is the question we want to be answered before we vote.
  Mr. Deedes: I told the hon. Gentleman that what I would try to do was to prove that the Minister holding my office and drawing my salary justified his existence in terms of the way Governments have worked now since 1945. That is the case I have sought to make. [HON MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is the case the hon. Gentleman sought from me and that is the case I have sought to make.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order A few moments ago my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) asked, in my submission mistakenly, whether you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would accept a Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. No doubt that was an inappropriate Motion, since we are not in Committee. There is nobody to report Progress and we do not need anybody's leave to sit again. Would not the appropriate Motion, in view of what the Minister has just said, be a Motion to adjourn the debate, because what I am submitting to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is that the right hon. Gentleman has quite plainly said that he is unable——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not correct in using a point of order to say what he is now saying.
  Mr. Silverman: I am asking whether you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would accept a Motion to adjourn the debate on the ground——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to interrupt a speech on a point of order in an attempt to move that the House do now adjourn, or that the debate be adjourned. It is not a point of order.
  Mr. Deedes: May I very quickly conclude this speech by saying that the point which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East required me to establish was that the holder of my office justified his
  1232
  time and salary. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That was at least the beginning of the challenge which the hon. Gentleman made. During the course of my remarks I have sought to do so. I hope that, on reflection, he will reconsider his Amendment for the reduction of my salary.
  5.6 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) will not yield to the appeal in the final sentence of the Minister's speech. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not withdraw the Amendment to reduce the Minister's salary. The Minister said that he had endeavoured to give an account of the activities of the Minister without Portfolio. He did no such thing. He told us two things about the activities for which he is paid this very large sum of money. He said, first, that he had once taken the chair at a meeting of the National Council of Women, an organisation which I entirely accept is non-political; I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said on that subject.
  The Minister said, secondly, that he attempted to co-ordinate the information activities of the different Ministries. In response to my intervention asking him exactly what he did in this respect, the right hon. Gentleman admitted to the House that each of the separate Ministries had its own information officers who were responsible for the dissemination of each Ministry's own information and that all he did was to act as a kind of postbox between Ministries, to transmit information between them and make sure that there was no conflict between the statements which they were giving to the Press or the television.
  I suppose that one could argue that, Ministers' salaries being what they are, it is very much cheaper to have a Minister of the Crown to do this job than to have a civil servant to do it. This was not the argument advanced by the Minister. I do not believe that, in spite of the increase in the amount of information which the Press and the television services demand from the different Ministries, there is any need to have a separate Minister in charge of this activity.
  In his speech, the Minister constantly dodged the question put to him by the

  1233
  hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, as to why, if it was necessary to have somebody doing this job, these activities could not be combined with those of a noble Lord in another place. It appears to me that we have three separate Ministers with no specific responsibilities, all doing nothing but going up and down the country making political speeches on behalf of their hon. Friends. I do not support the complaint which was made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) about a Minister without Portfolio making speeches in a Member's constituency during the time that another place is sitting.
  The Minister of Health, who is just leaving the Chamber, came to my constituency during the time that this House was sitting. He has nothing better to do than make political speeches in other people's constituencies while he should be attending to his duties in the House. So, if the Minister without Portfolio does this, he cannot be blamed for it, because he is only following the example of his right hon. Friends.
  I do not think that it is true that the broadsheets of which the Minister spoke could not be produced without his intervention. The Board of Trade successfully produces admirable information sheets, and I do not suppose that the President of the Board of Trade vets each one individually. What does the Minister do every day in his office from 9 a.m. till 5 p.m.? The right hon. Gentleman rarely answers Questions in Parliament and it has been pointed out that only three such Questions have been answered by him since his appointment, and I am advised that those answers were unsatisfactory.
  What sort of correspondence does the right hon. Gentleman deal with? Every other Minister who is responsible for a proper Department must answer letters sent to him by perhaps 630 hon. Members. Answering such mail is an important job, I believe worth far more than £5,000 a year. With what correspondence, other than from the chairmen of constituency conservative associations up and down the country, does this Minister deal? Are we paying him £5,000 a year for doing that? If so, it is a shocking state of affairs, which should not be tolerated. Perhaps a firm of consultants could evaluate his work
  1234
  by following him round all day, for he has certainly not told us what he does.
  I have also been wondering why the Lord President of the Council is in his place and has been sitting there through-ought the debate. Is he thinking of increasing his empire, because if he is he will be making only a small addition to the duties he already does? I would be happy to let him take over this work because it appears that there is nothing done by the Minister without Portfolio for the enormous salary of £5,000 a year that could not be done as well by another Minister along with his own work.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Minister did not attempt to reply to the points raised by my hon. Friends and, as has been pointed out, this is such a serious matter that the Prime Minister should have been present, for the Prime Minister made the appointment in the first place.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) raised the point about Lord Blakenham, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) missed the point. My hon. Friend has no objection—in fact, he welcomes—to Tory Ministers going to his constituency and telling political lies. He know that such visits will help him. What he objects to is the fact that Lord Blakenham should spend the whole week touring around not just my hon. Friend's constituency but the whole of East Anglia at the State's expense, using State cars, making political speeches and using his position for party political purposes. My hon. Friend raised this matter because he felt that this was near to corruption and that the Prime Minister should be here to deal with the matter.
  Mr. Deedes: I cannot allow to go unchallenged the suggestion that my right hon. Friend or I or any other Minister uses an official car for party political occasions. That is incorrect.
  Mr. Lewis: Perhaps the Minister will say how it comes about that these cars have been seen within the vicinity of these meetings? Have they been used to take to or fetch from these meetings members of the Government? I do not know. It has been reported that these cars have been seen there. I do not

  1235
  know, when the Prime Minister went to Bristol yesterday, whether he went in such a car or was brought home in one. Was an official car used to take him from Whitehall? I do not know. Is the Minister prepared to tell me?
  I do not know that this particular Minister has been doing nothing else but making party political speeches. When he replied he said that he is very busy because every day he must coordinate what is being done by the 13 Ministers; what they are sending out in their Government—not party—propaganda. He said that he spends the whole of his time co-ordinating that work, telling the Press what is happening and explaining what is happening on television. I know that he has been active recently because we have seen a number of Ministers on television. Does it need a Minister without Portfolio to arrange these things? Must he be paid £5,000 a year, plus £750, to carry out party propaganda, particularly when it is remembered that the Government were elected on the promise that they were to reduce the size of the Civil Service and its cost?
  Despite that promise they are asking for more money to be spent, for more civil servants to be appointed, and it is reported in the Press—no doubt the news having been handed out by the Government's propaganda Ministry—that in the current year another 14,764 civil servants have been appointed, so that we now have more than 418,000 civil servants who are costing the country about £412 million a year. Those figures cover only the current year and we have been informed that another 4,758 will be appointed, at a cost of £11,000 a year, in the coming year. These figures do not take into account the additional expenses the country must find for additional appointments made by the Government, such as the one we are now discussing.
  It is not good enough to have Ministers doing nothing else but so-called co-ordination work—and, of course, taking the chair at meetings like the National Council of Women. Why will he not give us an idea of what he does with his week? What sort of meetings does he attend? Will he give us a more or less itemised account of his activities in the last month?
  1236
  I recall being told by the Chancellor last week that he reads every letter he gets. I thought that that was "a bit thick" so the other day I put a Question down and was told that he receives thousands of letters. If he reads all of them he must have a full-time job. I do not know how he finds time to do anything else. Perhaps the Minister without Portfolio will tell us what he did last month, other than taking the chair at the National Council of Women. Will he tell us which nonparty organisations he and his noble Friend Lord Blakenham are interested in——
  Mr. S. Silverman: Aims of Industry?
  Mr. Lewis: How many times did the Minister address that non-party, nonpolitical organisation? Did he advise the steel barons on the best sort of nonpolitical posters that they could put out? If that is the sort of work he is doing he should not be afraid to tell us. We are merely trying to find out what he and his noble Friend are doing with the taxpayers' money. It has been suggested that he is doing party political propaganda and drawing State money for doing it. If that is the case he should not only resign, but the whole of the Government should resign and give my right hon. and hon. Friends a chance to go to the country now.
  5.20 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: I will not detain the House very long, but what we are discussing this afternoon is jobs for the boys, and particularly the Eton boys. [HON. MEMBERS "No."] Lord Blakenham qualifies. He is another Eton boy, and that is why he gets the job. Most of the men who qualify for these jobs are Eton boys. We have seen a lot of this over the years on the part of this Government. There was the appointment to the I.T.A. and all the rest. They are political appointments for political purposes, financed by public money.
  We do not object to the political appointments which the Government make, but we do object to their being financed by public money for party political purposes. Take the example of Lord Blakenham, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. We know that his job as Chancellor of the Duchy is a sinecure.

  1237
  There is no administrative function there at all. If we look at the Votes we see that a staff of four is available to him. No staff is available to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister without Portfolio.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think I should point out that although the salary of the Chancellor of the Duchy does come under Class I, Vote 3, the additional money is not sought for this post in the Supplementary Estimate which we are debating at present. I hope that the hon. Member will not go too far in discussing the Chancellor of the Duchy.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am referring to the salaries of the Ministers without Portfolio. Is that correct, Mr Deputy-Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is correct.
  Mr. Hamilton: Therefore, one wants to know what we are getting for the money. I looked up the number of speeches which Lord Blakenham has made in the other place since he took office. I think that he has made five speeches That works out at about £1,000 a speech. One of them was on the Trustee Savings Bank Bill on which the noble Lord spoke for five minutes. That works out at about £200 a minute for the taxpayer to find. Having sought to justify his existence by making this kind of silly speech, Lord Blakenham spends the rest of his time on party political purposes.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: Is there not another argument—that we ought not to complain; that he is doing so well for us that we ought to get him to make more such speeches?
  Mr. Hamilton: I am not complaining about the quality of his speeches; it lives up to the general tradition. I am complaining, however, at the principle of paying him out of taxpayer's money to propagate Conservative policies. That is all.
  The right hon. Gentleman sought to justify his position, but carefully avoided the position of the Chancellor of the Duchy. I do not blame him for that. I would have done the same myself in his position. I want to ask him what exactly is his justification for his salary? The right hon. Gentleman has been asked several questions to which he has replied. I remember that on one occasion he was
  1238
  called to a meeting in the middle of the night to draft a statement for another Minister, Mr. Profumo. He was called to that meeting to work for his money on that occasion, but one would hardly call that a justification for putting him on the public payroll.
  The right hon. Gentleman has also made speeches about the Scottish economy and has chastised hon. Members on this side if the House for being Jeremiahs about it.[HON.MEMBERS: "No."] Indeed, he did, and if I may I will quote what the Scotsman said about it. It is not an organ of the Labour Party. On 10th March the Scotsman talked about
  "the friendly reproach of Mr. Deedes"
  to Labour hon. Members in the course of Questions in the House last Monday week. The Scotsman said:
  "Those with no political axe to grind are in a dilemma. They are accused of being Jeremiahs, of frightening away industrialists if they dwell on such facts as emigration, the almost static state of employment in Scotland during the past decade of growth nearly everywhere else, the level of unemployment twice that of the United Kingdom and redundancy in the older industries."
  The right hon. Gentleman went out of his way to make a speech in Scotland pretending that everything was all right there. We do not think that to come to Scotland and talk about that sort of nonsense to the Scottish people is a justification for mulcting the Scottish taxpayers. Moreover, if the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for co-ordinating the information services, how can he explain the various statements that have been made by Ministers, for instance, by the Minister of Transport, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister himself, on the subject of railway closures? One Minister says one thing, and the other says another. The right hon. Gentleman is failing in his duties if he does not get these right hon. Gentlemen together, bang their heads together and say to them, "Say everything the same or say nothing at all, but do not say three different things to three different sets of people".
  I think that this is a justification of our criticism of the right hon. Gentleman. As far as Lord Blakenham is concerned, I have said what I want to say about him and what the country will say about him. Why is he put on the public payroll for services to the Tory

  1239
  Party almost exclusively? That is his function and that is what he is being paid for out of the public purse, and we object to it very strongly.
  5.27 p.m.
  Mr. F. H. Hayman: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred to the very large number of Ministers in the pay of this House and said that they formed a very useful reserve to tide the Government over emergencies in the Division Lobby. Such an emergency occurred yesterday. The House can verify the fact that the Minister without Portfolio voted in the Government Lobby yesterday with three Liberals, of whom the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) was one, and the total majority of the Government fell to 17. If the three Liberals had voted with the Opposition yesterday the Government majority would have been 11. The total number of Ministers voting with the Government yesterday was 21, so that——
  Mr. A. Lewis: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the majority of the Government would have been one more had the Prime Minister been here to vote instead of in Bristol making party political speeches?
  Mr. Hayman: I have no objection to the Prime Minister making party political speeches in Bristol. The right hon. Gentleman made one in my constituency last Friday, but I do not think that it did his party much good.
  5.29 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: The course of this debate has shown without any shadow of doubt that the Minister without Portfolio is continuing the policy upon which he embarked a long time ago, and that is flouting the wishes of the House and treating it with complete contempt. He has demonstrated this by his speech today. He is a Minister of Information who will not give any information about what he himself is doing.
  I could have advised my hon. Friends that in selecting this Vote today for debate they would, in fact, be wasting their time, and I am sorry to say that so far the House has indeed been wasting
  1240
  its time in selecting this item for discussion, because we have received no satisfaction whatsoever from the right hon. Gentleman. As I said a moment ago, I knew that this was going to be the result, for on 20th January this year we find in HANSARD this very illuminating Question and Answer:
  "Mr. Lipton asked the Minister without Portfolio if he will make a statement on his political activities during the past year.
  Mr. Deedes: No, Sir."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1964; Vol. 687, c. 685.]
  That is the kind of service the right hon. Gentleman renders the House.
  I know that it is a joke when we read out such a Question and Answer, but this is also an insult to the House, and one that hon. Members should not tolerate for a moment longer than is absolutely necessary. Whatever procedures may be at our disposal for removing this Minister at the earliest possible moment should commend themselves——
  Mr. Deedes: It may be within the hon. Gentleman's recollection, but not within the recollection of the House, that when, a year or more ago, he raised the question of my duties, although I was then not disposed to take up the time of the House to explain these duties I offered to talk to him about them and to give him an explanation of them. That invitation will be within his memory. It was not taken up by him, and I am now entitled to remind him of an offer that was made and rejected.
  Mr. Lipton: It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman made me that offer afterwards, but that is not the answer. I could have gone along, and had a nice hole-and-corner chat, and a sniff round the office to see what was going on—I might even have been allowed to look at one or two files—but that would not have helped the House because, our rules being as they are, I would not have had the opportunity to give the House an extended report of what I had seen and what the right hon. Gentleman had told me.
  These things ought to be public. The Minister of Health produces an annual report, the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance produces an annual report; of the few Ministers I know, the only one who does not produce an

  1241
  annual report is the Minister without Portfolio. If the right hon. Gentleman issued an open invitation to all Opposition members to descend on him en masse tomorrow or the next day with a view to cross-examining him and finding out exactly what he was doing—in the presence of the Press—that offer might be worth considering, but a personal invitation to me to have a chat with him does not meet the purpose.
  The House is asked to approve an Estimate, but we have had no reply to our request for information. The right hon. Gentleman, the producer of policy, continues with the policy of the blank wall—he must not be surprised if on that blank wall people are tempted to write some rude remarks. The House must take a serious view of the Minister's attitude, and I hope that we shall express our displeasure in the most positive way available to us.
  Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, appreciating his difficulties and problems in seeking an interview with my right hon. Friend, could I be of help to him by trying to persuade my right hon. Friend to try to see him and his party on Friday afternoon of this week?
  5.35 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will accept the offer my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) has just made to him. It would not be the same thing as himself explaining to the House of Commons, but it would keep him sufficiently busy as, at any rate, to begin partially to earn the salary he is defending this afternoon.
  The House seems to have got itself into an impossible position. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) made it abundantly clear that the purpose of his Amendment was to question the House granting the Government this money at all. The reason he advanced for not granting the money at all was that the Government did not need it; that they did not need the extra Minister without Portfolio because they had one Minister already who, from a public point
  1242
  of view, was doing nothing for the salary that public funds paid to him.
  I agree with every word my hon. Friend said but, without going into the merits of whether he was right or wrong, what is the situation in which we now find ourselves? We have heard only one speech from the one side of the House—one only—and that was the speech of the Minister himself, defending his own salary and the work he alleges he does for it. I do not think that he did it very well; but, even conceding that he did it admirably, it had nothing at all to do with the case being made against the Government.
  The right hon. Gentleman is here defending the Government's case, not his own right to his own salary, but when he was challenged about that he was very frank with the House. He said, "That has nothing to do with me at all. I cannot answer for the policy of the Government. I am here merely to make sure that the House does not reduce my salary by £100." He told the House quite frankly that he did not care about anything else——
  Mr. Deedes Mr. Deedes indicated dissent
  Mr. Silverman: He even said that he was not qualified to talk about anything else. If the right hon. Gentleman did not say that—I do not want to make a false point—perhaps he will tell us what he did say. We all understood him to say what I have just described. If he is ready to defend the case that my hon. Friend made I am prepared to sit down, and I am sure that the House will give him leave to speak a second time in order to do that. So far, however, he has said, This is not my business. I cannot answer it. I do not know about it." What a Minister of Information—he does not know about it.
  Well, we must take him at his word. We know that if he says he does not know about it, then, indeed, he does not know about it——
  Mr. Lipton: I wonder.
  Mr. Silverman: Oh—surely not! If the right hon. Gentleman knew anything about it he would be the first to claim so. He would not say that he did not know. In any case, he did say that he did not know, and we must assume that

  1243
  he is telling us the truth about that. He certainly did not say anything in answer to my hon. Friend's case. But someone may know. We may be called upon—perhaps quite soon—to divide the House on whether or not my hon. Friend's proposal is to be accepted on the basis that we have had no answer from the other side to the case made, and the Government spokesman says that he does not know the circumstances.
  In those circumstances, I revert to the point I have already made—and which I apologise for having made at the wrong time. The House of Commons should not be called upon to decide this question when no information at all has been given in answer to my hon. Friend's case that the money should not be voted. We are dealing with public money, and this is the central function of the House of Commons. We are controlling the expenditure of money, and my hon. Friend has said that the Government are not spending it as they should. He says that the Minister is appointed to do a job that is not a public service, for which the House of Commons is not responsible and for which he is not answerable to Parliament, and that he gets the salary for doing it out of public funds, and that, because he gets that salary for doing work that is not our work, we have to appoint another Minister without Portfolio to do the work that is our work which the right hon. Gentleman could be doing if he were not doing something else.
  We ought not to treat this lightly. It may be that there is nothing in this case, but there is nobody who has said a word against it so far—not the Minister, and nobody else has spoken. So we have not had a single word in answer to a charge that the Government are abusing their authority by raising public money and spending it on private purposes for which the House of Commons is not responsible, and for which most of the public, if we are to judge the poll results, would rather was not done, and which in any case is not being done very well.
  I am going to ask leave to move that the debate be now adjourned, until the Prime Minister, or if not the Prime Minister then somebody else, can come here and tell us what is the answer to
  1244
  the case which my hon. Friend has made. We ought not to be asked to decide this matter until we have had an explanation.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to accept a Motion from the hon. Member that the debate be now adjourned.
  Mr. Silverman: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I note the qualification in that Ruling, that you are not prepared to accept such a Motion from me. That might be reasonable enough. Do I gather, therefore, that if it were moved by someone who is accepted as officially speaking for the bulk of the Opposition in the House you might reconsider the matter? If that is so, I am very ready indeed to give way and to allow my Motion to be moved with more authority, more persuasiveness and more clarity than I can hope to command. I leave the thought with you Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Since my hon. Friend has moved the Amendment and since he has had no reply perhaps he would like to make the same suggestion to you.
  5.43 p.m.
  Mr. A. V. Hilton: In order to get the record correct, I should remind the House that in a brief intervention I questioned the right hon. Gentleman about the activities of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster during his visit to East Anglia and to my constituency in particular. I want to get the record perfectly straight on this because subsequently it was suggested that Lord Blakenham in his visit was using Government official cars and telling Tory lies. I want to dissociate myself from those remarks because it is my experience that Lord Blakenham personally is quite a nice chap.
  What his mode of transport was I have no idea. Whether he told any Tory lies I would not know, but I have not said that. Personally I welcomed Lord Blakenham's visit to my constituency, because five years ago this very week he paid another visit there in a by-election campaign and two weeks later he sent me a letter of congratulation on winning the by-election and suggesting that it was because of his visit that I was returned. Personally I like Lord Blakenham as a man.
  It is all right for him to come to my constituency to give my opponents a

  1245
  pep talk and to make sure that the Tory Party machine is geared up for the General Election whenever it comes so long as he is paid from Tory Party resources. I have no objection to that at all. My real complaint is that he came in his capacity as Chairman of the Tory Party while he is also Chancellor of the Duchy at a reasonable salary of £5,750 a year. My complaint is that he should be paid his high salary to give the Tories in my constituency a pep talk on how to win the General Election. I do not intend to say any more, but I wanted to get the record correct.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. J. J. Mendelson: I intervene very briefly to put on record the true position concerning one of the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister without Portfolio. He will recall that at the beginning of his intervention, when demands had been made that the Prime Minister should be here to take part in this debate, he said that there was an honourable precedent for his own position in replying to this debate and justifying by implication the absence of the Prime Minister.
  As one hon. Member who took part in the short debate concerning the constitutional position of the First Secretary, I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that that position was not at all analogous to the debate this afternoon. What was at issue at the time and what was raised from the Opposition Front Bench in the first place by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) was the position of the First Secretary himself. No other Minister was involved, and the staff of no other Government Department.
  The right hon. Gentleman, I know, would not like to mislead the House. The right hon. Gentleman must have looked up that debate before coming to reply to the debate this afternoon and he must have seen, as he will see if he looks it up again, that the First Secretary referred only to his own position, and he went back a long way into history to talk about other First Secretaries. I see that the right hon. Gentleman is nodding and that there is agreement between us. If in fact this is
  1246
  no analogy then the case advanced by the right hon. Gentleman for the absence of the Prime Minister collapses completely and there is no justification for his absence at all.
  What we have dealt with this afternoon is a matter of great constitutional importance and it involves the most important power that the House of Commons has, as every hon. Member knows. If money is to be advanced for carrying on the purposes of Government, involving a number of Ministers of the Crown, then obviously the right hon. Gentleman is in no position to justify the appointment of these various Ministers. It is not surprising, if my submission is correct, that he did not try. He could not try; he would be usurping the position of the Prime Minister. He is in no position to reply, and I did not expect him to.
  What I want to put on record—and this is the second point that I should like to submit—is that it is constitutionally completely wrong and unjustifiable that the Prime Minister, knowing that this matter might be debated, should not have been in his place in the House of Commons this afternoon. The Patronage Secretary happens to be in his place and another senior member of the Cabinet has been with us for some time. If the Prime Minister for some reason had to leave the Chamber briefly, or leave the House of Commons altogether this afternoon, it should have been possible in the last three hours, through the Patronage Secretary or a senior member of the Cabinet, to send a message to him.
  It is conceivable that, occasionally, the Prime Minister, having answered Questions, has to attend a meeting, but this debate has been going on for a considerable time. The constitutional position has been made clear from the start by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), but no steps have been taken by the Patronage Secretary or by any other senior Member or any other member of the Government to send a message to the Prime Minister to ask him to be present to reply to this debate.
  I repeat that in a matter of this serious nature the House of Commons has been very badly treated. If the Patronage Secretary and the right hon.

  1247
  Gentleman claim that they have enough people to pass the Vote anyway, it will not be lost on hon. Members on both sides of the House, because where the supply of money to the Government is concerned it is a matter for the House of Commons as a body. Nor will it be lost on people outside the House. It has been a deliberate evasion of the duty of the Prime Minister, and the House has been frustrated in getting at the facts on which it is asked to vote money to the Government.
  5.51 p.m.
  Mr. Callaghan: I speak again only with the leave of the House. The Minister without Portfolio appealed to me to consider withdrawing opposition to the Vote, and by leave I should like to respond in the sense that we had moved to reduce this Vote by the sum of £2,300. That sum was deliberately chosen as being the proportion of the salary of Lord Carrington between now and the end of the year. I moved that because I believed that no case had been made out for the appointment of an additional Minister without Portfolio.
  The case I made, which must be within the recollection of the Minister without Portfolio who has spoken in this debate, was quite simply that we have already the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in another place capable of leading the Lords, which is one of the major functions for which he is appointed, but because the Chancellor of the Duchy is spending practically the whole time on the work of the Conservative Party he is not available in the House of Lords to do the work of Lord Carrington. This seems to me to be a case that needs answering.
  The answer I got from the Minister without Portfolio was a long apologia for his own position. I am not concerned with his position. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be under the impression that we were debating his salary. With respect, if he reads the Estimates he will see that we were not. We are debating Lord Carrington's salary. What the House is asked to decide is whether, in order to help the Conservative Party pursue its propaganda in the country by a Minister of the Crown spending his whole time and drawing a public salary in the interests of the Conservative Party, we should
  1248
  allow the Government to appoint another Minister without Portfolio who is not answerable to this House. I see no way and no precedent whatever by which the House could respond to the right hon. Gentleman's appeal.
  I wanted the Prime Minister to answer this debate because it is his responsibility and not that of the right hon. Gentleman. This is why I asked at the very beginning that the Prime Minister should be here. The Prime Minister should tell us what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster does in terms of public duties. As far as I know, the noble Lord has taken the Industrial Training Bill in another place and nothing else, apart from one or two minor questions. The Prime Minister should say to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, "Please resign if you want to remain as Chairman of the Conservative Party and conduct party organisation duties out of the funds of the Conservative Party", or alternatively he should say, "Give up the chairmanship of the Conservative Party and do your job in the House of Lords as Leader."
  Mr. Deedes: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not wish to be unfair. He will recollect that on 23rd November the Prime Minister answered Questions and gave replies to the House on this subject. This ought to be within the hon. Gentleman's recollection.
  Mr. Callaghan: It is within my recollection and this is why I do not understand why the Prime Minister does not attend this debate to defend himself. David Lloyd George when attacked on similar grounds on 13th June, 1921, was in the House. He opened the debate and he said that he had no intention of allowing George Barnes to expose himself to criticism in reply. Lloyd George as Prime Minister took the job on himself. The present Prime Minister is absent today, as he was from our debate on the Resale Prices Bill. He should be here and he should be the man to reply.
  Independent opinion in the country will condemn the Prime Minister for adding to the number of the Cabinet by two people who are doing practically nothing but party duties at public expense. It is a scandal of the first order, and I have no hesitation in saying to my hon. and right hon. Friends that we should vote against this Vote now.
  Question put, "That"£216,000" stand part of the Resolution:—
  The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 158.

  Division No. 49.]

  AYES

  [5.55 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Grosvenor, Lord Robert

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Arbuthnot, Sir John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Peel, John

  Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Percival, Ian

  Barlow, Sir John

  Harrison, Brian (Maidon)

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Batsford, Brian

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Pitman, Sir James

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Hastings, Stephen

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Biffen, John

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Hendry, Forbes

  Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James

  Bishop, Sir Patrick

  Hiley, Joseph

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

  Box, Donald

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Holland, Philip

  Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

  Braine, Bernard

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

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

  Brewis, John

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

  Roots, William

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Brown, Percy (Torrington)

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Bryan, Paul

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Buck, Antony

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Shaw, M.

  Bullard, Denys

  Jackson, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Bullus, Wing-Commander Eric

  James, David

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

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Speir, Rupert

  Campbell, Gordon

  Jennings, J. C.

  Stainton, Keith

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Stodart, J. A.

  Chataway. Christopher

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Chichester Clark, R.

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Talbot, John E.

  Cole, Norman

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Tapsell, Peter

  Cooke, Robert

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Kirk, Peter

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Cordle, John

  Kitson, Timothy

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

  Corfield, F. V.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Temple, John M.

  Costain, A. P.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Critchley, Julian

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

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

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Curran, Charles

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Longbottom, Charles

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Longden, Gilbert

  Turner, Colin

  Dance, James

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Duncan, Sir James

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Duthie, Sir William (Banff)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Eden, Sir John

  Maginnis, John E.

  Walker, Peter

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Maitland, Sir John

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Elliott, R.W. (Newc'tte-unon-Tyne, N.)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Wall, Patrick

  Emery, Peter

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Webster, David

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Fell, Anthony

  Mawby, Ray

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Finlay, Graerne

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

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

  Wise, A. R.

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Mills, Stratton

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Gammans, Lady

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Gardner, Edward

  Morgan, William

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

  Morrison, John

  Wootlam, John

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Worsley, Marcus

  Goodhart, Philip

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Gower, Raymond

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Green, Alan

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Mr. McLaren and Mr. MacArthur.

  NOES

  Ainsley, William

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Paget, R. T.

  Albu, Austen

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

  Hannan, William

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Harper, Joseph

  Peart, Frederick

  Barnett, Guy

  Hayman, F. H.

  Pentland, Norman

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Poppiewell, Ernest

  Beaney, Alan

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Hilton, A. V.

  Randall, Harry

  Bence, Cyril

  Holman, Percy

  Rankin, John

  Benn, Anthony Wedgwood

  Holt, Arthur

  Redhead, E. C.

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Benson, Sir George

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Rhodes, H.

  Blackburn, F.

  Hoy, James H.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Blyton, William

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

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

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stookton)

  Boyden, James

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

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

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Ross, William

  Bradley, Tom

  Jeger, George

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

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

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Butter, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Callaghan, James

  Kelley, Richard

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Small, William

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Cliffe, Michael

  King, Dr. Horace

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Collick, Percy

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Steele, Thomas

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Lubbock, Eric

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

  Darling, George

  McBride, N.

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

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  McCann, John

  Swain, Thomas

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Symonds, J. B.

  Deer, George

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Doig, Peter

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Driberg, Tom

  Manuel, Archie

  Wade, Donald

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

  Mapp, Charles

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Marsh, Richard

  Warbey, William

  Edelman, Maurice

  Mellish, R. J.

  Watkins, Tudor

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Weitzman, David

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Millan, Bruce

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Fitch, Alan

  Milne, Edward

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Foley, Maurice

  Mitichison, G. R.

  Whitlock, William

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Monslow, Walter

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

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

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Ginsburg, David

  Moyle, Arthur

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Neal, Harold

  Gourlay, Harry

  O'Madley, B. K.

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Oram, A. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Grey, Charles

  Oswald, Thomas

  Mr. Lawson and Dr. Broughton.

  Third Resolution read a Second time.

  Resolution agreed to.

  DEPARTMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: I rise to speak about the Vote which covers the work of the Department of Scientific annd Industrial Research, but I make clear at the outset that I shall address myself particularly to research in the building industry.
  1252
  As a result of the curious way in which we conduct our business, we do not always know how the procedure will go. It might have been a more tidy way of doing it if we could have had a debate on the work of the Ministry of Public Building and Works, a rather longer debate in which one could have raised certain matters concerning the industry, and then, secondarily, have raised the matter of science and research in the industry in parenthesis, as it were. However, I understand that we have to debate the second part first, and that this is why the Lord President of the Council is to reply.
  In the last debate we had about science, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had plenty to say, and the

  1253
  House had plenty to say, about the "brain drain". It was suggested that it would be a great disaster if scientists continually tended to leave this country. It could well be argued that science is international and knows no frontiers, but this certainly cannot be said about engineers or technologists. We badly need them in this country, and there is no doubt that, if they went abroad in great numbers, we should be in serious difficulty. I wish to direct attention to the development and application of science in the building industry.
  We are here considering an industry employing over 1 million men, with a yearly output of over £3,000 million. It is an industry which employs very few graduates, and the professions associated with it do not embrace many graduates. As far as the managerial side of the industry is concerned, there are only the degree courses in building at Manchester University, the Dip. Tech. course in building at the Birmingham College of Advanced Technology and the post-graduate courses at Liverpool and Sheffield. I am surprised to learn that not many more than 20 graduates a year trained in building enter the industry from these sources. I regard this as a rather serious matter.
  Lower down, there should undoubtedly be more courses for site agents. In the building industry, site agents are usually promoted foremen who emerge, if that be the word, somewhere in their forties or fifties. We must train more of these people. In addition, the industry ought to look at its apprenticeship system as a whole. It needs about 24,000 apprentices a year, and it is getting only about half that number.
  All sorts of considerations are mixed up with the idea that people now, including the Minister, have set their minds on industrialised building. As my hon. Friends in the engineering industry will know very well, it is a mistake to assume, when some new technological advance is made, that skills will no longer be required. Technological advance does not do away with skills at all. It demands and creates new skills.
  None of us is a "left winger" in his own industry or profession. This applies right the way through. People often sneer at the plumber and his mate,
  1254
  thinking that theirs is a rather useless exercise. But nobody, except the man who has to pay for it, ever thinks that about the work of the lawyer and his junior. We often prate about the demarcation lines in the filthy trades, but ignore them in the noble professions. But, as I say, they are not left-wingers either, and I speak with all the prejudice of a craft unionist. All sorts of difficulties will arise if we go over to industrialised building, and we must think more than somewhat about them.
  Many years ago, when I was writing an essay, I read a text book from London University which suggested that when the Industrial Revolution came it did away with all the skills in the engineering industry. Of course it did not do that at all. It just supplanted the old home handicraft skills with the skills of the man minding the machine tool—the universal grinder, the planer, and so on.
  This industry has been heavily criticised on the ground that it does not devote enough attention to research. I turn to the Report of the Working Party on Building Research and Information Services which has only just been published. On page 9, in a paragraph headed,
  "General Need for Further Research and Information",
  it is stated:
  "We have compared the scale of research and development effort in the construction industry with that found in other industries, and thus drawn general conclusions about its present adequacy. Excluding the production of materials and components, the annual expenditure on research, development and advisory services for the construction industry is estimated to be about £3 millions representing 0·2 per cent. of the net output of the industry of about £1,500 millions per annum".
  After that, there is a reference to the amount spent on research by the ancillary trades within the industry itself. On page 10 there is some pretty heavy criticism. Attention is called to the national average expenditure on research, and it is stated:
  "While, therefore, we accept that any industry's research needs must be established empirically, these figures suggest that the level of expenditure on building research, however financed, is at present disproportionately low and that the deficiency may well be measured in millions of pounds per anum".
  It is also noted from the Treasury's Bulletin for Industry that
  "…if the private sector is viewed in isolation the construction industry spends considerably

  1255
  less on research than any of the manufacturing industries listed, though some research in the manufacturing industries is, of course, relevant to construction."
  Later, it is said that
  "…builders in general have been slow to make use of men trained to the full professional or academic level that would enable them to extract the maximum benefit from research…"
  The Minister's prognosis of this industry is that over the next 10 years its output must rise dramatically with almost the present labour force. I am not as optimistic as the Minister, and we may come to that in a later debate. But, if that be so, it seems to me that we must bring more intelligence to bear on the industry. This industry has tended to lag behind. A great many promises have been made for it, but I do not think that there is any doubt that it will have to be completely reorganised if it is to discharge the tasks laid upon it.
  There must also be a great deal of retraining in this industry. Foreign countries, particularly the United States and Sweden, are already organised on an enormous scale to discharge these sorts of task. All sorts of things are mixed up with this, such as the question of winter building and the question of new techniques for the industry. Generally speaking, its research must be brought completely up to date. I want to refer to this on a later Vote. I content myself with those few remarks, because I appreciate that the debate is pretty wide. I ask the Minister to address himself particularly to the building and construction industry when he replies.
  6.15 p.m.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke:
  I am, naturally, glad that the Opposition have chosen to raise the question of the D.S.I.R. on the Supplementary Estimates, but the matter which the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has been dealing with is concerned to only a minute degree in the D.S.I.R.'s Annual Report for 1962. That was published in May last year, and a good deal of water has gone under the bridge since then.
  Our difficulty in discussing Supplementary Estimates in any one year is always that we have before us only reports from these various bodies which are considerably out of date. I know
  1256
  that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President of the Council realises this difficulty and that the principal problem is how to digest all that has been done and to bring it all in from the out-station and to make a report relevant to the final Estimate for the out-turn of the year.
  I appreciate that in dealing with these Supplementary Estimates we can talk only about those matters mentioned in them. Having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, West, I am not sure under which heading the matter which he raised comes, but I appreciate that it is of considerable importance. I do not dispute that for a moment.
  Mr. C. Pannell: The Building Research Station is part of this Vote.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I appreciate that, but I am not sure whether more has been spent on the station under the Vote or not. All that one sees is the various departmental establishments. I do not think that the Building Research Station is mentioned in the Supplementary Estimate. I do not think there is any indication in the figures which appear in the Estimate to show whether more or less has been spent than was originally estimated. It is possible that, however important the matter which the hon. Member has raised, there is not very much to show that it is directly related to this Vote.
  I should like to touch on one or two matters which do, I think, arise out of the Vote. I have always felt that the D.S.I.R. has immense advantages, not least because its relationship with the former Lord President of the Council, who is now also Minister for Science, has ensured that we have in operation the great buffer principle by which there is not undue political interference with the work of these establishments. It would be out of order for me to discuss the various recommendations made by the Trend Committee, in particular, during the debate on this Vote, but I think that it is important that we should examine some of these Supplementary Estimates to see whether there are any signs that the D.S.I.R. is not working as well as we should wish.
  If we look at the record of the increase in grants over the years we note that

  1257
  a marked improvement is shown and we know that this arises from considerable increases in the grants to universities. It is reflected particularly in Subhead F, where there has been a considerable increase in the grants for studentships through the D.S.I.R. This is one of the immediate outcomes of the Robbins Report. My right hon. and learned Friend made an announcement about this and I am certain that it is a very desirable thing. There is an increase of £460,000 in the total Vote, which was originally £2,050,000, and this brings the figure up to over £2½ million. I am sure that no hon. Member would begrudge a penny of this money.
  It is important to consider what these students will do. I appreciate that we must not talk about that which does not come into force until 1st April, which makes discussion difficult. But I feel that one of the most important aspects to consider is to what extent we shall meet the demand which is now arising by means of these studentships. The hon. Member for Leeds, West was right in saying that we must try to increase the number of engineers. In a debate last week, in another place, this point was made particularly by Lord Todd, who is Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Scientific Policy. It was also made by a number of other speakers. There is a danger that we shall not get enough engineers and I therefore support the recommendations made by Lord Todd in that debate.
  We should establish, as a normal practice in the universities, that those who study pure science should be enabled to move into applied science more often than they do. Unless this happens we shall be excruciatingly short of engineers. I do not know to what extent strings may be attached to the grants made by D.S.I.R. I am sure that it would be wrong to attach political strings to them. We should not allow political considerations to enter into this matter. We know how zealous are the universities about their academic freedom. But these grants represent considerable sums of money spent on what is essentially a Government research council structure through D.S.I.R.
  Some other research councils may make grants as well. This is public money.
  1258
  To what extent can pressure be put on the universities to ensure that some of this money is spent in such a way that the recipient; will direct their interests to producing for the country men with the kind of qualifications which are needed. I do not under-estimate the difficulties and the natural reluctance of universities to surrender one tittle of their academic freedom if that can be avoided. The more we look at the demand which would arise in the for-seeable future the more it becomes apparent that we shall need more engineers. I hope that something will be done, through the studentships and research fellowships and other grants, to help to provide them.
  There is a disturbing note in the statement on page 182 of the Estimates where, in relation to development contracts, there is a shortfall of £290,000 out of an estimated original figure of £450,000. The reason is the proposals in industry have not materialised as quickly as expected for development contracts. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to say something about this. The more one studies what leading scientists in this country have to say the more one realises that they are waiting to welcome co-operation from industry with open arms.
  I do not suggest that the matters with which we are dealing here may be rapidly decided. But it is right to ask how it comes about that we have a decrease of over half in the original estimated figure for grants for development contracts. I know that the policy of D.S.I.R. has been governed to a great extent—at any rate in recent years—by some recommendations of the GibbZuckerman Report, which was published in 1961. Some of the observations of that Committee are relevant to what I have been discussing.
  Paragraph 81 states:
  "In our view, pure basic research is best carried out in the environment of a university rather than that of a Government research establishment."
  The Committee states, further:
  "Government scientific organisations should nevertheless encourage and support such research in fields which appear to need assistance".

  1259
  That is in pure basic research. The report continues by saying that it.
  "is very much the direct concern of Government research organisations."
  to deal with objective basic research by which is meant basic research stimulated primarily by some practical need in the field of potential application.
  We come to the sphere of applied science very rapidly. Presumably it is here that we must have a division of application of the scientific discoveries to developing something in industry or whatever it may be. Here I feel that there is a need for a concerted effort by all sections, the Government, universities, research establishments and industry.
  I hope that the improvement which my right hon. and learned Friend has managed to achieve since he became Minister for Science will enable him to say that he considers that he has experienced the same sort of drive in industry. I know that industry is doing a certain amount to sponsor university research, and that sort of thing, but these figures are disturbing. The amount involved is not great when compared with the many millions spent in other Estimates, but it is a significant short-fall when one would expect the pressure to be entirely the other way.
  On the nuclear physics side, I see that we have an increase of £68,000, to a total figure of £3,733,000. Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell me what that was designed to achieve or the cause? When I see a reference to "Upper Atmosphere and Satellite Instrumentation research" and note the figure has increased, I am a little hesitant, because I know that there are so many things on the ground which require to be done.
  We must face the fact that this country is essentially dependent upon communications and that we must, therefore, ensure that we are in the forefront of developments even if we do not actually make the most expensive type of equipment. We must certainly keep in touch at least with the "know-how" of telecommunications satellites. Perhaps the big policy decisions on that are not for my right hon. and learned Friend, but for the Postmaster-General and, possibly, the Minister of Aviation,
  1260
  but my right hon. and learned Friend is certainly closely involved on the research side. I hope that he can say something about what we are doing about research in the upper atmosphere to the tune of £233,000 a year instead of the £189,000 of the original Estimate.
  I hope that the House will, as soon as possible, undertake closer examination of the future of the D.S.I.R. Very important policy recommendations are being made. We cannot discuss them in detail now, because we should be out of order. But, whatever may be the future, we should all take the opportunity to pay tribute to those who have worked in the D.S.I.R. so many years and have established the unique system of so gearing the scientists, industry and the Government that none gets in the way of the other, but, on the contrary, all co-operate to the general good.
  Whatever happens, that is a principle that we must preserve. Whether we shall call it the Haldane system or the Hogg system in future I do not know, but it is a system worth preserving and developing further rather than abandoning just because a committee has recommended great changes.
  6.32 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: I am glad that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) mentioned subhead E, dealing with development contracts, where the figure has been reduced from £450,000 to £160,000 —a decrease of £290,000. We are all of us concerned with the modernisation of Britain and yet here we have a reduction of the money available for one Department which must be increasingly concerned with the programme of modernisation. Indeed, the amounts involved in the proposals to create a modernised Britain seem rather insignificant. A great deal more, for instance, should have been expended on university research and postgraduate training awards.
  One of the greatest problems is that of the shortage of technicians and engineers. It is well known in the quarters in which I have discussed this subject that for pure research it is doubtful whether any institutions in the world are superior to British institutions. We have institutions where pure research in sciences of all kinds is excellently organised, well disciplined and

  1261
  effectively carried out with a great deal of co-ordination. We make a great contribution to the research of practically every nation and nearly all branches of science.
  Yet I am convinced that we shall increasingly experience a shortage of technicians. I believe that already there is a shortage of laboratory technicians. We know that there are vacancies in the colleges of advanced technology. I believe that the latest figure is about 5,000, with apparently no students coming forward to undertake them. On the contrary, however, the university queues are longer than ever for the pure sciences.
  I do not know whether snobbery is involved here or what the reason for the imbalance is, but we have certainly for many years had a seemingly tremendous capacity to fill our research fellowships and to attract plenty of students for postgraduate work in pure science. Apparently we cannot get the same amount of support for applied science and engineering. I believe that this is why proposals for industry have not materialised as quickly as expected. Industry has changed in its organisation. It is becoming increasingly a series of "batch" production units. Under this system, individual units are dispersed throughout the country, producing components which are then sent to a central assembly plant. Then there is "flow" production in one integrated plant.
  There is a tendency to set up research associations. I do not quarrel with that, for it is the right thing to do. Nevertheless, there is a certain by-passing of these associations even by their own members in so far as research and development work is done within a firm's own research establishment. For instance, the Motor Research Association does very valuable and practical research, but there is little development from that work. That process is done by individual companies, most of them very large, such as Leylands, the B.M.C. or Fords. The number of units that can undertake large-scale development work is very small, partly because of the changing pattern of industry.
  There are different views on the advantages of integrated production plants as compared with "batch" plants. In Western Germany, for instance, the integrated production plant predomi-
  1262
  nates, but tie reason there lies in the system of taxation—the "cascade" system—whereby the product is taxed as it passes from one plant to another. German industry overcame that by having the integrated production plant. We have Purchase Tax so we are not so concerned to have such plants.
  I believe that our system is better, with one qualification. This is the difficulty of getting research and development at a particular plant. At the Rootes Group factory at Linwood, for instance, the process is that of straightforward flow production of the Hillman Imp. It is a modern plant, but it is not adapted or suitable for carrying out some of the great development programmes. It is a mass-production unit. Its functions and scale of opt rations do not permit big research and development functions. These are carried out at another plant, in the Midlands. I do not complain about it, for it is probably the right process, but this type of development means that both our economy and our industrial production are expanding while the capacity of industrialists within separate plants to undertake research and development is becoming increasingly limited.
  Research and development are expensive and are becoming more expensive and difficult as technology reaches higher levels. It was not difficult to increase the brake horsepower of the internal combustion engine at so many revs. per minute from 8 to 10 horsepower; but increasing it from 50 to 60 horsepower becomes more difficult. The same is true of aircraft. Raising aircraft speed from 60 to 100, or 150, or 200 m.p.h. is not difficult; but raising it from 1,700 to 2,200 m.p.h. is increasingly difficult. On this increasing scale, breakthroughs become increasingly expensive and difficult That is why I am bitterly disappointed with the amount of money proposed in the Supplementary Estimate for developing proposals from industry.
  If the D.S.I.R. and the N.R.D.C. were more active and more pushing, they could get industrial organisations to make more proposals for research, but not within their own plants. The extent to which a development contract can be given to an industrial concern is limited.

  1263
  The time has come for the D.S.I.R. and the N.R.D.C. to set up their own development pilot plants within industrial institutions created by themselves, State industrial organisations, in which processes and programmes could he developed. Such plants might even be leased to private developers That is already done by the N.R.D.C., but not on a big enough scale.
  For an industrial country like ours, dependent on keeping abreast of world techniques, scientific developments and technology within industry are but a minute contribution to the economy. We hear much about the "brain drain". Hon. Members visiting universities and institutions are constantly told that scientists leave the country not because of lack of pay but because of lack of resources and facilities. It is not so much the immediate reward which concerns them but the conditions in which they work and the lack of equipment and of technologists. The bottleneck in promotion is simply that we do not have sufficient institutions and that those which we have are not large enough and are not sufficiently equipped. If physical resources are limited, the area of promotion within those resources itself must be limited.
  This expenditure is insignificant in view of the problem with which Britain is faced in the second half of the twentieth century. We are a small island with a small population and we must spend much more on training men, not merely in the skills in the old craft sense, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) and I were trained: but in the newer industries in the new techniques. There are now new systems of disciplines. As youngsters, my hon. Friend and I were trained in the discipline of our hands, in the control of tools. The new disciplines are in mathematics and techniques, not with the hands but with scientific instruments.
  There are still too many apprenticeship schemes which look upon training and engineering as an apprenticeship for becoming a journeyman or a craftsman, it is time that that attitude was changed. To enter an apprenticeship today is to become potentially a technician at the highest level and, at the lowest level, a first-class tradesman
  1264
  or craftsman. More and more we need first-class technicians.
  The expenditure by D.S.I.R. and N.R.D.C. shows the Government's lack of appreciation of the job to be done. World technology and scientific development will not wait for us to catch up. Unless we get cracking and make a far better effort than is symbolised by these figures, we shall be in great danger of falling behind.
  6.46 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science (Mr. Quintin Hogg): This has been a rather curious debate, because the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), opening in a friendly and excellent speech, confined himself to one aspect of technology, apart from one or two preliminary remarks. He treated it, as it were, as a sort of hors d'oeuvre to the main course coming on later in another debate, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works will be replying.
  On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) rightly saw that the Vote was rather different in character and permitted somewhat wider discussion. I am most disappointed that the official Opposition—to put it in that way—confined themselves so narrowly.
  When the Amendment was put down, I made discreet inquiries as to what would be and would not be in order, and I spent my weekend blamelessly thumbing through the £27 million of next year's Estimates and the £23 million of this for the D.S.I.R. trying to prepare a speech which would offer a complete account of the outcome of the D.S.I.R. over the whole field. I must say that I could very much wish that that speech was now to be delivered. The one thing of which I cannot persuade the Opposition is, first, that they have not really grasped what D.S.I.R. is for, and, secondly, that it is a much better instrument for the purpose than the four inconsistent models which have been put forward as official Opposition policy by the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), who has not found it possible to attend the debate.

  1265
  I shall try my best to answer the three excellent and very different speeches and I shall probably best be able to do so by treating the building research problem posed by the hon. Member for Leeds, West, as a kind of case study illustrating the wider problems with which we are faced.
  The D.S.I.R. is about the application of science to industry. It is the principal Government instrument for applying science to industry. It is very much the best kind of instrument that can be devised, although questions can arise, as to scale and rate of development, which I developed at greater length in an earlier speech.
  It is about the application of science to industry. It is, of course, true that I have used it, and I think that to a lesser extent my predecessors have used it, as an instrument for encouraging pure research in the universities, and it has been inevitable that this has been so, particularly in the fields to which my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely referred, of nuclear physics and space research where expensive facilities are required and where, for instance, this year more than £1 million has had to be allotted to Glasgow for Professor Dee's electron accelerator, and two or three years ago we allotted a similar sum to Professor Wilkinson's proton accelerator at the University of Oxford. But I have never allowed it to forget, even if it had been disposed to do so, which I do not think it has, that its principal objective is the application of science to industry.
  Even where we are giving research grants to universities, by far the largest number have been applied science, engineering and technological in character. Whereas during my period of office. I have multiplied research grants to universities over the whole field by a factor of four, technological grants have been multiplied by a factor of five, thereby showing that they are a privileged class within a privileged class of expenditure.
  To take, again, building research as a case study, I should be surprised to know that there were less than 30 research and civil engineering grants dealing with the building trade alone in universities and in colleges of advanced technology amounting to not less than £400,000 allotted in the last two years. I choose that example because it
  1266
  happens to be the one on which the hon. Gentleman concentrated.
  My hon. Friend referred to research studentships. Taking, again, the case study of building research, probably not less than 100 of the 4,000 now current are applicable to the building and civil engineering industries alone, so that within the D.S.I.R. one can see the close concentration upon the application of science to industry.
  I shall not go into the question of education Li all branches of training, to which the Lon. Member for Leeds, West referred, because that is outside my terms of reference, but if I might crave your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might say to the hon. Member that he will not have failed to notice the Government's plan, in co-operation with the L.C.C., to turn the Regent Street Polytechnic into a federal college, with one part of the federation devoted solely to the construction industry.
  Mr. C. Pannell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that he would be going outside his terms of reference, or the terms of the Vote, if he referred to training within industry. I made rather a careful point about that, because I never like to be ruled out of order. The 1962 D.S.I.R. Report, which is the last one that we have, refers on page 14 to the fact that the Building Research Station is giving assistance to dealing with many problems connected with training in industry. Therefore, as this is part of the Vote which we are discussing, I think that it would be in order for the Minister to deal with it.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is a great purist in these matters, but we do not, in fact, carry out any general industrial training within the D.S.I.R. That is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour.
  I say to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East that the training of technicians, to which he made special reference, and whose importance I endorse, was made by me the precise assignment of the manpower sub-committee of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy. It was for that reason among others that I approved the appointment of Sir Willis Jackson as Chairman of the Manpower Sub-Committee.

  1267
  To return to the D.S.I.R. and the application of science to industry—and this is perhaps the nature of the argument that I should like to present to the House—it is a much more complex and many-sided problem than is generally appreciated. Having made reference to the help given by way of training students and research grants to universities, I must say that the core of the D.S.I.R. organisation are the 15 research stations of which the Building Research Station is one of the larger, although by no means the largest. During my period of office expenditure has risen from just over £½ million some years ago, when I first became responsible for it, to a few thousand pounds less than £1 million a year in the Estimates for 1964–65. In the current Estimates, the Supplementary Estimate has brought the figure up to £929,000.
  The essence of this business is that this is a research activity on behalf of the country. It is not designed to take the place of research in other Departments. It is not designed to take the place of research by industry itself. It is not designed to take the place of research either by individual firms or by research associations, to which I shall refer in a moment. It is, as it were, the central focus which carries on research itself in a variety of different ways, but also desires to stimulate research and development in others and to convey the results of research and development to others.
  To give one or two rather simple examples, if one goes round the country, one sees that even in ordinary domestic housing the tower crane is a familiar sight on the landscape. I do not think that this would have been introduced either so widely, or so soon, if it had not been for the information services of the Building Research Station. It was originally a Continental application, but the Building Research Station sent a working party abroad, and, having selected its objective, it first applied the general invention to the particular problems of domestic housing, and then sought to popularise it through the industry.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the tower crane
  1268
  was recommended by Professor Bernal during the war for use in building? The speed of its adoption seems to have been a little slower than the Minister said.
  Mr. Hogg: I am aware that it quite an old invention, and that various people have recommended it from time to time. All I am saying is that its actual application was carried out fairly recently, largely through the efforts of this station.
  Dr. Bray: Could not it have been applied earlier?
  Mr. Hogg: That is not within the Estimate which I am discussing, nor, I think, does it refer to my period of office. I think that it refers more to the period of office of the Labour Government. I think that application for its use was made in about 1951, but I do not want to claim any party virtue for this.
  To give another example, the station has also developed a new brick, and a factory for building such bricks, which will greatly reduce the time required for bricklaying will be opened later this year. It has developed a method of packaging bricks. It has developed various methods of machine handling. It studies soil mechanics, carries out the testing of structures, and this year it has tackled some of the problems of management, for instance, the method known as the critical path method of analysing management problems in building work.
  The result is that the Building Research Station is a focus, but I agree with the hon. Member's main contention that not nearly enough research is going on within the industry. I am concerned here only to illustrate the way in which D.S.I.R. can encourage research to take place. I would not accept that the rate of research within the Building Research Station has been at all unsatisfactory, or that the proper way of increasing research within the industry would necessarily be to increase the work of this station, either in its central location or its out-station.
  Let us take the question of the relationship between the Building Research Station and other Government Departments—a matter to which I shall refer shortly, because it is at the heart of further progress. In the Ministry of Education, a few years ago, a complete revolution took place in the

  1269
  design of schools. This is associated with a civil servant—now dead—of great genius, David Nenk, who was working in the Ministry of Education when I was Minister. This work was done in conjunction with the Building Research Station.
  Again, the design of hospitals requires a great deal of careful work by way of research and development, and this is done in conjunction with the Ministry. There is also the design of atomic power stations, and so on. The Building Research Station operates as a service to other Departments which carry out research and development of their own. This needs to be emphasised both in defining policy for the future and the object for which D.S.I.R. is framed.
  This applies also to industry. No less than 14 of the co-operative research associations grant-aided by D.S.I.R. and associated with the Building Research Station. If we want to arrive at a just proportion for building research in relation to industry we must take into account the work of the various research associations.
  During the past few years we have specially developd these research associations—the Government contribution towards which, incidentally, has multiplied during my period of office by a factor of about three, which represents a much bigger proportion really, because only one-third of the expenditure of each research association, on the average, comes from the Government, the other two-thirds come in from industry. We have developed in two or three separate ways.
  The first was a change in method of grant-giving, to a flat percentage grant. That will be a great help. The second was the introduction of a new type of grant—the ear-marked grant—associated with a particular project, and the third was the use of the headquarters' activities of D.S.I.R. to carry out surveys of certain industries, which nearly always throw up the necessity for the creation of fresh research associations.
  The three examples we have had during the past three years, during which I have been in office, are the Machine Tools Research Association—a totally new one, and a much-needed one—which arose out of a survey by D.S.I.R.'s economic section; the British
  1270
  Ship Research Association, newly farmed, which is the biggest item of this Supplementary Estimate in its application to research associations, and the Civil Engineering Research Association, again newly formed, which I was able to bring into existence partly because I combined he office of Minister for Science with the charter-giving function of Lord President of the Council. That is directly relevant to the case put forward by the hon. Member for Leeds, West. I am sure it will be seen that the Building, Research Station, through D.S.I.R., stimulates new activities throughout the industry.
  That brings me back to the building question, on which I concentrate largely because of the hon. Member's speech. In the 1960 Report of D.S.I.R., and also in subsequent Reports, it is made clear that the key to the matter lies outside the Building Research Station. This is absolutely at the heart of the question of applying science to industry. The Government came to the conclusion, largely on the advice of D.S.I.R., through the office of the Minister for Science, that important advances in research in the building trade would be likely to occur only if we made full use of the power of the Government as a customer of the building trade and simply not as a Government.
  As the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East has said, the growth of the development contract, which was an introduction into D.S.I.R. by myself, has been disappointingly slow, and particularly slow in the last year because we have unfortunately had to cancel one of the largest contracts, for a gear-cutting machine which proved to be of unsatisfactory design. But the future of development contracts largely lies outside D.S.I.R. I am not now talking about the N.R.D.C., formed for a specialised purpose some years ago, which has continued to carry out that purpose. If we want a development contract for a supersonic aircraft we put it through the Minister of Aviation, through the user department. The Minister of Defence has such power over science in h is own field because his is a user department.
  But the future of development contracts in the building industry must lie largely with my right hon. Friend rather

  1271
  than with D.S.I.R. That is because it lies largely within the power of the Government to order, develop and design standardised components for building which will both make industrialisation of the building process profitable and also force industrialisation and system building upon the industry. It is one thing to order 5,000 baths: if one can order 250,000 baths, or 250,000 kitchen units, in support of one's housing programme, one is getting somewhere with the development of an appropriate design.
  We came to the conclusion that it would be possible to achieve this result only if two things happened. The first was the remodelling of the Minister of Works to become the Minister of Public Building and Works, which has happened. The second was the encouragement of local authorities to organise their starts in consortia—something, incidentally, that we had developed in the Ministry of Education in 1957 by the introduction of the Clasp system of building.
  Mr. James Boyden: The right hon. Gentleman is always leaving out the contribution of the Nottinghamshire L.E.A. He should give credit to Nottinghamshire for initiating this.
  Mr. Hogg: I did not propose to leave out the contribution of the Nottinghamshire L.E.A. I was merely illustrating the Clasp system of school building as a way in which house building could be developed, and why it is important, if we are to apply science to industry, to make use both of the central chain of laboratories under D.S.I.R. and of the appropriate executive Ministry. I was discussing organisation and methods. I was not seeking to apportion praise or blame, although I agree that a certain official of the Nottinghamshire L.E.A. played a big part in the introduction of the Clasp system of school building.
  The point I was leading up to was that we must have a national building code which will make standardised requirements across the country as well as a phasing of starts. If all the local authority regulations demand cisterns and pipes of different dimensions and
  1272
  sizes we shall not get the full benefit of mass production. Precisely because this kind of consideration was brought home to the Government through the D.S.I.R. and the office of the Minister, these new developments are about to take place.
  This leads me to two other general observations about the future which, I think, are material. The picture I have tried to draw is of a very complex but absolutely necessary inter-related series of grants, contracts and research work done in Government laboratories, held together by the D.S.I.R. Research Council. The picture I am trying to draw using building research as a case study is of the D.S.I.R. Research Council as the most efficient instrument there is for stimulating research in industry and development in science and in other Government Departments. This it will do partly through information services, which have not been raised in this debate, so I shall not deal with them in detail. The Building Research Station is the station of the D.S.I.R. which receives more individual inquiries from the public and the professions than any other. It also produces a journal with a circulation of 40,000 to the profession and the trade which carries out this work.
  There is another feature in this context which I have not mentioned. It is the N.E.D.C. The N.E.D.C. has an important part to play in the future. Until it was formed we had to work entirely through the economic section of the D.S.I.R. to make a survey of an industry before we could apply a generalised policy. Now the N.E.D.C. has formed a series of smaller N.E.D.C.s to deal with individual industries and very close and fruitful co-operation is springing up between the D.S.I.R. and similar N.E.D.C.s and industries.
  I have taken a long time to answer three very good speeches by hon. Members, but this is a matter which requires close attention by the House. I hope I have not wearied hon. Members by dealing with the building industry as a case study in the application of science to industry.
  Question put and agreed to.

  BUILDING INDUSTRY
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
  7.14 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: I am grateful to the Lord President of the Council who gave us a conspectus of the whole of the D.S.I.R. I am sorry that I could deal with only a microcosm of it. There was a degree of misunderstanding because I understood that we should be considering the part of the Vote which deals with the Building Research Station, which he characterised as an hors d'oeuvre but which I thought was grace before meat. If I had thought otherwise, instead of making a speech in parenthesis, as it were, I would have made a longer speech. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will sympathise with me in the position in which I have been landed tonight.
  I hope to speak with some more competence on a subject to which I have been able to give a closer study, and in proceeding to the Ministry of Public Building and Works Vote I address myself to the Minister of that Department. I want to have a personal word or two with him in opening the lists. His party has been in power since 1951 and the right hon. Gentleman will remember that we have had a string of Ministers of Works, beginning with Lord Eccles, whose term was characterised largely by the Coronation. I believe he was mostly preoccupied with that sort of consideration. Then we had Lord Molson, who has gone to another place. I hope that this does not present an omen for the right hon. Gentleman. He was rewarded for many years of faithful service as an Under-Secretary and found himself in a Ministry which probably he thought was a place where the wicked cease to be troubled and the weary are at rest. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Lord John Hope) was the only bright hope of the Ministry.
  Then we had the present right hon. Gentleman. I want to give him this bouquet. I think he is probably the best Minister of Works since my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) held the office. It is a curious
  1274
  concern. I went to the Ministry's exhibition last week. The Minister is holding his own exhibition and last week was mounting his own platform and getting on to his own pedestal. He is a considerable empire builder. I do not know if his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government likes it, but the Minister of Public Building and Works seems to be tearing away chunks of the other Ministry for his own.
  In a contemporary setting, he has come out as a great advocate of resale price maintenance in the building industry. I do not think anyone can look at the industry now without seeing the rings and price-fixing arrangements, and all that they mean. We may think of the great contemporary argument in this House about resale price maintenance, but it does not start nor finish with the small shop.
  The Minister has produced many White Papers. I do not think any Minister has produced more in such a short space of time. We had the White Paper on Reorganisation of the Ministry of Public Building and Works, then one on the Building Agency and then a Report on Winter Building. We have had the Building and Research Information Service Working Party which has recommended a Construction Research and Information Commission to spend eventually £5 million per annum. This is all in addition to taking over building for the Service Ministries. This would not have done discredit to a Labour Minister. It is in contradistinction to everything which has gone before. I have no doubt that we need all this, but I wish to talk principally tonight about two things, the proposed Building Agency and the N.E.D.C. Report.
  Bearing in mind that the Minister has had some rather unkind words to say about the N.E.D.C. Report, I had better leave that until the last. I have a copy of The Times with me. This is rather curious. I had a message from America the other day. I think the Minister has gone far aid wide proclaiming his Ministry. He addressed the American builders at Las Vegas on 2nd March, and I read:
  "Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, Minister of Public Building and Works told the Annual Convention of American builders in Las Vegas, our

  1275
  building industry 'will successfully meet the challenge presented by our vast construction needs'."
  Four days later the N.E.D.C. issued a report saying that the industry was unlikely to achieve the output required. The Minister said that he was right. I do not want to misquote him; he said that it was an unduly pessimistic Report, and he added,
  "I am concerned that the building industry should not be depressed by the report. Its approach is somewhat superficial".
  He also said,
  "We can be quite confident of success if everything continues to go forward as at present. I think that the construction industries will deliver the goods provided nobody mucks them about".
  But what has the Minister been doing but muck them about? We should have had no results at all if they had not been mucked about. We have had Eccles and Molson and so on, and without this interference the industry would have made no progress at all.
  The Minister apparently felt that the N.E.D.C. Report was not up to date and that there had been a time lag. Was it based on the experience of last winter? I should like the Minister in his reply to give me a few dates. We want to establish the truth of the matter. The Minister knows that in the conclusion of the Report we read:
  "However, willingness to change is not in itself enough. Looked at in the light of its ability to meet the level of demand forecast for the years to 1966, it is clear that drastic changes will have to be made and that steps already taken by Government, by public authorities, and by the industry to improve the organisation of demand and to introduce new techniques must be pressed forward. What is clear is that there is no certainty, in present conditions, that the industry will be able to meet the demands upon it. And the possibility cannot be ruled out that by falling short it may hold back the expansion of the economy as a whole."
  The last sentence is very serious.
  The late Aneurin Bevan said, "Never gaze in the crystal ball if you can read the book". Let us look at page 2 and read what it says. The Minister will see that the years 1961–63 represent reality; they represent actual experience, about which we know the figures. The years 1964–66 represent fantasy, prognostication, hope or whatever terminology we use. The fact is that, registered in millions of pounds, the
  1276
  actual experience of the industry, including that for the period during which the Minister has been in office, shows no progress at all.
  I will take the output and give the figures in millions of pounds. For housing they are: 1961, £732 million; 1962, £750 million; 1963, £761 million. There is not much improvement to be seen in those figures. For new non-housing work in the public sector, the figures are: 1961, £576 million; 1962, £610 million; 1963, £615 million. In the private sector, for new non-housing work, the figures are: 1961, £694 million; 1962, £674 million; 1963, £632 million. The total new non-housing work was: 1961, £1,270 million; 1962, £1,284 million; 1963, £1,247 million. That does not show much improvement.
  The total new work was: 1961, £2,002 million; 1962, £2,034 million; 1963, £2,008 million. For repairs and maintenance the figures were: 1961, £843 million; 1962, £821 million; 1963, £827 million. The total of the construction output for Great Britain was: 1961, £2,845 million; 1962, £2,855 million; 1963, £2,835 million. The total for the United Kingdom, including an allowance for Northern Ireland, was: 1961, £2,919 million; 1962, £2,914 million; 1963. £2,927 million.
  Where is the improvement? Why does the Minister suggest that the N.E.D.C. should have taken a rosy view of the picture? It is true that we have been given figures for the following years, but these are only estimates. If the Minister suggests that there has been a time-lag, we have to take the Report itself, and he will bear in mind that this Report was put by the Director-General before the N.E.D.C. on 5th February, 1964. That is not long ago. It was printed in March, 1964.
  I therefore hope that in creating this impression the Minister knows what he is doing. He cannot accuse us of quoting figures unfairly. This is the evidence given in the N.E.D.C.'s Report, and he has to show the evidence on which he bases the future results.
  Let us turn to paragraph 66 of the Report. Broadly, the idea is that the amount of building by industrialised techniques has not been as much as was

  1277
  expected. The N.E.D.C. says that too much has been claimed for it. It continues:
  "The principal advantage, and indeed the reason why increased industrialisation is essential for the construction industry, is the saving of labour and the replacement of scarce craft skills by other skills. Saving of site labour may be offset to some extent by an increase in factory labour…There are inadequate data with which to compare costs of building by traditional and industrialised methods. In fact, it may be premature to make comparisons because industrialised methods may become significantly cheaper as experience is gained in using them. However, it is plain that many systems produce buildings which are no more expensive than similar types produced by traditional techniques. But even these systems have as their main attributes that they economise in the use of scarce skilled labour and that they speed the progress of building."
  Up to now the claims made for industrialised building seem to have been extravagant. A most knowledgeable man in the industry has argued—and the Minister might like to consider this argument—that about £3,600 million of work is being produced annually by the industry and, although no definite figures are available, that it is probable that industrialised building contributes only a small factor to the annual output. If the Minister has figures to split this up, I should be glad to have them. Therefore, a council which promoted efficiency in traditional methods could, even by achieving a small percentage increase in productivity, perhaps make a greater contribution to output than concentrating on industrial methods alone at present. I should like to know what research and development there has been in traditional building.
  I have said enough about the N.E.D.C.'s Report for the Minister to wish to justify what he said, and I move on to the Building Agency. I make a point with which the Minister may have some sympathy. He has appointed Mr. Prosser at £10,000 a year. I have no doubt that this is his commercial value, and I will say no more than to express the view of the whole House that we wish him well in his new appointment. The Minister has appointed somebody at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government as deputy at £6,000 a year.
  These appointments are made—I say this really in parenthesis—by a Minister whose salary is £5,750 a year. This is
  1278
  absolutely grotesque. It is just as grotesque as the fact that the Minister of Transport, with his great responsibilities, pays Dr. Beeching £24,000 a year. However, such things have now become commonplace. They are merely an echo of the cowardice that has affected public life, when Ministers in successive Governments have not stood up for a proper relationship and a proper differential. I have been a shop steward in the engineering industry in my time. I never tolerated this sort of thing, and I do not want to see it continued here. It is a thoroughly bad thing.
  The Financial Times of 19th February, 1964, which is not a political friend of the Labour Party, had something to say about the appointment of these men. The paper questioned whether Mr. Prosser had enough powers for the job. Then the paper gave a character sketch, saying what a tough man he was. He also comes from Merseyside. He has been used to dealing with tough people from Liverpool. Then the Financial Times said:
  "'If he does not get some real powers to bang their heads together', said one systems enthusiast sourly, 'he had better have a look at another old building problem—making bricks without straw'"
  I turn new to the question of the powers of the Building Agency. There is one inexplicable omission from the terms of reference of the Agency to which The Times Review of Industry called attention over the weekend. Why is there no reference in the Agency's terms of reference to suggest that it will be dealing with trade unions? In a speech I made earlier this evening I said something about the great period of technological change which we are in for. Building is one of the world's oldest crafts. The brick was something which a man could pick up in his hand. In 1944 there was a great promise that we were to go in for mechanised building with the Portal house. This never materialised. We relaxed, if that is the right word—I do not use it in an insulting way—back to traditional building.
  The Building Agency must be a great co-ordinating agency. Does the Minister understand the size of the problem? It is suggested that many of the old-fashioned craft skills will have to be replaced. It is suggested that the type of apprenticeship for the industry will

  1279
  have to be altered, that instead of the bricklayer we will have to have a carpenter or a plasterer apprenticed to the industry. It is well known that great firms in the industry do not take on enough apprentices. We may well have to imagine an apprenticeship as a form of adult training. Whereas a boy apprentice is now apprenticed locally, he will probably have to be dealt with by the State and trained by the State.
  There are, in addition, the claims of the semi-skilled unions. There will have to be men at the production point putting these things together. There will often be a clash before the wage rates of the industrial worker and industrial trade unionist and those of craft trade unionists. I hope that the Minister will act sufficiently soon, because this is a vital point in his programme, to prevent happening here what happened in the steel industry and what may well happen again, where great technological changes take place so that the production work completely changes and somehow the men with trained skills—I am thinking of my own union, the A.E.U—are left on the sideline.
  Labour relations are the most precious commodity that the Minister has in the industry. He claims that in 10 years the industry must increase its output by 50 per cent. with the same force.
  The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): Virtually the same.
  Mr. Pannell: The Minister knows that the N.E.D.C. cast grave doubts on that. In paragraph 7 the Council refers to the Government's target for housing. It uses these words:
  "There are, however, serious objections to attempting to raise the level much above 360,000 in 1966 unless—and this is an essential condition—the output and productivity of the industry rise substantially in the present year. In some areas where skilled labour is less scarce or where houses or flats are designed in such a way that there is economy in skilled manpower, the increase in the number of housing units constructed can safely exceed the national average rate of increase."
  However, the Council makes it plain that prognostication is a very dicy business indeed. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what economic ills the Council foretells if the industry is streched too far.
  Some questions have been asked about the National Building Agency. The
  1280
  curious thing is not so much what its powers are but what they are not. That is what troubles my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Agency will not be part of a Government Department. It will not build. It will not place contracts for buildinig. The White Paper is not completely clear on its powers to place contracts for components. I should be glad if the Minister would say whether the powers are there. Nor will it control their execution. Only exceptionally will the Agency provide a full design service. It will not supersede existing consortia of local authorities; although it is expected to have a highly qualified staff, it will not seek to get such a great staff that it will denude all the other agencies for building. There will be no compulsion to use it. It will obtain part of its income through fees charged for the service which it will provide, and the rest will presumably come from the public purse. One of my hon. Friends from the mining industry describes the Agency as a toothless wonder.
  What are its teeth? What are its powers? So that the Minister will not accuse us of making only destructive criticism, I will now tell him the sort of powers we think the Agency should have. We think that there should be powers to build and that with powers to build the Agency could produce some realistic and determined public competition to prevent private contractors from taking advantage of the overloaded state of the industry. There is no question about that. One gathers from official reports that there is no real competition in the building industry at present.
  I am not necessarily asking that the Agency should build. I want to meet the Minister fairly on this. I do not want a propaganda point from him in reply. I am concerned that public agencies operating with public money shall always have the reserve power to protect the public interest. The Agency could provide a first-class planning and design service for local authorities and other public organisations. It is unrealistic to believe that every authority can employ enough specialised staff to cope, for example, with the sort of large-scale central area development which takes place only once in a lifetime.

  1281
  I am sure that the Minister of Housing and Local Government must have experience of local authorities asking for direct labour schemes on works outside housing for which they do not have the technical staff to formulate plans. Why should these authorities always have to go to private contractors for help? These are the sort of questions that are bound to be asked, and it seems, therefore, that the powers of the Agency as set out are not clearly defined.
  I am not certain, but I am wondering if the Minister considers this a start and expects to add other powers later. The right hon. Gentleman is tending to become more and more public-minded the more he gains experience of the Ministry of Public Building and Works. It must be realised that the right hon. Gentleman is really living on borrowed time and we all accept that he wishes to leave a monument behind him. Time is running out for this Government and I appreciate that if he can leave a workable Ministry behind him and can show that some sort of progress was made under his guidance that will be to his credit. Certainly nothing of the sort can be said of his predecessors. One of our charges against his and similar Ministries is that they have been stagnant and, because of that, the rate of growth of the building industry has been below the national average.
  As I have pointed out, the building industry has been drastically short of research and has been regarded for many years as one of Britain's backward industries. I am not saying that it has been easy for the Minister to pull the industry out of its difficulties, although he must admit that not much progress has been made. This brings me to the question of productivity. I have tried to digest the figures published on this matter and the first point to recall is the statement by the Minister recently that the industry's output must rise by over 50 per cent. in the next decade with virtually no increase in the labour force.
  It is stated on page 7 of the N.E.D.C. Report that, looking ahead to 1966, the demands on the construction industry are expected to rise by 24 per cent. above 1961 or about 10 per cent. above the estimate for 1964. I want solid evidence to show why that conclusion
  1282
  was reached. The output of the industry in 1963 has been estimated to be worth £3,100 million and it seems that, on the basis of the present figures, in 1973 the figure may be estimated at about £4,650 million. That is the size of the problem ahead of us and we must consider the industry in a big way and try to make it more attractive.
  I recall a saying when I had something to do with election propaganda, "Who will do, the dirty work under Socialism?" In an industry like building, in an affluent society, people are still required to go out in dirty weather and to do the sort of work a lot of people no longer want to do. Accompanied by some of my hon. Friends I spoke to the representatives of a firm of builders some time ago. This firm has a progressive policy, gives three weeks' holiday, a two years' contract and almost every sort of protection that can be given to workers who must be out in bad weather. Every possible amenity is given and the firm admits that, because of giving these things not a man has been lost in even the severest winter. In the severe weather of last year 160,000 people were laid off. In a normal winter, 60,000 to 70,000 are laid off, and the Minister recognises this fact because he has said that everything possible should be done to keep building workers fully employed because it is a human tragedy and waste that they should be subject to climatic unemployment.
  We no longer have the whip and carrot or the terrible unemployment of the 'thirties, when the building industry was the lowest of the low in which to work. Nevertheless, the older workers in the industry still have traditional feelings towards it. Certainly in my constituency it is not difficult to awake the collective memory which my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) says exists in Durham, where building site workers are still regarded by some as doing "lower" work than pit workers. We must somehow get the right type of man into the industry. I do not mean this in a derogatory way, but I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman will achieve his target of productivity unless there is a terrific intake of new people, in which case the industry must be made more attractive.
  Mr. Rippon: As I have said, we must have a marginal increase in the total number of employees available, but, as wastage from the industry must be replaced, I agree that we will need to bring in new people of high calibre.
  Mr. Pannell: As I pointed out earlier, I am referring specifically to craftsmen and to people who, in an age of full employment, can go to factories as maintenance men and earn good money. I am speaking about making the industry more attractive. While on this subject it would not do any harm to mention coalmining. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is no use hon. Members opposite throwing me half-hostile looks and making comments about the nationalised coal mining industry because I cannot think what the state of the economy would have been had a Labour Government not nationalised that industry. When we took that step it was one of the greatest acts of nationalisation and social reform that any Government could have taken, and when in years to come the history of this country is written that will be recorded as a truly memorable step. It will probably rank with the freeing of India.
  How are men of calibre to be attracted to the building industry? We must, first, do away with the idea that they are just hands; people who are doing that sort of work because they are unable to get any other work. It is curious the thoughts that come to one when considering the depressed industries. I have worked in a few of them in my time and these thoughts are similar to those about which we argue when we debate Africa and similar countries. It is not enough to give a man sufficient to satisfy his economic needs—good wages and so on—because he must be given dignity, particularly in his job.
  It may be necessary for special incentives to be given to the men or the industry, or even both. If we have one or two more winters like the last the fall in the number of people willing to work in the industry may be colossal. I have read about a committee which visited Sweden, where building production is kept nearly as high in winter time as it is in the summer months. The techniques used there—and the right hon. Gentleman wil have knowledge of them—are designed to keep building going
  1284
  in such a way that only 6 per cent. is added to the total cost of the building carried out throughout the year. The main question to consider in that scheme is, who pays? The answer is that the Government pay. The Swedish Government consider it cheaper to give this 6 per cent. to stop unemployment in the winter and over employment in the summer—which means overtime, and the rest. It is not only cheaper but is a more socially desirable form of subvention than is the employment exchange. I hope that the Minister will look at that idea.
  I should like the right hon. Gentleman to lend his influence with whatever efforts I can make to try to get a whole day's discussion of this fascinating industry. Tomorrow, on a three-line Whip, hon. Members will be lined up to debate housing, but what will we discuss? We shall not discuss the production of houses but only the situation left after the production has ceased—when the Minister has passed over the finished article, as it were.
  We will be arguing as if it were something that could be put in a shop, without labour, but the great matters that divide us, the arguments on the allocation of houses, Rachmanism, and the rest, must depend entirely on the production of houses. I cannot remember when we last had a full-scale debate on the production of houses, on how to increase that production, on how to increase the productivity of this great industry and the human dignity of those working in it——
  Mr. Rippon: Perhaps the hon. Member will agree that if tomorrow we debate the wrong subject that is not the Government's fault but the fault of the Opposition in having called a three-line Whip on the wrong Amendment.
  Mr. Pannell: The Minister can take as much pleasure as he likes out of it, but the probable reason for tomorrow's debate is that his colleagues are not handling things as reasonably as he is handling his own Department—and he can take that as a back-handed compliment if he likes.
  I served for many years on a housing authority, and I know that people took far more interest in the housing management committee, on how to let houses,

  1285
  than in the building of the houses—that was dull and prosaic. When I have attempted to run adult schools I have found people far more interested in foreign affairs and the things that give power consciousness than in discussing something like the rating system——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Griniston): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but are we not now getting a little far from the Vote?
  Mr. Pannell: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, not as far as some went before you sat in the Chair—but I accept your rebuke.
  I merely want us to have a proper sense of priority. Land has to be bought at a proper price, and then the house has to be built on it. We and the Minister are concerned here with one of our great industries. Whatever Government we have after the next election—and I have little doubt about the result—it will not be the astronomical noughts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the economists that will worry the Government but the houses actually built. That Government will have to establish priorities between houses and education because, contemporaneously with the houses, we have to build the schools—because we want to reduce the size of classes.
  We also have to build enough factories to make the economy sufficiently viable to maintain full employment. Those of us with marginal seats have to watch the roads, because far too many voters cast their votes on the basis of what they see from their mini-cars. We have to think of the hospitals. Nobody who represents a constituency such as mine can be insensitive to the scandal of our prisons—I hope that before I depart from this House Armley Gaol will have been razed to the ground.
  All these are the problems of the building industry. The Minister serves a great industry, and we are glad to discuss it with him. Before we go to the country, we hope that we may have a full day's debate on a vast, worthwhile and human subject.
  7.55 p.m.
  Sir Barnett Stross: Part of the most interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) was
  1286
  devoted to offering praise to the Minister. He was justified in that, because although the amount of money asked of us tonight—£3,991,000—is an appreciable sum, we must bear in mind that we are dealing with a Ministry that is expanding very rapidly and is concerned with a great national asset. We expect a great deal from the building industry. Of the total sum asked, £2,630,000 is for new works, and I see from page 211 of the document that to house civil servants is not inexpensive, because to buy the lease of 1–19 Victoria Street and adapt those premises means spending almost £2 million.
  I know very well that the Minister is deeply concerned with the need to make our building force, and the building force at his own disposal, as productive as possible, but he will agree that in the provision of public buildings he will not only have to try to offer us greater productivity but must also have an eye to the aesthetic aspect of the buildings. The premises 1–19 Victoria Street are very near here. About every 100 years there is a great upsurge in public building, and I think that we are running into such a phase now. We last had this upsurge in 1858–61 when there was the great debate about "the battle of the styles", when Palmerston took such an interesting part in establishing for us the visual aspect outside this building when he created the present Foreign Office.
  It is quite inevitable that, whatever he does, the Minister will be criticised by some. It is impossible to have control of a great machine such as he is creating, to provide great public buildings and to tear others down, without a number of people disliking it very much. Those who would wish to praise him may find themselves rather busy, and not on the spot at the time; those who would wish to criticise him will aways be vocal, and will always be available. Any Minister worthy of his office must accept that as likely, and put up with it.
  None the less, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of an editorial in The Times on 9th January entitled "Preservation within Reason". It spoke of not allowing Britain ultimately to become merely a museum. It said that in building we have to accept that, however we look at present and future needs, we cannot preserve everything. To give

  1287
  the Minister an illustration, he may perhaps feel rather sorry that he preserved Downing Street. However criticised he has been because it has cost so much more than he expected, what sort of criticisms would he have got if he had torn it down? Logic said, "Tear it down", yet sentiment for Downing Street made it impossible for him to do that. I have never criticised him because the Estimates over-ran the original sums allocated for it. It was such a miserable, rotten building, so old and badly built originally, that inevitably there was bound to be trouble over it.
  There are other buildings, which I do not think I should specify too closely, quite near Downing Street. There is one which has a vista of Whitehall and St. James's and which has been there for 100 years, quite exciting and most interesting, and people love it very much indeed. I hope that the Minister in deciding what he is to do about any particular group of buildings, whether he is going to rebuild them, or whether he is going to tear them down, will take advice and let us see the possibility of a redevelopment over the whole area rather than fragmented or piecemeal development, certainly in this area of Whitehall, which is the ceremonial heart of the Commonwealth.
  I should like the Minister to tell us that, before he makes any major decision, he will offer to the House and to the country a set of plans and models of the redevelopment of the whole of this area, including Bridge Street and much further afield, and, of course, tell us what he proposes to do with the present site and building of the Foreign Office. If he can do that, I can assure him that, although there will be lots of people who will still criticise whatever he has in mind, at least he will have the satisfaction of seeing the country torn in twain and the rest of us arguing with each other which is the better thing to do and which plan is the better plan. I think that this will be healthy for us, but if he makes decisions without consulting the country, without telling Parliament and without offering us something to look at first, then indeed he will fall into serious trouble.
  After the compliments which have been offered to him by my hon. Friend
  1288
  the Member for Leeds, West, I need not say more than that the criticisms that have been made against the Minister have been sometimes quite fierce. I will quote only one in order to remind him of that. It is from the Architect's Journal of 20th November, which said:
  "Whitehall and Parliament Square is the most important area, architecturally, in London. We do not, therefore, advocate glass-case preservation. But demolition and reconstruction must be backed by irrefutable logic and by the surety that something better will replace that which is destroyed. Scott's offices are too good, too much part of our history to be lightly discarded. Whitehall has recently been gravely damaged by the new Government offices behind the Banqueting House—a damage still to be extended. Mr. Rippon should perhaps first concentrate on making a success of the proposed offices on the east of Whitehall stretching from Richmond Terrace to Bridge Street before risking any more demolition."
  I think that it is quite fair to offer advice of that type to the Minister. I would not, perhaps, use words as strongly as this, but I know how much the Minister wants to serve and I feel that I am entitled to urge him to do what I have suggested.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I am very glad that we are having this debate because whatever Government may be returned in a few months' time the load on the building industry is bound to be a very heavy one indeed. Quite obviously, the load will differ in place and in quality according to the Government. A Labour Government would be concerned, very largely, on the housing front, to build houses for those desperately in need whether they are rented houses or houses for the owner occupier. We should recoil in horror from some of the decisions that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has given in relation to planning when he can permit luxury development at Trossley, one of the last remaining unspoilt escarpments of the North Downs, an area of exceptional beauty and outstanding landscape value, and where he allows development for wealthy commuters.
  Quite obviously, our plans would be very different and very much more in touch with the real needs of those who are desperately looking for homes.
  Nevertheless, as the N.E.D.C. Report has pointed out and has calculated, the

  1289
  load on the building industry will be a very heavy one. I should like to congratulate those who have compiled the study: they have done an excellent job although we may have some argument as to how gloomy or optimistic it is. Certainly the notes of caution about the future in that document must be studied by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Report points out that total demand is likely to rise in 1966 by more than 24 per cent. on the output of 1961. It is now 1 point higher than that of an earlier study made.
  It has been my good fortune over the last eight or nine months to be associated with a number of experts who had been looking at the industry and trying to fathom our way through its labyrinth organisation and we believe that figure is by no means an over estimate—it might be as much as 30 per cent. above 1961—but one that at any rate we must accept for the time being.
  For the longer term I think that it would be safer to accept the target which was in the first paragraph of Command 2228, the National Building Agency White Paper, where it says:
  "To meet all these needs—
  that is for schools, hospitals, houses and so on—
  "the building industry must increase by more than 50 per cent. in the next ten years."
  It goes on, very significantly but, I think, very truly, to add:
  "This will have to be done without any great increase on the demand of the nation's limited labour resources."
  In all our own investigations it has seemed to us that to increase the labour force of the building industry will be extraordinarily difficult unless a number of changes are made.
  The N.E.D.C. Report indicates that the industry will need, if it is to meet the targets as stated and assuming those also in the White Paper, an intake of about 25,000 skilled men a year and it seems that by most of the traditional sources, including apprenticeships that not many more than 20,000 is the number of new recruits that one can hope will be achieved. The N.E.D.C. study hope that the balance of the labour required will be found firstly by training in new skills through the Ministry of Labour training centres. It
  1290
  hopes that by 1965, some 2,400 men will be trained in the training centres. Here, incidentally, I think that many of us will very much regret that our appeals to the Minister of Labour three years ago about cutting down the training centres did not get a better response because it takes time to build up the training that will be required in the training centres in order by 1965 to get 2,400 more skilled men. It is then hoped that a further increase may be made by training unskilled workers, that is, adult training by the firms themselves on the spot and by other methods. But paragraph 39 of the N.E.D.C. Report probably gives again a sober estimate of all these possible means of training when it says:
  "The best that it seems possible to expect by 1966 is that new techniques can be introduced sufficiently quickly to minimise the effect of shortages of skilled manpower,"
  This again is a cautious note absolutely wise to insert. Even if the manpower targets in all the different ways are met, the industry will only just get by in the matter of labour power.
  In addition, there are two or three other matters connected with labour which we ought to consider at this juncture. There, is no reference to the concept of dual apprenticeship in the Report and I hope that attention will be paid to the recommendations of the Carr Report in this respect. We have had interesting discussions with the trade unions, and the Federation of Building Trade Workers has commented favourably about this kind of apprenticeship as something which is likely to come in the future. It is suggested that if a man is trained for two skills these can be conveniently divided, for example, into dry fixers and wet fixers and that thereby he has not only more reasonable opportunities of being continually employed but he will not have to wait unemployed for somebody to finish one job before he can get on with his trade. He can finish the job himself. This is one way in which the output and efficiency of the industry can be increased, with the good will of the trade unions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) mentioned that we must do something about the status of the building worker. In addition to being commercially a success, British

  1291
  coal undertakings have given the worker a new improved status. I know that there are some hon. Members who measure everything only in terms of finance. They remind me of Oscar Wilde, who said that some people know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Quite apart from what was involved in the organisation of pits on a national scale, the great thing that public ownership did was to raise the status of the worker by various methods. I remember seeing on the front page of the Daily Express a story to the effect that "Slogger Williams", the new Welsh champion, had hewn so many tons of coal in 24 hours. It was a great change to find an industrial worker, on whose efforts the future of Great Britain depended, being featured on the front page of that newspaper as a person of real consequence.
  How can the status of the building worker be raised? Partly it is a question of remuneration but also one of conditions of employment. Secondly, it must mean very much longer periods of continuous employment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West pointed out, it is customary in many years—and last year was exceptionally bad—for 70,000 to 80,000 building workers to be out of work for a considerable period in the winter. The result, particularly for skilled men, is that they tend to go to other industries where they are less likely to be unemployed in winter. Every year there is a wastage because there is no permanent continuous work. Whether there will be depends on national policy towards the building industry. This fact will be of paramount importance when we consider methods of organising the industry and better co-ordination.
  There is not only the question of better status and remuneration but all sorts of things must be done about site conditions. I visited a number of sites and found that the arrangements for ordinary building labours on them were quite deplorable. A much greater attempt must be made to give the building worker the sort of conditions that are provided for other workers. There is also the question of accidents. In 1962 one man was lost for every working day in that year, and during the year there were more than 25,000 accidents which involved more
  1292
  than three days away from work. Therefore, in addition to arranging longer productive runs, we must provide more attractive conditions on the site, particularly at a time when men can work in other industries where they do not have to face the elements as the majority of building workers have to do.
  If we adopt all these methods the building labour force will be slowly built up, and by industrialised methods, as paragraph 39 of the N.E.D.C. Report says, the deficiency may be met. We then have to look at the organisation and consider how we can have a better coordinating mahcinery for the industry which is now so fragmented. If we do not do this, obviously the demands on the industry which will be made by the education, hospital and housing programmes, and by the implications of the Buchanan Report, will not be met.
  The Government have come forward with the National Building Agency, another innovation on which the present Minister deserves congratulation. It is true that this has come very late in the life of the Government, as many other things have come, but it is not the fault of the right hon. Gentleman, though it probably shows up some of his predecessors. It is a good idea but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West has said, it is a negative and muted instrument in many respects. Quite a number of technicians in the building industry wonder whether or not the Agency will be able to perform the limited objectives which the Minister has in mind for it. Even the Minister's own Press release about the Agency is full of negatives. The second paragraph contains no fewer than four "nots". The Agency, according to the Press release,
  …will not undertake building…will be used to supplement, not supplant, the local authority consortium movement…will also be careful not to usurp the functions of private architects…and it will not itself order or stop building materials or components."
  One, therefore, has to scratch hard to find out what the Agency will do.
  In this connection, therefore, the comment of the Observer on 23rd February is worth quoting:
  "The Government is to set up a National Building Agency to put together different orders into unified contracts large enough to employ new methods. But its work will be on a voluntary basis only and it will charge

  1293
  a fee for its services. The danger is that it will find its main clients in those progressive local authorities and builders who would have used new methods in any case and leave the old-fashioned section of the industry unaffected. If example is better than precept, ought not this new agency to be allowed to do some building of its own? Unless it is, Conservative planning is bound to look too late, half-hearted, and ineffectual."
  This is damning comment and expresses more precisely than I can the reservations which I feel about the Agency.
  I should also like to quote the views of an eminent architect whose opinions I sought on this matter. He is a town planner as well and has taken part in the building of a new town. I must not give too many details or he might be identified and might suffer embarrassment. He said of the Agency:
  "I think that it can do a very useful job where a large social building project is being carried out—a new town, a town expansion, a new university and so on. Here the Agency would be dealing with one large project (not several) and it would probably be on a 'simple' site on virgin land. But even with large projects the Agency will not achieve much more than could the existing bodies, unless it can actually participate in the development itself. Unless it is allowed to do some building, the Agency will be remote from the construction problems facing those on the site. It will be too 'theoretical', and will have to rely on the people who are doing the building telling the Agency staff how the building systems work in practice. There will be no automatic 'feed-back' of information about the performance of the systems to the Agency."
  This is why in the scheme to which my hon. Friend referred we in the Labour Party have thought it essential for practical reasons, and not for doctrinal reasons about public ownership, that this Agency or any machinery which is to do the job must be allowed to build. Having regard to expert opinion of the kind that I have quoted and such opinions as were expressed in the Observer, I hope that the Minister will not allow his doctrinal prejudices to prevent the Agency doing some building in order that it may really serve the purposes which he wants and which, I believe, are essential for the nation.
  On this side of the House, we firmly believe that there is need for an agency of this kind, and we believe also that it must have teeth. In our view, it is right that there should be a body which can co-ordinate demand not only for the public authorities but, as far as is possible, for private development as
  1294
  well. If it can work in this way, we shall not only go a long way to increase the productivity of the industry, by giving long runs for building work, but we shall also he able to encourage methods of standardisation, methods of prefabrication, and opportunities for bulk purchase, and so on.
  The agency would also be able to assist, not only in placing the orders itself where required but in ensuring that orders are collectively placed for the mass production of many of the articles and, components required. It is significant that for building in Sweden there are only four types of door. No one who knows Sweden at all will say that, as a result, Swedish architecture is in any way inferior to our own; in fact, it is extremely attractive.
  This co-ordinating function which the agency could undertake, and which, certainly, our proposed National Building Corporation would undertake, is essential if we are to have long-run programmes for the industry. Quite apart from increasing manpower, particularly skilled manpower, and apart from the development of industrial building, this aspect of the matter is of the greatest importance. All the experts I have talked with tell me that if we could prevent the "stop and go" business which has affected building programmes during the past 12 years we could make the biggest contribution of all to raise the output of the industry. This is a target about which we all agree, and it must be the aim either of the National Building Agency or of the National Building Corporation which we propose.
  Next, the Agency must help to coordinate the various parts of the industry in other ways. There is, for instance, the question of forming consortia of smaller firms which can do certain jobs. This is very important in repair work. The Government are now taking through Parliament a Bill, which will be back to the House soon, creating "improvement areas" for old houses. The amount of repair work to be done, if we are really to tackle the job of modernising old houses, about 3 million very old houses now, will place an enormous burden upon the smaller firms. We can only meet this task if the smaller firms can be co-ordinated, and in this also the Agency should help.

  1295
  The co-ordination will be a difficult job, but it can be done. We have had some experience with it both in other countries and here at the end of the war. In some cases, the corporation or agency, on behalf of local authorities, ought to be able to place contracts in order to get particular work done. Sometimes, of course, it will be highly specialised work.
  Next, the Agency must provide design teams. In the White Paper and in the Minister's Press hand-out, we are told that only in exceptional cases will the National Building Agency provide what I think the Minister called a full design service. I hope that the cases will not be exceptional. There are many smaller authorities which need help in this way. How often, when one is in on a private discussion at a town hall, one hears the remark, "Is this scheme within tthe capacity of the borough engineer?" One knows only too well that it is not; he has often not been trained for that sort of work now expected in the redevelopment of a town centre, and in the concepts in the Buchanan Report, and so on. What usually happens is that this small authority wanting to redevelop the old part of its centre or, perhaps, improve other parts of its area tends to find that the only way to proceed is by calling in a property development company. Sometimes these partnerships can be satisfactory, but very often they are not. The property development company often has the profitable parts of the development and the poor old ratepayers are left with the unprofitable parts. Therefore, a team of, so to speak, flying experts—town planners, architects and traffic engineers—available for the small authorities is indispensable if any of the objectives of Buchanan and the other forms of development we have in mind are to be attained.
  Lastly—here, of course, we have a fundamental difference with the Minister—we believe that the Agency must be allowed to build. I have given the reasons as they were expressed by one distinguished expert. To summarise them, there are three reasons why the co-ordinating body must have building power. First, this is the only way in which one can really know what is
  1296
  happening. One must have experience in the field of doing some of the work, one must be able to test one's own experience against that of the contractor and be able to see the practical effect of some of the things one is trying to do. Second, the Agency will want to do some experimenting itself. I am not suggesting that this should be on a large scale—it need not be—but, if one can have direct experience instead of depending always on someone else telling one his result, this can be very valuable, and, moreover, if one has a check on what one is told, this will often be very little less costly than doing the actual work oneself.
  Third, there will inevitably be occasions, particularly in some of our very old areas with a large number of old houses, when the local building industry will have to be supplemented. We shall never get all the old homes repaired in 10 years in the Liverpools of Britain unless we can give the local people the extra help which they need. This can be done if the Agency is allowed to build. As I say, we have a fundamental difference with the Minister here, but I believe that, on practical grounds, what we urge is absolutely necessary.
  Lastly, there will come the very big projects which the nation will have to face. I am thinking of some of the Buchanan developments, but there are others, university developments, the renewal of old towns, and so on, which we should have had to undertake even if there had not been the problem of the motor car. On this side of the House, we envisage the full organisation which can do this work. We ought to be able to designate on a regional basis the broad categories of land use. This sort of thing is essential to prevent all the difficulties into which the planning machine is now running, and which are causing it almost to break down in some parts of the country, for instance, in Kent where I happen to live. There must be a machine which could buy up the land required for the purposes of comprehensive redevelopment. Last, we must have a co-ordinating building agency which not only could help with design and help with standardisation but could do building work itself in regional areas or towns where required.

  1297
  In conclusion, I drew attention to the final paragraph of the N.E.D.C. Report. I wonder whether many people have actually missed it. It is on a separate page under the heading "Conclusion". I do not know whether the Minister who answered the previous debate arranged to hide this pragraph, but the conclusion is very significant. Right at the end, after having argued the matter out and put all the issues, the N.E.D.C. puts this sentence:
  "What is clear is that there is no certainty, in present conditions, that the building industry will be able to meet the demands upon it. The possibility cannot be ruled out that by falling short it may hold back the expansion of the economy as a whole."
  I believe that for this task we want a mighty instrument. We on this side have proposed that mighty instrument. What the Minister is offering us is a penny whistle.
  8.28 p.m.
  Mr. James Boyden: The main reason for a large part of the Supplementary Estimate is the highly amateurish way in which the building departments of the Army, the Royal Air Force and the Navy were merged into the Ministry of Public Building and Works. The principle of amalgamation has considerable merit, but the method was highly inefficient. Most of the original departments are still physically separate, in scattered buildings. At one time, one set of architects and engineers were going abroad to take over and supervise the work of existing architects and engineers in the War Office, and the originators were, in fact, prevented from carrying on the work which they had originated.
  There should have been a great deal of preparatory work by all the four departments and a detailed study made of the problems involved. Why was not this done? The reason was that the right hon. Gentleman was establishing an "image". This was agreed by the Cabinet, and there was built up a picture of a very efficient Minister modernising and industrialising and going through all the right motions. If this had been a genuine move, the preparatory work would have been done over a period of eight to 12 months, perhaps longer, and then an announcement would have been made about amalgamation. The preparation was thoroughly casual.
  1298
  In fact, one Permanent Secretary involved was informed only just before the Press announcement. The Navy works department came over at a different time from the other building works departments, and I have a shrewd suspicion that the reason was that the Navy department resisted harder than the others did.
  Evidence of this administrative incompetence has gradually come out in the Supplementary Estimates. On 20th May, 1963, before Sub-Committee G of the Estimates Committee, the Under-Secretary (Finance) to the Ministry of Public Building and Works was asked:
  "Was there no appraisal made of how the three Services would be integrated?"
  "(A) Not ahead of the decision, no."
  He was asked about economies, and he said:
  "The whole intention is to make economies both in the man power employed on these services and in the building work carried out".
  What do we find in these Supplementary Estimates? First, they are Supplementary Estimates for nearly £4 million, an increase of about 10 per cent. on the original Estimate—a very serious degree of under-estimating. This under-estimate includes items of this description: G(1): 34 extra salaried staff costing an extra £16,000. Obviously that was forgotten in the transfer. In case there is any doubt about that, in the Estimates for 1964–65 this sum is up by £45,000 and there is provision for an extra 55 staff. On G(2) there is an extra £76,000 for industrial staff who have been forgotten. There are two quite shocking items. Provision for overseas telephone and telegraph services from the transferred Service departments had to be increased 60 per cent., an addition of £110,000. There is one item in respect of fees for Agency services. On an original sum of £50,000, an additional £660,000 had to be provided in these Supplementary Estimates—an increase of 1,222 per cent. This figure goes on rising in the current ordinary Estimates which are up by £245,000 to a total of nearly £1 million, or an additional 25 per cent.
  In the "grilling" before the Estimates Committee, the Under-Secretary (Finance) admitted that the spring Supplementary Estimates were prepared very hastily I draw the House's atten-

  1299
  tion to a paragraph in Sub-Committee G's Report which summarises its comments on this hasty and ill-preparation of the Estimates and, by implication, criticises the way in which the amalgamation was done. Sub-Committee G states:
  "It was stated in evidence that it was too early to give an indication of the savings that were likely to accrue as a result of the setting up of the new organisation. In the view of Your Committee a great deal of this work should have been done in advance of the effective date of the take-over. They do not consider that the Estimates presented to the House for the current year, particularly in the case of Headquarters' staff, are a reliable guide to the Department's likely expenditure. The transfer would almost certainly have been carried out more smoothly and without the need for interim arrangements, if the decision to merge had been taken in principle and the details worked out before the effective date. In fact the decision that the merger should take place was made on the assumption that benefits would result, but no attempt was made to evaluate them. Your Committee hope that detailed information on the effects of the transfer will be available by the time next year's Estimates are presented."
  That is the Estimates Committee's investigation into this take-over.
  In the Civil Estimates for the current year, there is a similar indication of a rise in Headquarters salaries of over £1 million, and there will be a net increase of 218 posts by 31st March, 1964. There is a little bit of pie in the sky—a decrease of 50 staff for 1965.
  One of the main pieces of propaganda which the Minister and his Department have put forward, concerns the successes likely to result from industrialised building. This is included on page 208 with a good deal of the capital estimates. I quote what the Under-Secretary (Finance) said on 20th May, 1963, before Sub-Committee G on the question of industrialised building:
  "The rebuilding of Aldershot, a very long-term project, ten years in fact, which will cost millions of pounds, provides admirable facilities for a real user study, a building study in industrialised form, building to which, one hopes, one can apply the pattern of things to come."
  What was the pattern of Aldershot? On 31st July, 1963, of four large industrialised buildings, one fell down. A decision was taken as a result of a Building Research Station inquiry to demolish the remaining three. One of these three fell down in the process of
  1300
  demolition. Therefore, out of four fairly large buildings which had been picked out by the Under-Secretary (Finance) two months before as constituting a typical example of a pattern which would be applied, two fell down and another two had to be demolished.
  I give the Minister full marks for the Parliamentary way in which he handled this situation. I do not know whether the Question of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) was inspired, but there was a Written Answer to the hon. Member on 19th December. The right hon. Gentleman announced his inquiry, and there was a four-week Parliamentary Recess during which it was impossible to cross-examine the Minister.
  Mr. Rippon: Do not blame me for that.
  Mr. Boyden: By the time that it was possible to put down Questions which were likely to get an oral answer, the whole matter had been glossed over.
  Mr. Rippon: The hon. Member must be fair. I am sure that we have not glossed this over. I had an inquiry made and published a full report. As is often inevitable with research and development, one does not always have success, but the full facts have been put before the House and everyone concerned.
  Mr. Boyden: This was a "crashing" success. The fact is that the Minister has been seriously overplaying his hand on industrialised building techniques. The right hon. Gentleman has been claiming that this is something quite original which has been worked out by his Ministry in the last few months or so.
  I was very amused to see an advertisement in the Board of Trade Journal—that very august official journal—of 18th October, 1963. I wish to quote one or two things which it says about industrialised building:
  "Advance publicity for the 1963 Building Exhibition, with its theme of Industrialised Building emphasizes 'This new method of construction, employing prefabrication and factory production of components for all types of buildings.' One hand-out goes on to say 'This method of building creates a demand for new kinds of materials, new applications and new construction techniques, replacing many traditional methods.' The newness of industrialised building has been plugged in every piece of publicity for the Exhibition.."

  1301
  The writer of the advertisement goes on to say:
  "…as every advertising man knows, the word 'new' is semantically a very good word to introduce into advertising copy—that is to say, it has the power to compel attention and to arouse curiosity."
  There has been considerable semantic use of new industrialised building as the cure for everything on the part of the Minister in his political activities.
  Since the Minister for Science implied that it was a Labour Government which rejected industrialised building—he referred to the power crane as an example—I wish finally to make this quotation from the writer of the advertisement who is selling his own firm on industrialized building:
  "At the end of hostilities there was a period of laborious redistribution of production capacity and labour resources, associated with acute shortages of raw materials and plant. There arose a desperate need for new buildings—buildings which the traditional industry, itself in a run-down state and facing shortages in all its requirements, was unable to supply. Government Ministries played an important part at this time in encouraging the development of larger prefabricated structures for industrial use."
  Who was responsible for allowing the industrial techniques to slip and then rediscovering them about 10 years later? If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do what they usually do when I make a reference to the past and try to apportion the blame chronologically, they ought to be fair about the activities of a Labour Government in relation to industrialised building.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) made a damning reference from the N.E.D.C. Report on building productivity. Table 2 is equally damning. The gross output for three years was referred to by my hon. Friend. The gross output of the building industry was £2,919 million in 1961; £2,941 million in 1962 and then there is a dip to £2,926 million last year. It gives the productivity index for 1961 as 100, 1962 as 99 and 1963, 100. In other words, from every aspect of the problem—output, productivity and manpower use in industry—there has been nothing like the leap forward suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
  What is needed, as my hon. Friend stressed is a much greater mechanisation of house building. Reference was made in the previous Vote to the fact that
  1302
  B.R.S. had developed a power crane and made some developments in industrialised building, but over the 10 previous years the Government have switched the house-building industry much more into the private sector so that at this moment, and certainly over the last 10 years, it has been particularly difficult, by the declared policy of the Government, to apply these rationalisation techniques because the number of builders has been scattered over a much wider section than was the case during the period of the Labour Government.
  I should like a great deal of attention directed to reducing the cost of materials, which represents about 40 per cent. of the building industry costs. So far as I can see, nothing has been done in this direction. The price of building materials has been steadily rising. Taking 1954 as 100, in 1959 the figure was 111 and in 1963 it started at 121·7 but by December it was 123·5. The N.E.D.C. refers to delays in the delivery of building materials:
  "There are already delays in the delivery of certain building materials."
  No one can say that the major building suppliers are doing badly. I have looked out a number of figures showing the profits of some building supply companies. The London Brick Co. had a pre-tax profit for 1962 of £3,134,000. Its 5s. shares stood at 22s. 9d. at the end of the last accounting year. Rugby Portland Cement had a profit of £.2¼ million. Its 5s. shares stood at 64s. 3d. At the end of 1963 British Plaster Board had a profit of £1 million. Its 10s. shares stood at 35s. 6d. The profits of Marley Tiles were £2½ million in 1963 and its 5s. shares stood at 28s.
  The Government are trying to squeeze small shopkeepers, but the whole economy could benefit if a reduction was made in the cost of building materials, and the benefit would be much more dramatic and effective than could be provided by any kind of abolition of r.p.m. Several of my hon. Friends have referred to the need to stabilise the industry during the winter. The Report on Winter Building from the right hon. Gentleman's Department was an admirable document but it is up to the Government to supply "teeth" There are two simple remedies which the Government could apply. One was

  1303
  referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West. It is to provide a subsidy for labour in the industry during the winter. The other is to provide a tax incentive for materials particularly used in winter building.
  I wish finally to refer to a matter which was referred to by my hon. Friend, the new document on information in the building industry. The Building Research Station has been making recommendations about this kind of thing for years. In 1926 its first Annual Report drew attention to the need for more building education and the extension of information services. The Annual Report stated:
  "The task of interpretation will only become easier and full advantage of research secured when building education is more closely linked with building sites. Progressive technical efficiency which depends on the rapid absorption throughout industry of new knowledge will then become much more easily obtainable."
  There are similar quotations in the Annual Reports for 1932, 1934 and 1962, all on the same theme.
  When I visited the Station last summer I discussed with several of the leading people there the possibility of emulating the National Agricultural Advisory Service, which the Woodbine Parish Working Party favours. When the right hon. Gentleman started the Working Party his aims were quite modest. He referred to an annual budget of at least £500,000 in five years. But the Woodbine Parish Working Party talks in terms of £3 million and more.
  It does not appear that the right hon. Gentleman is fully seized of the importance of the problem. When he first took office he could, by having a word with the director of the Station and others, have learnt of the fundamental problems involved and could have got on with solving them without having to appoint working parties. He has been playing politics throughout. His party politics is good but his stimulation of the building industry and its organisation do not match up to the paper image he has created.
  8.46 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman asks for an increase of a considerable sum of money
  1304
  on his Estimate in respect of capital expenditure for new works. The sum amounts to £2,630,000. His writ runs north of the Border, so no doubt a considerable proportion of the money arises from work going on in Scotland.
  In the past, we have commended the right hon. Gentleman for his industry in spotlighting the possibilities of industrial building and, indeed, he has done something about that. However, I tend to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), who said that we have an image of activity rather than the reality. The right hon. Gentleman has shown concern, no doubt from experience, about the efficiency of the Scottish building and construction industry. I believe that it was in 1962 that he set up a committee to look into it and examine the differences in organisation and practice north and south of the Border. He asked it to make recommendations with a view to promoting greater efficiency.
  The importance of this has not been lost on us and we have been pressing him on the subject for a long time. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) drew attention to the fact that no Minister has sponsored as many White Papers and reports as has the right hon. Gentleman. It reminded me of something I heard the right hon. Gentleman say recently—that everything was all right in education now because the Government have accepted a report.
  The right hon. Gentleman should realise that acceptance of a report does not mean anything in itself. What matters is the implementation. I was, therefore, glad to see that the Departmental Report on the Organisation and Practices for Building and Civil Engineering in Scotland, which reported to the Minister in December, stated, in paragraph 10:
  "Since the beginning of the last war the building industry has been the subject of several inquiries…"
  The paragraph then lists these inquiries and goes on:
  "It is clear to us that many of the problems affecting the industry today would not have arisen if the recommendations of those various bodies had been more widely accepted and put into practice."
  The measure of the Minister's efficiency and ability does not lie in the production of reports. What matters is

  1305
  whether or not he takes the action which lies to his hand and persuades the building industry to implement the reports. We will withhold our plaudits from the Minister until we have seen his efforts in that respect; and that applies to industrialised building and all the fuss that he has made about that.
  I was interested to see that, generally speaking, the Working Party concluded that it would be considerably for the benefit of the Scottish building industry if two things applied. The Government have the responsibility for one of them. In paragraph 18, the Report said:
  "we believe also that "stop-go" national financial policies in the past have affected the industry in Scotland more quickly and more acutely than that in England and Wales."
  The Working Party was probably wrong in that, in the sense that when there is a boom it does not spread to Scotland for a long time. In fact we are still waiting for this legendary boom to reach us. But when there is congestion in the building going on in the south of England, as a magnet it inevitably draws building workers to it from Scotland.
  We are supposed to be in the middle of a public works boom in Scotland, with local authorities making tremendous demands on the civil engineering industry, but, inevitably, it is slowed down because we do not have the labour. It is further slowed down when the boom bursts down here and the brakes are applied, not just south of the Border or in the Midlands, but over the whole country. The increase in the Bank Rate last week did not apply just to those parts causing the difficulties in the economy, but to Scotland as well.
  Here we have something which is the responsibility of the Government. Have we seen the end of stop-go financial policies? Do we not have the right to say that we have not seen the end of them under the Government in view of the increase in the Bank Rate last week? The reason for the effect of the stop-go policies is clearly stated in the Report:
  …public sector work, which is more directly influenced by national policies, has formed a higher proportion of the whole construction programme in Scotland than in England and Wales."
  That is perfectly true.
  1306
  The Prime Minister can go to the Playhouse, in Glasgow, and speak about the building programme and the endless demand for houses for owner-occupation, but of the 28,000 houses built in Scotland last year, in this year of glory—and in 1953 we were building 39,000—only 6,600) were built for private owner occupation, 1,000 fewer than in 1962. The Prime Minister did not even know what he was talking about in relation to Scotland, not even in relation to owner-occupation. We are not surprised about that, because up there we know him a little better. We know that he does not know what he is talking about —the monarch of the matchstick!
  The Report goes on:
  "In the interests of the efficiency of the industry we hope that the demands on it will in future be distributed as evenly as possible over long periods."
  Can the Minister say whether we can depend on that happening, for it is essential?
  The Report drew attention to the financial difficulties of the Scottish industry and said that it was under-capitalised. We may have an even greater proportion of small firms—I believe that there are about 6,000 firms, employing 111,000 men. This inevitably slows down progress of building, because there is a hold-up of finance between client and contractor and between contractor and sub-contractor, and so on, into the specialised services. Even if hon. Members opposite who come from Scotland were here—and they are not here and seldom are, for they never show any interest in these matters—they would bear me out when I say that the commonest thing in Scotland is to find a building firm "going bust" in the middle of operations. The houses are half completed, but the contractor has simply over-played his hand. There is no doubt that that has a lot to do with the flow of finance.
  I know that the Minister has no direct responsibility for this, but the Working Party thought fit to report to him and thought that he would use his influence to try to get the industry to put the matter right. The Report drew attention to the fact that there were certain aspects of contracting which had an effect on the situation and said that it would be better if we in Scotland adopted the all trades

  1307
  contract rather than the single trades contract which tends to slow up matters, particularly when the finishing trades come into the building.
  What are the Government doing about that? Are they using all their powers to get the trades together to form themselves into a consortium, just as the Government are exhorting local authorities to do when they place building contracts? Recently, I spoke to people in one of the larger building firms in Scotland. They had come to the conclusion that they have to gather together teams of all trades to be sure of meeting completion dates. What are the Government doing about that?
  Then there is the question of building materials, and paragraphs 126 and 132 to 135 of this Report contain some interesting comments. There is a reference in the Report to the report by Sir Harold Emmerson, which said:
  "Another factor which can affect conditions in Scotland is the supply of building materials. Most building components come from across the Border, and both distributors and contractors complain of delays. This seems to apply particularly to household fitments and ironmongery coming from the Midlands. Without more detailed enquiry it is not possible to say where the fault lies."
  The Working Party went very much further and said, in paragraph 134:
  "We would therefore, recommend that, where there is no reason why production in Scotland is not economically practicable, every effort should be made to increase the output of building materials and components there."
  This is a serious matter. During the Kinross and West Perthshire by-election I was told of a shortage of bricks, at a time when a Stewarton firm was writing to me complaining about the possibilities of industrialised buildings and the fact that it had unused stocks of bricks. Even where we have the materials, there is a lack of information about where the materials are available.
  What is the Minister doing to build up this new type of industry and to expand existing ones to meet the demands for building materials? The Report goes on to say:
  "Increased production in Scotland of building components, as distinct from materials, and especially of prefabricated components with limited economical transport range, will be of special importance if the current movement towards the use of industrialised building systems is to develop in Scotland."
  1308
  This can be done, and I hope that the Minister will take the initiative in dealing with the matter. There is unlimited scope for building in Scotland. Large parts of Glasgow ought to be bulldozed and built on again. We need not one new town, but three or four. They ought to be spread around Scotland and not concentrated in one area. There is tremendous scope for the building industry in Scotland, and it is the Minister's job to make use of it. He need not smile about this. This is not a matter for levity.
  Mr. Rippon: I nodded at the hon. Member. He should not try to misinterpret what I do.
  Mr. Ross: We are used to Ministers nodding—usually when they are asleep. If the right hon. Gentleman knew more about the kind of Ministers that we have to deal with he would realise that we are not nearly offensive enough.
  There is a greater need in Scotland for the development of the better techniques which are available in areas which have had a longer run in building, but the right hon. Gentleman must watch this, because it has been demonstrated that newer techniques do not always work in Scotland. Although we usually have better weather than the rest of the country there are times when it rains, and materials which may be used beneficially and speedily in the South prove eventually to have weaknesses in Scotland, owing to the climatic conditions.
  To obtain the value of components made from new materials the right hon. Gentleman has been looking abroad, and he recently set up a committee to look into the Agrément system for testing materials, which is used in France. This will be of importance to Scotland, as part of the research being done by private firms in these components is being carried on in Ayrshire. But we often find that when research is completed the firm concerned sets up its factory elsewhere. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had any consultations with the Secretary of State for Scotland in setting up this committee, and whether there was any Scottish Department representative on the committee.

  1309
  We want to keep Scotland well in the van of progress in these matters, and it should have been the Government's responsibility to see that there was proper co-operation and co-ordination between Ministries. I shall be disappointed if the right hon. Gentleman, who has been nodding agreement with most of the things that I have been saying, has failed to appreciate the importance of this, and the greater need than ever to make use of all these systems and of a speedy introduction of new materials in Scotland.
  I am sorry that I have had to rush my speech. I hope that the Minister realises that there is nothing more important to Scotland than the establishment of an adequate and efficient building force.
  9.3 p.m.
  The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): We have had a wide-ranging and extremely useful debate on an important topic. One matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross) and which, perhaps, does not fall within the general ambit of the discussion, related to Government building, especially in the Whitehall area. He asked me for certain assurances about the Government's approach to the problem.
  I can give him the assurance which I gave to the House on 17th December, in answer to a Question her for Barking (Mr. Driberg in which I said:
  "What I believe is necessary is that we should look at this area as a whole. Certainly the proposals should be brought forward not just piecemeal but in relation to the rebuilding of Whitehall as a whole. That we will do at the appropriate stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1963; Vol. 686, c. 1027.]
  I am considering the appointment of a planning consultant to look at the whole of the proposals under consideration for redevelopment in the Whitehall area. It must be understood that while the Government must take a decision on policy—either to retain a building or to replace it—the decision taken to replace it provides an opportunity to see what it is proposed to put up in its place. I can give the House an assurance on that point.
  The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) referred to the new
  1310
  functions of my Ministry in relation to military as well as civil building. That does not fall within the terms of the Vote which we are discussing. I make no complaint about that, but the basis of the Government's policy and the way in which the reorganisation is being carried out has been set out in the White Paper—Cmnd. 2233—The Reorganisation of the Ministry of Public Building and Works—which I published last December. Perhaps there will be another opportunity to debate that in greater detail.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), who made a most helpful and valuable speech which I am sure we all appreciated—that the National Economic Development Office's recent Report on the construction industry rightly focuses attention on what is a key sector of the national economy. I am concerned that this Report should be seen in its proper perspective. Much of what it says is admirable so far as it goes. Certainly it is right, as the hon. Member said, in saying that any failure of the industry to meet the growing demands made upon it would be a serious brake on expansion.
  However, as I have said publicly—and the hon. Member did not misquote me in any way—inevitably, because it is a general Report, its approach is somewhat superficial. In general, its approach to industrialisation of building is too narrow. It must be understood that it was prepared some time ago and it does less than justice to the progress already made by the industry and the Government working together in modernising, methods and promoting increased productivity. It was presented to the Council in February, 1964, and actually published in March, 1964, but, as I shall show, much of the material on which it is based is now a little out of date.
  The revolution by consent, to which I have referred from time to time, is now well under way. There is a new climate of change which augurs well. I have found fresh attitudes of mind and a real readiness to try out new ways of doing things. This is at work in every part of the construction industry. There is a complete understanding that

  1311
  the way ahead lies in industrialisation. But this is not just a matter of introducing new systems of building. It is a question of rationalisation and modernising the organisation and methods of the whole building process. It is significant that the construction industry was the first to set up its own economic planning advisory council to assist N.E.D.C.
  The industry is now moving away from being essentially a craft-based industry to one based on engineering science and technology. Even within N.E.D.O.'s own rather narrow definition of industrialisation, the work is now further under way than the Report indicates. The National Federation of Building Trades Employers has set up a special section for system builders and this summer will be holding a large-scale exhibition of industrialised building.
  The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said that we were rather overplaying our hand and cited an isolated instance, from which we take no comfort, but we are working in a field where there will be some difficulties. That is why the Government's building programme and research organisation should be employed to try out some of the systems to see which might be deployed most effectively.
  It is most significant that over the whole field already next year 10 per cent. of local authority houses and 45 per cent. of local authority flats will be system built. Those figures are for England and Wales. More than 15 per cent. of school building will be by system methods.
  There is no doubt that by employing these new systems we get a saving of labour and time and that is important. If this is done in sufficient bulk there is also a saving in cost.
  That is what we found in school building where there were savings of 8 per cent. to 10 per cent. But much of the saving has gone into raising the standards of construction and the amount of room available, and to some extent that has provided an additional bonus for school building. We have already reached the stage at which virtually whole new towns, such as Livingston, in Scotland, and whole new
  1312
  universities, such as York, are being developed by the use of these new methods. The Ministry is also going ahead with a plan for 2,000 Service houses using industrialised building.
  One obstacle to rapid expansion is the shortage of skilled site labour, and to overcome it traditional processes must be mechanised and more work must be transferred from the site to the factory.
  I make one other point on which I am sure I shall get agreement from both sides of the Committee: there must be large long-term orders wherever possible. Local authority consortia both for housing and school building are steadily increasing in number and their work will be supplemented by the new National Building Agency.
  A great deal has been said about this body this afternoon. Some hon. Members suggested that it will not have sufficient power. It will do three main things. First, it will help to co-ordinate the requirements of those wishing to build programmes which are large and continuing enough to make possible the economic use of industrialised methods. Secondly, it will offer expert and technical advice about the newest methods. Thirdly—another point raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, West—it will help in encouraging educational and other bodies, including the new Industrial Training Board, to provide more extensive facilities for training in the new techniques. I made this clear in my statement about the National Building Agency on 10th December.
  It will have a very clear and close link with the trade unions. One of the directors of the board is Mr. Victor Feather, the Assistant General Secretary of the T.U.C. I assure hon. Members that I attach very great importance to having close relations with the trade unions about developments which are taking place within the industry.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, West also referred to the whole problem of changing skills. Research on this is being undertaken by the Building Research Station financed both by the N.F.B.T.E. and by the N.F.B.T.O. The new Industrial Training Board, is also vitally concerned. We are arranging with the Ministry of Labour to obtain practical details of the skills which are being

  1313
  used on sites where industrialised buildings are being erected.
  We attach very great importance to the problem of apprenticeship, which was dealt with by many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). It is to the credit of both sides of the construction industry that it was the first major industry to agree to reduce from five years to four years the period of apprenticeship. This is in force in five out of the nine regions and covers about 70 per cent. of all apprenticeships.
  Hon. Members made great point of the fact that the Agency will not itself build or contract, and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington complained that I had said that it will only exceptionally provide a full design service. One must recognise that there are only a limited number of really skilled people available to give advice over a very wide area. I therefore do not think that the Agency itself could normally provide the full design service. What it will do is to get in contact with a local authority or public body or private client and tell them how they can do this; and it will give them advice and help the local authority's own staff, supplemented where necessary by private architects as at present, to get on with the job.
  I felt it important that the Agency should exceptionally provide the full design service, because I agree with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington that it is essential that there should be a feed-back of information, and, also, that people who work in the Agency should have jobs for which they are themselves primarily responsible and which they can display as an example of how things can be done. I am sure that a number of local authorities will be anxious to co-operate with the Agency on that basis.
  I believe that the Agency's services will be widely used, because it will provide a service which is not at present available to either the public or the private sector. Thus it will open up new possibilities of increasing building output and productivity. The board will, in fact, hold its first formal meeting on 19th March. The chairman has told me that he hopes that the Agency will be functioning in three months' time
  1314
  with its first offices open, one in London and the other in Edinburgh. The Agency will be providing an annual report, but, meanwhile, the chairman will be providing me with a monthly statement of how things are going.
  In a letter to The Times, which was published on 21st February, 1964, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington explained what the National Building Corporation, which is the Opposition's pale carbon copy of my National Building Agency, would do. The hon. Gentleman said this:
  "Its proposed National Building Corporation would, through its regional organisation, collate building demands in the area"—
  so will the National Building Agency—
  "prepare long run programmes for the building industry and help to mobilise its resources."
  So will the National Building Agency.
  "It would form consortia of firms in appropriate cases''—
  so will the National Building Agency—
  "and by agreement could place development contracts for the smaller authorities,"
  This is a new thing which the National Building Corporation would do. But provided that local authorities have been told how they should draft their contracts and what they should do, it is not necessary for the Agency to sign them. Therefore, the contractual relationship will be between the local authority, which will eventually own the buildings, and the builder who puts them up.
  The hon. Gentleman's letter continued in this way:
  "If required its team of highly specialised advisers would be available to assist councils."
  So will that of the National Building Agency, so there is not a great deal of difference between us.
  I do not think that I have time to add anything more on the subject of the National Building Agency, because I would like to revert to what I think was the main topic of the Opposition—that is, the N.E.D.O. Report on the Construction Industry. As I see it, there are four basic conditions of success in raising productivity to the necessary levels.
  The first is a steady public investment programme for building and civil engineering work which is under-pinned by large and continuing orders. These

  1315
  the Government are providing. As I announced early last year, arrangements have been made jointly with the Treasury for the Ministry of Public Building and Works to be associated more closely, and at an earlier stage, with the procedures for settling the public investment programmes, so that full account can be taken of the likely effect of the agreed programmes on the construction industries regionally as well as nationally. That is another point made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. Of course, all these things have to be brought into balance.
  The N.E.D.O. Report, in paragraph 78, suggests that
  "the appropriate conditions for and methods of short-term regulation should be examined."
  The Report calls for
  "greatly improved statistical information…for example, for the regions in which overload is likely".
  As I said in Answer to a Question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) on 29th November, 1963, I have already taken steps, with the full co-operation of the industry, to improve the quality and extent of the statistical information at our disposal to cover both regions and the national scene. The new arrangements have already been introduced. The first returns will be available in May to the industry as well as to the Government.
  The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was very concerned, I think rightly, that we should not have, if we can possibly avoid it, any return to stop-go, certainly not stop-go over the whole field where a situation may well be created in which a cut is imposed in an area where there is already an underload, in spite of the fact that the industry over the country as a whole is overloaded. I would like to make it plain, regarding short-term regulation, that we intend that the industry should have the necessary security to plan ahead. The Government have no intention of damaging this by introducing physical controls.
  I have made it clear that the long and short-term prospects for work in the industry depend not only on what the customer wants, but also on what the customer can afford to pay. The industry cannot expect to retain, let alone
  1316
  expand, its present share of expenditure unless it keeps its costs under control. If costs rise faster than productivity the industry cannot expect automatically that the customer will pay for the increase.
  At the same time, I wish to emphasise that the industry's record of productivity is much better than the N.E.D.O. Report may lead people to believe. The hon. Member for Leeds, West, referred to Table 1 and the output between 1961 and 1963. But in paragraph 20 the Report explains "In particular, in the period 1961 to 1963, output was hindered by severe weather conditions from November, 1962 to April, 1963."
  The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland referred to Table 2, which deals with general productivity. It is important to distinguish in this context between new work and maintenance work. This is not done in these tables. There is clearly less scope for raising productivity with maintenance work but, nevertheless, productivity in 1963 on maintenance work was 8 per cent. above that for 1958. On new work the increase in output between 1958 and 1963 has been no less than 27 per cent. That gives a much clearer picture of the rise in productivity of new work.
  The second need, if we are to reach our target, is to ensure sound management and that there is a proper understanding of labour relations so that good working conditions are promoted. I agree with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington about the rising status of the worker. I have tried, in what I have been doing, to bring the industry out of the muck and wheelbarrow age. I have been trying to secure better conditions and in the Ministry's large contracts we have laid down minimum provisions for good site amenities, and so on.
  I agree with everything that has been said on the subject of winter building. Having received the initial Report from the Committee which I set up, I have now established a permanent body to ensure that we make progress. I am equally sure that N.E.D.O. was right in stressing the importance of good management. The industry, including the allied professions, is fully alive to this need and many of the larger firms, and some of the others,

  1317
  are already managed with great efficiency. The real need now is to raise the standards of the remainder of the industry and the Ministry is setting an example in its own contracts by specifying the use of such things as the critical path method which will help the industry to have a knowledge of the best techniques, methods and management. To this end we are runing, public lectures, conferences, and giving specific advice. This year we are having about 250 lectures, film shows and conferences.
  Both the industry and the professions are now very active in this sector. This need for improved management covers the whole building process; clients, designers and other professions as well as contractors and sub-contractors. A major step forward has been taken with the establishment of the Industrial Training Board for the construction industry. This will involve everybody concerned—employers, unions, educationists and Ministers—in a cooperative effort to improve skills and adapt them to the demands of the new methods.
  New methods call for new techniques and procedures, which must cover traditional as well as non-traditional building. One example of this is the placing and management of building contracts. We have been examining this with the full co-operation of the industry to see what improvements are needed and have set up two committees.
  The hon. Member for Kilmarnock referred to the valuable Report which I have received from Sir William McEwan Younger. I am considering carefully the contents of that Report. The English committee, under Sir Harold Banwell, is about to submit its report. We try to establish the closest possible relations between builders in England and Wales and those in Scotland, and there is a Scottish representative on Sir Harold Banwell's committee. I do not know whether we have put a Scot on the committee that is studying the agrément system, but we consulted the Scottish Development Department about setting it up and it has agreed the membership. However, it is not necessary in everything we do to have every single interest directly represented as long as we co-ordinate, as we are doing.
  1318
  The third need, if we are to achieve our targets, is up-to-date building regulations that can be uniformly interpreted, and some hon. Members have referred to this. If the construction industry is to extend and modernise, it certainly must not be hampered by a great variety of statutory controls, varying from area to area and which are too rigid to accommodate new methods and materials. We are tackling this problem by introducing later this year a national code of building regulations, which is being worked out in full consultation with the industry and with the local authorities that will have to administer it. That has been considered in very great detail by the advisory committee under Mr. Wynne Edwardes. The code will not be ideal, but it will be a great step forward, and in the light of recommendations made to me I am considering how to improve matters for the future.
  Fourthly, if building is to be transferred from a craft-based to a technologically-based industry, which is our aim—in other words, from a labour-intensive to a capital-intensive industry—more must be spent on research and on the dissemination of information. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland referred to this especially. Here, I have now a special responsibility for coordinating building research and development throughout the Government service, so that, again, we are ensuring the closest possible co-operation between all concerned. The industry is increasingly recognising the fact that it must speed up research and development, and spend more money on it. Some one said that I made a rather modest proposal in this respect, and I am glad that representatives of the industry have come forward with something more. It is an indication of the anxiety in the industry to move ahead as fast as possible.
  Six months ago representatives of these bodies agreed in principle to my proposal for a Building Research and Information Association and, together, we set up this Working Party which has just reported. The Report endorses the Government's view of the need for more research, and recommends that the machinery to meet it should be financed mainly by a compulsory levy on building and civil engineering firms. One possibility is to set up a development

  1319
  council to raise and administer the levy, and I am pursuing that idea with the representative bodies concerned. It is worth emphasising that this initiative has come from leading persons in the construction industry who worked closely with my officials in producing the Report. It illustrates the progressive attitude to be found in the industry today.
  That is why I have called the N.E.D.O. Report unduly pessimistic. That Report has not taken full account of the very rapid developments that have taken place, and that are still taking place. But it is, perhaps, more a difference of emphasis than of substance. The Report warns of failure unless certain things can be put right. That is putting the matter too negatively. I am confident of success if we can continue to pursue the policies and initiatives that are already being implemented.
  Mr. George Lawson: Before the Minister sits down, there is one point I should like him to take into account when considering the modernisation of the industry. I am thinking of the handicap that afflicts building and civil engineering firms in development districts. It seems, in so many cases, that the Local Employment Act does not apply to much of the equipment in which those concerns will be called upon to invest.
  I have an example that will serve my purpose. The firm I am thinking of decided to purchase a very large collapsible building which would have had the very admirable purpose of enabling work to be carried on inside it independently of the weather. That was an excellent and expensive piece of equipment. This was a development district. The firm made application for a building grant—
  It being half-past Nine o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply), to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution under consideration.
  Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put and agreed to.
  Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith, with respect to each of the remaining Resolutions reported from the Committee of Supply but not yet agreed
  1320
  to by the House, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in that Resolution:—
  Question,
  That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Fourth Resolution,
  put and agreed to.
  Question,
  That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Fifth Resolution,
  put and agreed to.
  Question,
  That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Sixth Resolution,
  put and agreed to.
  Question,
  That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Seventh Resolution,
  put and agreed to.
  Question,
  That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Eighth Resolution,
  put and agreed to.
  Question,
  That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Ninth Resolution.
  put and agreed to.
  Question,
  That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Tenth Resolution,
  put and agreed to.
  Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith, with respect to each Resolution come to by the Committee of Supply and not yet agreed to by the House, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in that Resolution.

  SUPPLY [9th March]
    DEFENCE (ARMY ESTIMATES), 1964–65
      VOTE 1. PAY, &C., OF THE ARMY
      1. That a sum, not exceeding £156.610,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &c., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.
      VOTE 2. RESERVE FORCES, TERRITORIAL ARMY AND CADET FORCES
      2. That a sum, not exceeding £21,480,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 153,000, all ranks, including a number not exceeding 147,000 other ranks), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 221,000, all ranks), Cadet Forces and Malta Territorial Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

      VOTE 8. LANDS, BUILDINGS AND WORKS
      3. That a sum, not exceeding £9,670,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of lands, buildings and works, which will

      1321
      come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

      VOTE 9. MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES
      4. That a sum, not exceeding £2,480,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including grants in aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of M arch, 1965.
      VOTE 10. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES
      5. That a sum, not exceeding £35,140,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, including a grant in aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.
      VOTE 11. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS
      6. That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.
  ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1963–64

    ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1963–64
    7. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,500,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.

    Schedule

    Sums not exceeding

    Supply Grants

    Appropriations in Aid

    £

    £

    Vote

    1. Pay, etc., of the Army

    —

    *—1,300,000

    2. Reserve Forces, Territorial Army and Cadet Forces

    640,000

    *—300,000

    3. War Office

    160,000

    —

    4. Civilians at Out-stations

    2,480,000

    230,000

    6. Supplies

    210,000

    400,000

    7. Stores and Equipment

    Cr. 8,800,000

    *—2,500,000

    8. Lands, Buildings and Works

    1,120,000

    *—220,000

    9. Miscellaneous Effective Services

    8,360,000

    170,000

    10. Non-effective Services

    330,000

    *—70,000

    Total, Army (Supplementary), 1963–64 £

    4,500,000

    *—3,590,000

    * Deficit

  DEFENCE (ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES) ESTIMATE, 1964–65
    ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES
    8. That a sum, not exceeding £2,400,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of operating the Royal Ordnance Factories, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.
  DEFENCE (ARMY) PURCHASING (REPAYMENT) SERVICES ESTIMATE, 1964–65
    PURCHASING (REPAYMENT) SERVICES
    9. That a sum, not exceeding £2 million, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expenditure incurred by the Army Department on the supply of munitions, common-user and other articles for the Government service and on miscellaneous supply, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.
  DEFENCE (AIR) ESTIMATES, 1964–65
    VOTE 1. PAY, ETC., OF THE AIR FORCE
    10. That a sum, not exceeding £136,500,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.
    VOTE 2. RESERVE AND AUXILIARY SERVICES
    11. That a sum, not exceeding £809,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services and cadet forces (to a number not exceeding 44,240, all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and 1.260, all ranks, for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.
    VOTE 7 AIRCRAFT AND STORES
    12. That a sum, not exceeding £234,250,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of aircraft and stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st city of March, 1965.
    VOTE 9. MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES
    13. That a sum, not exceeding £350,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services including certain grants in aid and a subscription to the World Meteorological Organisation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

  AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1963–64
  14. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,900,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, for expenditure, including a grant in aid, beyond the sum

  1323
  already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year.

  Schedule

  Sums not exceeding

  Supply Grants

  Appropriations in Aid

  £

  £

  Vote

  1. Pay, etc., of the Air Force

  Cr. 500,000

  800,000

  3. Air Ministry

  198,500

  —

  4. Civilians at Out-stations and the Meteorological Office

  1,700,000

  —

  5. Movements

  Cr. 500,000

  500,000

  6. Supplies

  300,000

  300,000

  7. Aircraft and Stores

  —

  3,000,000

  8. Lands and Works

  700,000

  *—700,000

  9. Miscellaneous Effective Services

  1,500

  —

  11, Additional Married Quarters

  —

  *—400,000

  Total, Air (Supplementary), 1963–64 £

  1,900,000

  3,500,000

  * Deficit.

DEFENCE (NAVY) ESTIMATES, 1964–65
  VOTE 1. PAY, ETC., OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES
  15. That a sum, not exceeding £84,222,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.
SUPPLY [2nd March]
  DEFENCE (NAVY) ESTIMATES, 1964–65
    VOTE A. NUMBERS
    That 103,000 Officers, Ratings and Royal Marines be maintained for Naval Service, for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965.
SUPPLY [3rd March]
  DEFENCE (AIR) ESTIMATES, 1964–65
    VOTE A. NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE
    That a number of Officers, Airmen and Airwomen, not exceeding 140,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965.
SUPPLY [5th march]
  DEFENCE (ARMY) ESTIMATES, 1964–65

    VOTE A. NUMBER OF LAND FORCES
    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.
    Resolutions agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [11th March]
Resolutions reported,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ended the 31st day of March, 1963, the sum of £10 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, the sum of £60,602.600 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, the sum of £2,542,649,100 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
Resolutions agreed to.
But ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Green.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2)
Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March, 1963, 1964 and 1965, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 104.]
AGRICULTURE (MARKETING)
Aberdeen and District Milk Marketing Scheme (Application to Banff) (Amendment) Order, 1964 [draft laid before the House, 27th February], approved.—[Mr. Stodart.]

POLICE (PENSIONS)
9.35 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): I beg to move,
That the Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations, 1964, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.

1325
These Regulations are entirely consequential upon the passing of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act, 1964. Their object is simply to enable children's allowances payable under the Police Pensions Regulations to continue to bear the same relationship as they do at present to National Insurance children's allowances when the changes introduced by the recent Act take effect. The Regulations also enable certain police children's allowances to be increased by amounts corresponding to the increases in National Insurance benefits provided by the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act, 1964. They make certain other minor related adjustments.
The Police Councils for England and Wales and for Scotland have been consulted and are in agreement with the proposal that these changes should be made. The Regulations provide that they should come into operation on 30th March, 1964, the date on which the changes in National Insurance benefits will take effect.
Question put and agreed to

LICENSING BILL [Lords]
Considered in Committee.
[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 204 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.

Schedule 5.—(REQUIREMENTS TO BE COM- PLIED WITH BY CLUB'S APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE.)
9.38 p.m.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I beg to move, in page 134, line 11, to leave out "so".
This word "so" came to be inserted in paragraph 8 of the Schedule. It did not appear in the Schedule which preceded it, namely, Schedule 6 of the Licensing Act, 1961. It really amounts to what might be called a printing error, and I apologise to the Committee for its appearance there.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 6 to 15 agreed to.
Bill repotted, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time and passed, with an Amendment.

TELEVISION BILL [Lords]
Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL (SALARY)
[Queen's Recommendation signified]
Considered in Committee.
[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the rate of the salary which may be granted to he Comptroller and Auditor General under Section 1 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1957 be increased from seven thousand pounds to eight thousand two hundred and eighty-five pounds per annum, and the date from which, under subsection (3) of that section, the person now holding that Office is entitled to a salary at the said increased rate be the first day of August, nineteen hundred and sixty-three.—[Mr. Green.]
9.43 p.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: I was hoping that we should have a word of explanation of this Motion. This is not an unimportant matter. In no sense would I wish to oppose the recommendation. In fact, I am entirely in favour of it. But this is a matter of vital interest to the House of Commons and it is very appropriate that there should be a Motion o a the Order Paper dealing with the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is appropriate that this salary, unlike the salaries of all other civil servants, should require an express vote of approval by a Committee of the House, because the Comptroller and Auditor General stands in a position of special responsibility to the House of Commons quite different from that of any other civil servant. It is therefore of great interest to a Committee of the House of Commons to deal with his salary and to ensure that it is adequate for the very special responsibilities which he has to bear.

1327
The proposal is that the salary should be increased from the present figure of £7,000 to £8,285 per annum. I have no doubt that there is a good reason for that figure, and I do not want it to be any less. When I think of the salaries paid to Dr. Beeching and others it does not seem at all an unreasonable figure, but I think that we are entitled to know whether it is the right figure and how it compares with the salaries paid to other people in Her Majesty's service of comparative status.
I hope that we may have some indication whether the Government are completely satisfied that this figure should operate from 1st August, 1963. I do not quarrel with that date, but I think that we should be assured that the figure is appropriate and will ensure that the House of Commons secures the services as Comptroller and Auditor General of someone on whom we can rely with implicit confidence, as we do on the present incumbent of that office, bearing in mind the great responsibility which he must discharge.
As has been pointed out, this Motion will have the effect of antedating this increased rate to 1st August, 1963. In ordinary circumstances we do not favour retrospective operations of that kind, but I have no doubt that in this case there are good reasons for it. However, I think that we require a word of explanation, from the Government spokesman.
Mr. E. G. Willis: Like my hon Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), I do not wish to raise any serious objection to this increase or to the amount which it is proposed shall be paid to the Comptroller and Auditor General. The job which he does is exceedingly important, much more so than those jobs which are done by people who are paid much higher salaries. One appreciates the importance of his work when one realises the enormous sums of money which are checked by the Comptroller and Auditor General and which he audits on our behalf. This amount is moderate when compared with the salaries which we discussed earlier and which are paid to people who do little more than act as propagandists for the Tory Central Office. Nevertheless, I
1328
should like to ask how this figure comes to be placed before us.
I am not questioning it but I am interested to note that the figure represents an increase of 20 per cent. I do not know when last the salary was raised. It might have been four or five years ago and, if so, the figure works out roughly at about 4 per cent. which has been recognised as the increase which should be granted. In order to put what appears to be a large increase in proper perspective we ought to be told when the salary was last raised and the period during which it is expected that this figure will last. I presume that it will be for another year or two, by which time the increase will be quite moderate.
When we look at some of the salaries, such as those paid to Cabinet Ministers, we ought to consider whether we pay sufficient to our public servants. There is no doubt that this is an exceedingly responsible job. The Comptroller and Auditor General acts on behalf of the taxpayers and he does a very good job, as can be appreciated from the reports which he sends to the Public Accounts Committee and the manner in which he draws attention to various irregularities in the accounts which he has to audit. Depending on the manner in which it is carried out, this job can either save or waste millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money. It is an exceedingly important post and its position resembles, I believe, that of Ministers, about whose pay many of us are also concerned at present.
Mr. James H. Hoy: This is one salary that the House has to fix and, just like our own salary, it is open to public debate. The Comptroller and Auditor General is a servant of the House and not of the Treasury and we have to decide whether he is to receive a salary not less than that of other people. That is the mistake. I think that this should be considered as if he were doing a job similar to that of a Permanent Secretary to a Department.
We should be grateful that the present Comptroller and Auditor General is a man of such standing, because he has to keep an eye on public expenditure. One of the things that I am sure must

1329
be worrying him at present is that, in the changes in Government administration, a considerable amount of expenditure footed by the public does not come within his purview. I am sure it worries him as it worries members of the Public Accounts Committee. Over the years we have seen, by his reports, how efficient the Comptroller and Auditor General is. There is no doubt that, as a result of his work and that of those who serve with him, many millions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been saved.
I think, therefore, that we should consider whether we could not devise some other method of dealing with his salary. It it always a little invidious that, every time his salary has to be made up to match administrative arrangements in Government Departments, the House has to vote for or against the increase. I hope that we shall devise a system allowing his salary to be treated in a way similar to those of Permanent Secretaries.
An example of the invidious position in which he is placed is that he will now be due for back pay to August last year, when the salaries of his counterparts were increased. This is a distasteful situation for a great public servant to be in. He has done a wonderful job for the country and the taxpayers and I hope that, in the review of salaries of Ministers and hon. Members, consideration is given to the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Green): I am happy to respond to the invitation to say something about the Motion. I join hon. Members opposite in paying tribute to the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General. This House is vastly, deeply and continuously indebted to him not only for the expert way in which he does his work but for the deep conscience he shows in carrying out his duties. We are all extremely grateful to him.
The salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General, going as far back as 1866—quite a respectable precedent—has been equal to that of the head of a major Government Department. The Motion applies to him increases which have already been applied to those comparable heads of major Government Departments. It is, therefore, very properly made retro-
1330
spective to the same date on which those individuals had increases.
There has been a small delay for a reason which I hope will be acceptable to the Committee and which, I am sure, does not worry the Comptroller and Auditor General himself. It is because of the rather abstruse question of settling the London weighting, as it is known, which is a method of a particular increase applicable to those who in certain circumstances have to work in London. It did not seem right—it seemed slightly derogatory of the Comptroller and Auditor General's special position—to bring forward one increase and then a quite trifling increase on a second occasion. I am sure that it is will' his agreement that on this one occasion the two elements of the increase are put together in the single Motion and made retrospective to 1st August, last year.
His position is unique. He is appointed by the Crown by Letters Patent and is removable only on an Address to the Crown by both Houses of Parliament, thus ensuring his independence of the Executive. This is what hon. and right hon. Members most cherish about his position and his ability to discharge his functions. He is genuinely and completely independent of the Executive and in a true sense the servant of all Members of the House of Commons. His salary is paid out of the Consolidated Fund and it is therefore very proper that it is only by Resolution of this House that his salary can he increased. Personally. I believe it to be a very happy occasion to be able to move the Motion and to join in the tributes already expressed.
Mr. F. Blackburn: As the hon. Gentleman says that the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General is approximate to that of heads of Government Departments, could not the Committee pass a Resolution so that whenever there is an increase in the salaries of those heads of Departments, the salary of he Comptroller and Auditor General would automatically be increased by the same figure? I agree that it is invidious that the salary of one man should be brought before us every time there is to be an increase. We know how invidious it is in the case of Members of Parliament when we have to decide our own salary, hut we should not continue tie present practice of having

1331
this salary brought before the Committee on each occasion it is increased. I am sure that it would be possible to pass a Resolution on the lines I have suggested, and I should like to hear the hon. Gentleman's reaction to that suggestion.
Mr. Green: Speaking without taking advice on the matter, I am certain that we could pass a Resolution to make the movements in the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General automatic. I am sure that that would be within the power of the Committee. However, my own private thought on the matter, which could not be binding on any hon. or right hon. Member as a proposition—it is not made in that spirit—is that while I see the point of making the increase automatic, because it is not automatic we have the chance when these Motions come before us to say what from time to time we all wish to say—our public thanks to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
These occasions give us the opportunity to do that and they also serve to remind us not only of the history of his post, but of the special independent status attached to it. I for one feel that from time to time it is worth reminding ourselves, even if it involves passing a special Motion, of the underlying facts in this institution of ours.
Mr. Fletcher: Would not the Minister agree that there may well be another reason why it is desirable that this Motion should come before us every time an increase is required, namely, that this House may one day decide that it is not sufficient that the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General—
It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL (SALARY)
Again considered in Committee.
Mr. Fletcher: I was saying that there may well be other very good reasons why this Motion should be brought before us from time to time. I am not sure that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) that it would be a good idea if, by a Resolution of the House, the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor-General were necessarily equated with that of the principal officers in particular Government Departments.
Mr. Blackburn: I suggested that because the Minister said that it had been the practice for the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to approximate to that of the head of a Department. If that is the case, and if the practice is likely to continue, I think that it would be a good idea to pass a Resolution to that effect.
Mr. Fletcher: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point of view, but I was saying that I would not be in agreement with a Resolution of the House that the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor-General should automatically for ever be equated with the salary of the head of a particular Government Department. My opinion—and I think that this view has been expressed by various hon. Members is that the position, responsibility, prestige, and duties, of the Comptroller and Auditor-General are something very special.
I am not persuaded that his salary should necessarily be no more than that of the head of a Government Department. My experience is that his responsibilities are increasing. His overall responsibility for examining the financial undertakings of every Government Department, and his special duties to this House, are becoming increasingly important as the whole ambit of Government expenditure increases and as the difficulties of hon. Members in having real control over Government expenditure increases. I think that in the near future there may well be a case for recognising those increasing responsibilities and seeing that his salary is perhaps greater than that of some of

1333
the principal officers of Government Departments. I, therefore, think it desirable that the House should have a continuous watch over it, and be able to examine it from time to time to see whether it is reasonable that it should be equated with that of other principal officers, or whether it should be greater. I hope, therefore, that the present procedure will continue.
Mr. A. Woodburn: Everyone desires that this matter should be dealt with fairly and quickly, but the Minister raised doubts in my mind when he spoke about delay. I am not an expert on the mysteries of Income Tax, and I hope the Minister will make certain that the Comptroller and Auditor General is paid his arrears in this financial year so that he will not have to pay Income Tax twice on the amount that he receives.
Mr. Green: Normally income is taxed in the year to which it relates, and this is specifically related back to 1st August, 1963.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: I apologise to the Committee for having been inadvertently delayed. It was my express wish to speak earlier in the debate on this Motion. As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee it is a great pleasure to me to support the Motion. It is very unusual for pay increases to be accompanied by expressions of thanks—usually the money is allowed to sneak for itself—but on this occasion the Public Accounts Committee wishes to place on record its great appreciation of the services of the Comptroller and Auditor General. In this Session particularly I have had occasion to be very grateful for the services of this valuable servant of the House.
I understand that it had been suggested that this is perhaps not the most appropriate way of dealing with the salary of the Comptroller. I understand that years ago it required a special Act of Parliament to do it—which would have been more distasteful still. I have no doubt that it would be more agreeable to any officer of the House or public servant to have his salary adjusted from time to time in traditional fashion in relation to the changes in salary levels of comparable grades in the Civil Ser-
1334
vice, and not to be subject to this special measure of adjustment.
Many hon. Members would wish for the same thing. They would desire that the pay of Members of Parliament should be linked with some grade or class in the Civil Service, which would enable Parliamentary salaries automatically to be adjusted as changes took place in public service salaries. That might be an easy way out of the distasteful but nevertheless necessary operation of doing certain things publicly, being seen to do them, and taking full responsibility for doing them.
In this case none of us is personally involved, but it is one of the drawbacks of this high office that the pay of the Comptroller has to be distinguished from that of mar y officers of a similar rank in the Civil Service, and to be dealt with specially by this House. But when this exercise is accompanied by universal expressions of appreciation and thanks, surely the distasteful elements are compensated by that appreciation, which we sincerely feel.
The country would be a great deal worse off without officers of the integrity of the Comptroller and Auditor General. His responsibilities to the House and to the country are very great, and in making his reports Le has to be impartial. He has to weigh his words carefully, because they will be taken up. Publicity is given to matters on which he reports to the House, and discussion takes place upon them. I need scarcely say that the Public Accounts Committee equally has a very heavy responsibility in examining the reports of d e Comptroller and Auditor General and interrogating accounting officers upon it.
I have spoken for rather longer than I would have expected to do if I had been in my place at the proper time. In that sense I am perhaps making amends for my absence. I warmly support the Motion, and I am sure that the whole House will approve it with a great sense of satisfaction with the services of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Question putt and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the rat of the salary which may be granted to the Comptroller and Auditor General under section 1 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1957 be increased from

1335
seven thousand pounds to eight thousand two hundred and eighty-five pounds per annum, and the date from which, under subsection (3) of that section, the person now holding that Office is entitled to a salary at the said increased rate be the first day of August, nineteen hundred and sixty-three.
Resolution to be reported.
Report to be received Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS
Considered in Committee.
[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Merchant Shipping
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable into the Exchequer under the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Act 1949 which is attributable to any Act of the present Session to enable effect to be given to an International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea signed in London on 17th June, 1960.—[Mr. Green.]
10.11 p.m.
Mr. Stan Awbery: I wish to say a word on the subject of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. If we allow this Motion to pass tonight without any explanation it will give the impression that this matter is not important whereas it is very important to seamen. It is 50 years this year since the first Convention was established after the sinking of the "Lusitania". A Commission was set up at that time and out of that Commission arose the first Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. Since that Commission was established there have been four Conventions, one after the other, and this is the fourth.
I congratulate the Government on spending this money, but I want to voice some criticism about the way in which it has been done. The Commission sat in 1960 and prepared a report, but only two months ago our Government decided to sign the Convention. It was
1336
necessary to have 15 signatures to the Convention before it could become operative. Six of those nations must be shipping nations and there were only five. Two months ago the Government decided to sign the Convention. Twelve months after the signature of the Government is put to the document the Convention becomes operative. There has been considerable delay because our Government delayed in signing. I ask the Government that in future Conventions such as this there will be no delay such as we have had on this occasion.
The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but it seems that this is a very narrow Resolution that we are debating. The question is whether
"it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable into the Exchequer under the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Act".
Expenditure out of the Exchequer is not included in this Resolution.
Mr. Awbery: I want to show how the money is to be spent. We are asking for the money to be spent on the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. If I am out of order, I shall bow to your Ruling, Sir William.
The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but that is the point. We cannot discuss expenditure of money out of the Exchequer because this Resolution deals merely with sums payable into the Exchequer.
Mr. Awbery: Could you tell us when we can raise the question of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea so that people will understand on what money is being spent?
The Chairman: On the stages of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to
Resolution to be reported.
Report to be received Tomorrow: Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

BRIDGE, BANGOR-ON-DEE
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacArthur.]
10.16 p.m.
Mrs. Eirene White: I am very happy to have this opportunity of raising two matters which concern my constituency, the first of which is also of wider and more general interest. These two matters, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, are the bridge at Bangor-on-Dee and, another subject which I should like to take the opportunity to mention and which I have previously raised in correspondence, the speed limit at the main road in Broughton in my constituency.
The bridge at Bangor-on-Dee, as the county archivist describes it,
"is one of the most famous and attractive bridges in the Welsh Marches".
The parish is called in Welsh Bangor Isycoed, and it has an even older title, Bangor Monachorum. Here we had one of the very earliest ecclesiastical seminaries known in the country, and there was a famous disputation between the monks and St. Augustine. I do not wish to go into all that history, but simply to emphasise that this most charming bridge is of historic interest in itself and also adds interest and grace to its historic surroundings.
The precise date of the building of the bridge is unknown, but it is recorded in the survey of the Royal Commission on Ancient Monuments in Wales and Monmouthshire as being of late fifteenth or early sixteenth century. It is thus of very considerable antiquity. It was betrayed in 1644 to the Parliamentary forces in the Civil War. It was repaired, as an ancient inscription on the bridge declares, in 1658. The name of Inigo Jones was associated with it, but I must be frank with the House and say that this may be only tradition. It is described in Pennant's famous "Tour of Wales" in the following words:
"The bridge is a beautiful light structure, and consists of five arches."
The description of the bridge in the Royal Commission's Report is:
This bridge of five arches spans the River Dee, connecting the village of Bangor with the parish of Sesswick in Denbighshire, and
1338
affording a passage for the high road to Wrexham and Ruabon. It is very narrow, the parapets being carried over the arches on each side so as to afford eight triangular shelters for foot passengers, and producing altogether a most pleasing effect."
The bridge is indeed very narrow, and I would emphasise this by the description, given by the county archivist, who says that the triple arch-rings are built in three orders. The parapets are slightly less than 11 feet apart. This bridge, which is one of antiquity and beauty, was clearly never built for modern traffic. It was built for pedestrians and packhorses. It was never intended for the kind of traffic which I myself have seen with my own eyes and of which I have had particulars supplied to me by the county surveyor of Flintshire.
I should perhaps say that I have been asked by my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones), to express his interest in the matter, though, as he has other duties in North Wales, he is not able to be here tonight. The bridge joins the two counties of Flintshire and Denbigshire. It is only right to say that both county councils are completely at one that some steps should be taken to secure the preservation from very severe damage to this bridge.
The bridge has suffered a series of accidents. One of the most serious occurred about three weeks ago, when 16 feet of parapet was knocked clean off the bridge into the water of the Dee. Part of the damage was to more modern concrete construction, but part of it was to original ancient sandstone. I went to see the damage. I have photographs here, and I see that the Parliamentary Secretary has also been supplied with photographs. Anyone who saw that damage would feel the distress that I felt.
Unfortunately, this is by no means the first or only accident. There are some very sinister cracks at one end of the bridge and there is some very ugly patching with concrete or cement where earlier accidents have taken place.
It was in 1955 that the Flintshire County Council first pressed the Ministry of Transport to agree to an alternative bridge and the short distance of road which would be necessary to connect the existing road with a new bridge.

1339
The scheme, which must be very well known to the Ministry by now, would have the other happy effect of by-passing the very charming village of Bangor. That would be an additional advantage.
There is no doubt that the county authorities have been asking that this scheme should be put into effect. Various traffic censuses have been taken from time to time. A rough check was made within the last couple of weeks when it became known that we were to have this discussion in the House. I have here the report of the Flintshire county surveyor, who made on one particular day a check of the heavy industrial traffic that goes over the bridge, which has a very sharp right angled turn at one end of it. Heavy lorries go to and from a nearby steelworks. The lorries carry scrap in one direction and ingots in the other. The load carried is 24 tons per vehicle.
Twelve such vehicles, making a double journey were counted on that day. There were another eight vehicles making similar double journeys carrying 24 tons. There were six 16-ton British Road Services vehicles, again making a double journey. There were milk factory lorries, fuel traffic and others. On one day there was a British Road Services articulated vehicle 30 feet long.
All these vehicles passed over that bridge on one day, and the surveyor says this:
"From this you will see that more than 100 lorries carrying loads over 16 tons, most of them carrying 24 tons, cross this bridge every day."
This day was chosen purely fortuitously because it was known that we were to have this discussion and so that we should have some up-to-date information.
I can only repeat that it is quite plain to anybody that the bridge was never intended to carry this traffic, that actual damage has been done to the bridge, and that it is surely incumbent on us as civilised people, to preserve this artifact of older days which was beautifully designed and built and not allow this damage to continue.
The matter was brought to my attention in the first place by the Maelor Rural District Council which is most deeply concerned. There has been correspondence with the Ministry of
1340
Transport and with the Ministry of Public Building and Works, which is responsible for the structure of the bridge, because it is a scheduled ancient monument, and which has expressed its anxiety.
I have with me a letter dated 10th February from the Cardiff office of the Ministry of Public Building and Works. It stated:
"We have also been much concerned about the damage being sustained by the bridge for a considerable time and have previously made representations to the Ministry of Transport about the building of the new bypass to relieve traffic over the bridge. Unfortunately…our efforts…have…so far been unsuccessful."
I also have a friendly and interesting letter from Lord Brecon, Minister of State for Welsh Affairs, who wrote:
"I have asked the Ministry…to keep me informed on this matter and I will write to you again as soon as I know the result of their latest approach."
Another letter from the Minister of Transport stated that the Ministry had
"…every hope that the scheme will find a place in the programme quite soon."
What I want from the Minister tonight is an interpretation of the phrase "quite soon". I hope that he will not give a long reply to this debate. All we need is the date because the matter has been agreed in principle. There seems to be no dispute in principle between any of the authorities concerned—the local authorities and the Ministry—and all we need, therefore, is the determination to show that we have got some sense of values in this matter and that this project, which would not require a vast expenditure but which would bring great advantage in many ways, should be proceeded with.
It should be made clear that the project would result in great advantage to traffic in the area. The bridge is extremely narrow with a bad approach, particularly at one end, and is a single track. Traffic must be held up because of the single track arrangement and in the summer, when there is a vast increase in the amount of traffic using the bridge, particularly long trailers and caravans as well as private cars, great difficulty is experienced. In addition, the local railway has been closed and there is really no alternative for traffic but to use this road.

1341
There is a longer route which can be taken and a diversion notice for heavy vehicles has been erected, but anyone who knows the district will appreciate that to use this road and the bridge is so much more convenient that it is understandable that heavy lorries should ignore the diversion sign and go over the bridge, with the lamentable consequences I have described. I hope I have made a sufficiently strong case to receive a positive reply from the Minister. I trust that I will receive a definite but not long reply, for only a date is necessary.
Since the Minister need utter only a few words in reply, I will take this opportunity to refer to another difficulty, the section of road at Broughton, about which I have had correspondence with the Ministry for some time. I am concerned with a part of the road which is not fully built up on both sides but, as anyone who knows the district appreciates, it is dangerous to drive at speed on this section.
Without going into all the details—and realising that the Minister has, no doubt, been informed of them—I will only say that there is no continuous building on one side of the road, but there is on the other. The inhabitants on the side which is built up must cross the road frequently to go to bus stops, post office, the village institute and so on, and the latter is used by children and young people. When holiday traffic is about the road is much used and my appeal is strongly supported by the chief constable of Flintshire and the Flintshire county surveyor, who has stated in a letter:
"I, too, have received many representations about the desirability of having a speed limit on the section of road at Broughton which you mention and I have repeatedly put them forward to the Ministry. Indeed, I have argued the case until I felt that the muscular strength it gave to my jaw would last me the rest of my life'."
Anyone who compares this part of the road with other roads in the county on which speed limits are fixed will agree that there is no reason why this road should be left without a speed limit. If the Minister will not agree to a speed limit of 30 m.p.h. he should at least agree to one of 40 m.p.h.—anything to sound a cautionary note to people who drive through, particularly if they do not
1342
know the area. Holiday makers, in particular, do not know the local circumstances and this, with other things, causes great difficulty.
10.30 p.m.
Sir Hendrie Oakshott: I wish strongly to support the remarks of the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) about this bridge. It is one that t have known from boyhood. It is a very beautiful and ancient bridge. The hon. Lily has also drawn attention to the fact that the authorities concerned are agreed that there must be a replacement or an alternative for it. They have agreed where this alternative should be, the location of the access roads to it, and so forth. All that is wanted is the money to enable the work to be done.
I urge on my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary most strongly that he should exert every effort to persuade whoever is responsible—the Chancellor of the Exchequer or his own Minister—to deal with the matter—not soon, as he has told the hon. Lady, but as a matter of urgency. If the traffic is allowed much longer to use the bridge in the way that it is, there will be nothing left of the bridge. The damage that has been done progressively is spoiling a very beautiful thing.
I do not suppose there are many Members who know the bridge. It is not far from where I live. The hon. Lady has mentioned her hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones). I am sure that he and his brother, the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones), know it very well. It is a very striking example of ancient architecture. It is scheduled as an historical monument and it should be preserved. It is very narrow, as the hon. Lady said, for it was b lilt for the passage of pack horses. Today, it is like the eye of a needle, in view of the modern traffic which uses it and the wide loads that are carried.
I wonder how my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary would feel if a beautiful bridge over the River Doon, in his own county, were threatened by damage of his sort. I am sure that he would take a very strong line about it. Let me issue an invitation to him. Will he forsake the beauties of Ayrshire for one week end and come to stay with

1343
me? Perhaps the hon. Lady would join us. We could meet at Bangor Bridge and let my hon. Friend see it for himself. I think that the hon. Lady and I between us could convince my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that this work ought to be carried out at a very early date.
10.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott) for his very kind invitation. I do not know whether I speak for the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), but I expect that we would both, if we could manage it, like to take advantage of the invitation.
I do not know that I shall be able to give such a quick reply as the hon. Lady asked me to give. It is rare that ancient bridges and modern speed limits, which are scarcely related to each other, both find themselves discussed in the same debate, but I think that the thread that connects them is the modern inclination for rapid movement, which, in the hon. Lady's opinion, is too much for the good of this old bridge at Bangor and too quick for the safety of the street at Broughton.
What is the position? Let me deal, first, with the bridge. It is certainly a very ancient structure. The hon. Lady and I must have been doing our research out of the same book, because I agree with her that the bridge is reputed to have been designed by Inigo Jones and that it is known that it existed during the Civil War.
Mrs. White: The bridge is reputed to have been repaired by Inigo Jones. It was designed very much earlier.
Mr. Galbraith: If the hon. Lady is alluding to the mistake made in the Ordnance Survey Department, which says that the bridge was designed in 1063—
Mrs. White Mrs. White indicated dissent.
Mr. Galbraith: I see that she is not. At any rate, the bridge is built of red sandstone and has five spans and a total length of about 180 ft. It is quite long, but, unfortunately, it is only 10 ft. wide,
1344
which means that only one line of vehicles can pass over it and so it has to be controlled by traffic lights.
The narrowness of the bridge also presents some difficulty to pedestrians, but they can, I understand, if necessary take refuge in the wider sections over the piers of the bridge. There are also some acute bends at both ends of the bridge, and this from time to time encourages drivers of heavy vehicles to misjudge the entrance to the bridge, and as a result there have been, as the hon. Lady told us, numerous occasions when masonry has been dislodged and fallen into the river.
The hon. Lady referred to a recent instance of this unfortunate series of occurences, which not only entails great expense and also damage to a beautiful old structure but also creates, as I am sure the hon. Lady will appreciate, a potential hazard for both vehicles and pedestrians. However, I am glad to say that up to date no cases are recorded of either vehicles or pedestrians falling into the water. It is masonry only, fortunately, which gets wet, but I understand that it is usually fished up and put back into place. Indeed, in spite of these various vicissitudes which the bridge has suffered, our forefathers built it well, and the structure of the bridge remains sound.
I do not want to argue with the hon. Lady about this, because she obviously knows a great deal more about it than I do, but I have here some photographs which I have just received and it seems to me from them that the part of the bridge which was badly damaged looks a more recent addition than the bulk of the bridge, not that I say that as any form of excuse, but I hope I am right because, if so, I agree with the hon. Lady that I do not like the idea of an old bridge being needlessly and wantonly damaged in this way.
The road which goes over the bridge is the A.525, and this, as the hon. Lady told us, carries a substantial amount of industrial traffic going between the Midlands and the industrial area of North Wales. I will certainly take into account the figures which the hon. Lady has given us. She is to that extent one ahead of me. My information is that there has not been any recent traffic census, but I understand that the present traffic figure

1345
amounts to between 3,000 and 4,500 vehicles a day, and as the traffic is limited to one lane only, considerable delays occur as a result.
Up to this stage, I do not think that there is really very much difference between the hon. Lady, my hon Friend and myself. We all agree that the situation is, clearly unsatisfactory. The only question is: what is to be done about it? The local authorities' proposal, as the hon. Lady told us, is for the construction of a new length of road and a new bridge. On the Flintshire side of the river it would make a staggered junction with the Overton Road and it would rejoin the existing road near Abbeygate. So, in addition to relieving the problem of the bridge, it would also provide a bypass for Bangor village.
The hon. Lady said that it would not cost a great deal altogether. In fact, the money involved would be £300,000. In principle, the scheme is entirely acceptable to us and it has been given a very high priority, as I expect the hon. Lady knows, by the two county councils concerned. It was among the schemes which were carefully considered for inclusion in the rolling programme of classified roads for schemes between 1965 and 1968, but in view of the tremendous number of competing schemes, all of which had a very strong claim, I am sorry to say that it was not then possible to include it in my right hon. Friend's programme.
As the hon. Lady will appreciate, my right hon. Friend has to consider the claims of a great many schemes throughout the country, and all of them are, unfortunately, like this bridge, of prime local significance, and people in the locality feel very strongly about them, and since they cannot all be dealt with at once, it is necessary to choose those which are of the greatest general importance.
The Minister's funds, though they have increased a great deal lately, are necessarily limited by all the other claims on the national purse, and in the road programme itself there are the other urgent claims of motorways and trunk road requirements which must be considered. In the field of local authority roads, even before the Buchanan Report was published, increasing weight was having to be given to the needs of the
1346
conurbations to ensure that this ever-increasing road traffic could be kept moving.
I know that all this sounds very depressing to the hon. Lady and to my hon. Friend, but in spite of this competition, I can assure them both that the rural areas will certainly not be overlooked in the allocation of funds. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Minister is expecting within a few months to announce the next extension of the rolling programme to include schemes for 1968ߝ69 I cannot, of course, make any promises, but this scheme will certainly be considered for inclusion in that programme, and the fact that the highway authorities attach such a high priority to its inclusion will have considerable weight.
That is as far as I can go tonight on the question of a replacement of the bridge by a new road——
Sir H. Oakshott Sir H. Oakshott rose——
Mr. Galbraith: No, I have not finished.
I have a proposition to make to the hon. Lady, which, I hope, she will accept in the spirit in which it is made
If the hon. Lady really wants to do something about this bridge—and I know what a persuasive and persistent advocate she is—there is no reason why heavy traffic should not be diverted from the bridge at Bangor so as to go through Overton. The hon. Lady has referred to the distances; I understand that it is 19 miles, as against 16 miles from Whitchurch to Wrexham. I know that signs already exist pointing out to lorries that they can use the road but, at the moment, the signs do not have any legal effect. It would be possible, however, for the county councils to make an order under Section 26 of the Traffic Act forbidding certain classes of vehicles to use the bridge.
The Minister would need to confirm such an order, but the primary responsibility for making it is with the county councils. The chief difficulty I envisage would probably be in enforcing the order and, of course, before making an order the councils must first consult the chief officer of police. So though the ultimate solution of a replacement lies with the Minister, I think that as far as an immediate palliative goes I can

1347
quite fairly say to the hon. Lady, "Over to you"—at least for the time being.
I have, in fact, got a small, narrow bridge rather like this—except that it is rather prettier, being a Scottish one—near my own home, and I am extremely sympathetic with the hon. Lady, perhaps because the entrances to this bridge are being knocked down in much the same way as she mentions, I therefore hope that she will take that action, and stimulate the local authorities to take legal powers to divert such traffic the few miles involved.
I want now to turn to the question of a speed limit at Broughton, in which I know the hon. Lady has interested herself before. The village is on the A.549, which is a Class I road. As to the conditions, nearly all the houses, the church and the school are to the south of the road, but a few buildings, including the Institute and the sub-post office, are on the north side of it. Very few houses have direct access on to the main road, the bulk being situated, in accordance with modern planning principles, on service roads or internal estate roads.
In 1961 the county council sought the Minister's agreement to the making of an order to impose a speed limit of 40 m.p.h. on the length of road from the junction with A.55, by the church, to just beyond the junction with A.5104. The Minister was unable to agree, because 30 or 40 m.p.h. speed
1348
limits are only appropriate to roads having most of the characteristics of a built-up area. At Broughton, the land is developed on only one side of the road, and only on a short length are the houses close to it. Vehicular accesses are few and well spaced.
These are not the conditions one normally associates with urban surroundings and, unless the conditions are such as one associates with rural surroundings, motorists will not obey a speed limit. The police records for the period 1956–61 show that there were only 45 accidents, of which only four were attributed to excessive speed. This accident record did not suggest to my right hon. Friend the need for a speed limit on a road which has so little of the appearance of being a built-up area would be right and proper. If, however, conditions have changed since then—and the hon. Lady has told us about her concern—although we have not had any further representations—and if the county council can demonstrate that a change is taking place, I can assure her that a renewed application for a speed limit would be most carefully considered and that, in that consideration, all that she has said tonight would be most particularly and closely kept in mind.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Chartered Accountants
  Chartered Accountants
  Sweets and Ice Cream (Purchase Tax)
  Sweets and Ice Cream (Purchase Tax)
  State Lottery
  State Lottery
  International Development Association
  International Development Association
  Soft Drinks (Purchase Tax)
  Soft Drinks (Purchase Tax)
  Fuel Tax (Public Transport Vehicles)
  Fuel Tax (Public Transport Vehicles)
  Central Scotland
  Central Scotland
  Customs (Seizure of Books)
  Customs (Seizure of Books)
  Citanest 30 (Purchase Tax)
  Citanest 30 (Purchase Tax)
  Incomes Policy (Wages and Dividends)
  Incomes Policy (Wages and Dividends)
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
  Monthly Trade Figures
  Monthly Trade Figures
HONG KONG
  Refugees
  Refugees
  Public Servants (Disciplinary Action)
  Public Servants (Disciplinary Action)
ADEN
  Trade Union Congress Offices (Police Search)
  Trade Union Congress Offices (Police Search)
FIJI
  Development Plan
  Development Plan
NEW HEBRIDES
  Advisory Council
  Advisory Council
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Mrs. S. Orton
  Mrs. S. Orton
  Glen Douglas, Dunbartonshire
  Glen Douglas, Dunbartonshire
  National Building Agency
  National Building Agency
  Royal Palaces (Estimates)
  Royal Palaces (Estimates)
TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
  Institutions of Higher Education (Assistance)
  Institutions of Higher Education (Assistance)
  Mining and Geology (Report)
  Mining and Geology (Report)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Management and Staffing (Committees)
  Management and Staffing (Committees)
  Metropolitan Water Board
  Metropolitan Water Board
  Site Value Rating
  Site Value Rating
  Rate Relief
  Rate Relief
  Land (Acquisition)
  Land (Acquisition)
RAILWAYS
  Transport Users' Consultative Committee (Procedure)
  Transport Users' Consultative Committee (Procedure)
  Proposed Closure, Shoreham-Horsham Line
  Proposed Closure, Shoreham-Horsham Line
ROADS
  Preston-Blackpool Road
  Preston-Blackpool Road
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Property, Queensway (Rent)
  Property, Queensway (Rent)
  Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act, 1958
  Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act, 1958
  Administration of Justice Act, 1956
  Administration of Justice Act, 1956
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  River Severn
  River Severn
  Plants (Fluoroacetates)
  Plants (Fluoroacetates)
  Small Farmer Scheme
  Small Farmer Scheme
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Students, United Kingdom
  Students, United Kingdom
  NAZI CONCENTRATION CAMPS (BRITISH NATIONALS)
  NAZI CONCENTRATION CAMPS (BRITISH NATIONALS)
  FOREIGN SERVICE (RECRUITMENT)
  FOREIGN SERVICE (RECRUITMENT)
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Industrial Development, Wales
  Industrial Development, Wales
  Trade Centre, New York
  Trade Centre, New York
  British Lion Films Limited
  British Lion Films Limited
UNIVERSITIES
  University of Strathclyde (Charter)
  University of Strathclyde (Charter)
SCIENCE
  Belgian Reactor (Running Costs)
  Belgian Reactor (Running Costs)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Burntwood Exchange, Staffordshire
  Burntwood Exchange, Staffordshire
POST OFFICE
  New Head Office, Lichfield
  New Head Office, Lichfield
SCOTLAND
  Technical Colleges (Building Programme)
  Technical Colleges (Building Programme)

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

GERMAN LAND PURCHASES IN IRELAND
2.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: 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 in their view the large-scale purchase of land in Western Ireland by German nationals constitutes a potential threat to the security of the United Kingdom.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): No, my Lords.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, while I am glad to receive the gracious reply of the noble Leader, and while I am aware of the full sovereignty of the Irish Republic, may I ask this question? Will Her Majesty's Government not agree that the safeguarding of our Western Approaches is of high strategical importance, and that if in the event of war these were to fall into unfriendly hands, the survival of both Southern and Northern Ireland and of the United Kingdom would be in danger? Will Her Majesty's Government keep a watchful eye on these developments, if necessary conferring with the Government of Southern Ireland?
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question?
LORD SALTOUN: Order, order!
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: I should have thought that this matter was nothing whatever to do with us.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the Federal Republic of Germany is our Ally and a member of NATO. I must say
710
to my noble friend that there are other events in the world which personally cause me more concern than this.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: While I fully realise that Germany is our Ally, would Her Majesty's Government not agree that twice bitten, as we have been in the last fifty years, means twenty times shy? And have they, by any chance, ever read that novel by that great Anglo-Irishman, Mr. Erskine Childers, The Riddle of the Sands?
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl does not understand that today is St. Patrick's Day.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, that is in fact why I am asking the Government this Question to-day.

AVAILABILITY OF GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS IN THE NORTH
2.38 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: 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 why Government publications are not available in the Northern cities until some time after they are offered for sale in London; whether they are aware that this practice places Northern commercial interests at some disadvantage compared with the South; and why steps cannot be taken to secure simultaneous availability at all H.M. Stationery Offices.]
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM): My Lords, non-Parliamentary publications are normally published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office simultaneously in its London and regional bookshops at the opening of business on the day of publication. The principal Stationery Office agents also have supplies of the more important papers on the same day. It is not generally practicable to achieve simultaneous, countrywide publication of Parliamentary Papers in the same way, mainly because they often have to be produced at short notice which allows no time for distribution outside London before publication, but also because they must not

711
be released to the public before they are made available to Parliament. Although it is therefore unavoidable that Northern interests may be at some disadvantage with Parliamentary Papers, the Stationery Office tries to limit this with important Papers so far as possible and is considering whether anything more can be done.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply, in spite of the fact that it is completely unsatisfactory. I would ask the noble Viscount whether he is aware that Manchester is an important centre where there is an office of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, and that I have here a long list of publications which have not been available to Manchester's businessmen until two days after they have been made freely available in London.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord would give me particulars, I will certainly have them looked into. I think he realises that the question of Parliamentary Privilege is something on which not only Members of another place but also we in this House place great importance. If he will give me any particulars, I will have them looked at.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I will certainly do that. I am conscious that there is no question of the abuse of Parliamentary Privilege. I would ask whether the Government would consider the extension of equal facilities outside London. Particularly in view of the fact that businesses are being urged to withdraw their offices from London, equal facilities should be made available elsewhere.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: My Lords, as I said in the last part of my Answer, the Stationery Office will consider whether anything more can be done. This is certainly an undertaking which I can give.
LORD PEDDIE: I thank the noble Viscount.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government a question arising directly out of the noble Lord's Question? Having regard to the difficulties which quite
712
clearly exist in communication between Scotland and London, and, in particular, the suburbs of London, may I ask whether they will not make a practice of allowing much more time than they are in the habit of doing at the moment between the Second Reading of a Bill affecting Scotland and its Committee stage? Further, are Her Majesty's Government aware that it is extremely difficult in the limited time available to get reasoned replies from one's authors in Scotland on matters affecting these Public Bills?
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: My Lords, on the last part of the noble Lord's question, he doubtless has his own personal experience, and I cannot comment on that. But, on his first supplementary, I would comment that in fact the difficulties of Scotland are not so great as the difficulties the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, had in mind, because in fact all Scottish Parliamentary Papers are published simultaneously in Edinburgh and London.

AIR CONDITIONING OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
2.42 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 will have the atmosphere in the debating Chamber of the House of Lords examined to ascertain what action would be necessary to remove the soporific qualities now existing there.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I hope we are all agreed that your Lordships' debates generate light rather than heat. However, my right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works, guided perhaps by experience of debate in another place, is examining a scheme for the installation of air conditioning in your Lordships' Chamber.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that, after the other place was bombed in 1941, your Lordships allowed the

713
Commons to come and sit here and the same question was raised then? The answer given amounted to the fact that the money could not be afforded during the war.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, may I ask a supplementary question? Would not Her Majesty's Government admit that there is no possibility of dealing satisfactorily with this question without the aid of a Committee to tell them so, unless they interfere with one of the fundamental rights of a British subject, freedom of speech?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think there is the other fundamental right—the freedom of sleep. I have considerable sympathy with my noble friend's point here, and we all recall the fate which befell a certain noble Duke in your Lordships' House. I think it was an ancestor of my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire who dreamt that he was making a speech in your Lordships' House, and woke up and found that he was.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a little quiet contemplation after luncheon in the Library is most advantageous in getting over this condition?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, as an interim measure, it would be possible to place basins or some other water container near the radiators so that the humidity of the Chamber was kept at a reasonable level?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, a number of expedients have been examined and, in fact, tried out, but I should like to assure your Lordships that it is our hope that it may be possible to install this air conditioning system during 1965, subject, of course, to an essential proviso—if funds permit.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, could my noble friend tell the House whether the air we are breathing is pumped up to us through the carpet on which we walk into the Chamber?
EARL JELLICOE: Yes, my Lords, that is my understanding.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, might I ask whether the noble Earl thinks this desirable?
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, might I ask Her Majesty's Government whether the honourable gentlemen never sleep in the other place?

SAVINGS ON PROPOSED RAIL CLOSURES
2.45 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to state, against each railway line, the anticipated savings arising from closure, comprised in the total of approximately £800,000 referred to by the Minister of Transport at his Press Conference on March 3; and whether the earnings figure for each line, used in calculating the expected savings, included the present revenue from passenger parcels, contributory income and miscellaneous earnings.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of estimated savings from each of the passenger closures referred to. The figures are the best up-to-date estimates that the Railways Board can make of the net savings directly attributable to each of those passenger closures, after allowing for the loss of the contributory revenue. The Board also expect to make other consequential savings. These include those on basic track and signalling maintenance where lines are subsequently closed completely. They also include savings on general administration and from increased rationalisation, which cannot easily be quantified.
The closure of a passenger service does not necessarily entail withdrawal of the parcels service, and the figures therefore take no account of parcels receipts. If by miscellaneous revenue the noble Lord has in mind such things as receipts from advertising facilities and rents from kiosks on stations, then the figures do not take account of such receipts, nor of the cost of providing the facilities.

Following is the statement referred to:

Estimated net annual saving

£

Salisbury—Fordingbridge—Bournemouth

70,000

Brockenhurst—Ringwood—Bournemouth

108,000

Taunton—Yeovil Pen Mill

60,000

Northampton Castle—Wellingborough Midland Road

58,000

Northampton Castle—Peterborough East

123,000

Thetford—Swatfham

7,000

Brightlingsea—Wivenhoe

8,000

Dereham—Wells-next-the-Sea

2,000

Carlisle—Silloth

30,000

Sunderland—Durham—Bishop Auckland

35,000

Sunderland—West Hartlepool

6,000

Swansea—Pontardulais

100,000

Berwick—St. Boswells

56,000

Langholm—Riddings Junction

26,000

Elgin—Lossiemouth

5,000

Ayr—Dalmellington

11,000

Kilmarnock—Darvel

19,000

Kilmarnock—Ardrossan

29,000

Fraserburgh—St. Combs

5,000

Edinburgh—Dunbar (local services)

30,000

Edinburgh—Berwick (local services)

47,000

Craigendoran—Arrochar

3,000

Total

838,000

These figures do not take account of any payments to bus operators in respect of provision of additional bus services. It is estimated that such payments will be of the order of £40,000 per annum.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would express my most grateful thanks to the noble Lord for the extremely helpful reply. If, as I understand, he is going to publish these figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I can assure him that both his Answer and the figures will be studied with the greatest interest and will convey more information than we have ever had since the publication of the Beeching Report.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord who has replied whether, in dealing with these branches which have been closed down, the tracks which have been laid are invariably taken up, or are they left? Could he perhaps some time (I do not expect him to do so at this moment) let me know how many of the branch lines have had the tracks taken up?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think the noble Earl has not quite taken the gist of my Answer, because the Question refers to the number of passenger closures, and I tried to make it very clear that these were passenger closures; so that, strictly, the noble Earl's Question does not arise from the original Question. There may be cases where the track will be taken up later if the line is completely closed; or it may be continued for goods only. Therefore the noble Earl will see that his question does not directly arise.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Nevertheless, let me know.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, arising out of my noble Leader's question is it not the case that the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport does frequently, when agreeing to a closure of a passenger service, give instructions that the track shall not be removed without his agreement; and further, that in other cases where he gives no such instruction, the Railways Board, assuming there is no freight service still running, are then free to lift the track if they wish?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as I have several times stated, my right honourable friend treats each case on its merits and attaches to each case, as the Act permits him to do, such conditions as seem to be required in the circumstances.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Lansdowne will be making a statement on the Maltese Constitution, and my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn a statement on British Lion, at some suitable moment after 3.30 p.m.
In view of the number of speakers in to-day's debate, dinners will be available in the Dining Room.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion

717
standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 35(5) be amended as follows:—
Leave out ("Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays") and insert ("all sitting days except Wednesdays").
Leave out from ("foregoing") to end and insert ("and on such days the precedence of notices and orders relating to Public Bills and Measures may, if the convenience of the House so requires, be varied by order of the House.")—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Standing Order amended accordingly.

FIREWORKS BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

UGANDA BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

TRADE UNION (AMALGAMATIONS ETC.) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

THE STATEMENT ON DEFENCE
2.51 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL JELLICOE)THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL JELLICOE) rose to move to resolve, That this House approves the Statement on Defence, 1964 (Cmnd. 2270). The noble Earl said: My Lords, we are this afternoon starting once again our annual debate on Defence. Perhaps the regularity of this occasion induces a certain artificiality. Our policy towards other nations, the threats against us, and our interests and the ways in which, when it comes to
718
the crunch, we meet them with armed force, vary, of course, but little year by year. As your Lordships know, paragraph 4 of the Defence White Paper rehearses once again the basic objectives of our policy. I do not think that any reasonable Lord can dissent from these objectives. Indeed, I find it very hard to believe that any reasonable man will disagree with what is said in the next paragraph of the White Paper, that the keystone of our policy is the prevention of war and that until true disarmament becomes a reality—and we are determined, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary showed last month at Geneva, to do all we can to make disarmament a reality—it is the power of nuclear weapons and the fact that no country is willing to risk suicide that keeps the peace.
Like other members of my generation—like many of your Lordships indeed—I have seen something of war. And I did not like what I saw. But I know that what I saw in terms of human misery and human degradation and sheer material destruction was as nothing compared with what nuclear war would mean. The imagination boggles at the thought of nuclear war. And I suspect that part of every man's conscience instinctively cries out: "We must contract out of this business. We must have nothing to do with the bomb". I can understand—we can all understand and respect—that view and those who in sincerity hold it. But, this cannot be my view, or that of the Government, or indeed, as I conceive it, that of either of the official Oppositions. This brings me to the heart of the first part of the noble Earl's Amendment. In it he speaks of his lack of confidence in our Defence policy to provide effectively for the defence of this country, and, of course, we shall listen with interest to his explanation for this lack of confidence.
Meanwhile, my Lords, I would say this—and it brings me to our rôle as a nuclear power. In the past we could rely for the defence of these Islands upon conventional arms and natural obstacles. We could rest our defences on the White Cliffs of Dover—as in Napoleon's time—or on the Rhine. We could shelter behind our "walls of oak" or Dreadnoughts. But those days are dead. Nowadays, against a would-be aggressor armed

719
with nuclear warheads and missiles our only sure and certain defence is in fact the deterrent—the certain knowledge on the part of that aggressor that should he strike us he would, in so doing, automatically and inevitably draw upon his own head and upon his cities and his population damage and destruction on a scale to which no rational ruler could possibly expose his people.
As I see it, it is that ultimate defence of this country—the ultimate independent control of our own deterrent—which some members of the Party opposite are now inviting us to surrender. I hope that we shall not walk this primrose path, since I cannot see how such a renunciation by us could possibly make it easier for us effectively to defend this country. Indeed, to go down this path would involve tremendous risks.
Let me make it quite clear that we accept the primacy of collective defence with our Allies. That is why, subject only to the supreme national interest, we have already assigned our V-bomber force to NATO and will so assign our Polaris submarine force as it comes into being. Whatever the Party opposite may say, I cannot see myself how we could withdraw our contribution from the Allied deterrent without at the same time greatly reducing our influence both within the Alliance and more generally in the world as a whole. But, by acting in this way, we should not only be making it impossible for us to contribute to the Western deterrent as a whole; we should also be stripping ourselves of our present ability to demonstrate to a potential aggressor that in the ultimate resort Britain alone can levy unacceptable retribution.
The Government's unwillingness to renounce this ultimate—I stress the word "ultimate"—independent option implies no distrust of our Allies. It simply recognises that, beyond situations in which, for example, we know with absolute certainty that the great forces of the United States would operate, there is an unknown region of formidable risk to our national survival against which no sane Government could fail to guard if it was within their power to do so. In this vital context, what responsible Government would claim to read aright, and into the far distance, the future of
720
our uncertain world, or to rule out the possibility, however, remote, that a potential aggressor might attempt to coerce Britain in the belief that she could be attacked in isolation? To discard any measure of national defence which we actually possess and can maintain would be, I suggest, sheer folly.
My Lords, I want to put our case for the retention of this ultimate independent nuclear option as moderately and as objectively as I can. I do not wish now to claim that it would necessarily be right for this country to wish to retain this option for all time. There might—it is not inconceivable, in my view—come a time when the organic structure of the Western Alliance was sufficiently strong for us to be able with entire confidence to place our nuclear armoury irrevocably in a common pool. But this is not the position now, and it is now or in the near future that we are being asked to abdicate our final control over our final means of defence.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? This is a very important statement he is making. It is the first time the Government have ever made this statement. Would he like to tell us in what conditions they would be prepared to abandon the independent deterrent? What position would the other Powers have to be in, in order to enable us to abandon it?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should not wish, if the noble Lord would excuse me, to be drawn too far into detail here; but, broadly speaking, my answer is: when we could do it with entire confidence that we were doing so without prejudice to the defence of this country. But we are being asked to renounce this independent option now, when we should in return have no assurance of thereby gaining greater control over the Allied deterrent as a whole, or indeed greater influence in the councils of the Allies. It is now, at an uncertain and entirely unpredictable moment of the world's history; and it is now, when so far as I know this renunciation would not produce any similar renunciation by any other country in the world. And if it is now, or in the near future, it is for all time. If we now make a bonfire of our bombers; or chop our Polaris submarines in two, as Mr. Wilson and Mr. Healey have suggested that we might

721
do; if we disperse all our crews and scientists and engineering know-how, I do not think we should kid ourselves—
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like the quotation of Mr. Wilson, when he said he would chop them in half.
LORD SHEPHERD: Or burn the V-bombers.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, if I have misquoted the Leader of the Opposition I will gladly withdraw. I thought that he had said that. I can remember the official spokesman of the Opposition in another place, Mr. Healey, specifically saying so. If I have misquoted the Leader of the Opposition, I will gladly withdraw my remark.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would the noble Earl also give us the quotation of Mr. Healey? Although the noble Earl may study these speeches closely, so do some of us, and I have no recollection of any such speech.
EARL JELLICOE: I would merely draw the noble Lord's attention to the remarks of Mr. Healey in the Defence Debate in another place.
LORD SHACKLETON: Which remarks?
EARL JELLICOE: I have not got Hansard by me at this particular stage.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if the noble Earl will permit one further intervention, would he accept that what Mr. Healey said in another place was that, if necessary, we would consider converting the Polaris submarines to hunter-killer submarines; and that he said nothing, either then or at any other time, about burning the bombers? Would the noble Earl accept that?
EARL JELLICOE: I will of course accept that. But when the noble Lord comes to read Hansard to-morrow he will see that I was not suggesting that Mr. Healey had suggested we should burn our bombers. I was merely referring to taking the central portion out of the Polaris submarine.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but it is a pity that the noble Earl has
722
not the text of the quotation in front of him. These statements are made and, as he might have anticipated, it is desirable to check them up. As he has not got them with him—that cannot be helped—will he kindly arrange for the Leader of the House to give us the text of the quotations in winding up the debate?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I cannot speak for my noble Leader. I will certainly accept the correction which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, places upon my remarks about confusion over the Polaris submarines, if that is helpful. That I will certainly do.
LORD KENNET: And about the bombers, and what the noble Earl attributed to Mr. Healey?
EARL JELLICOE: I was not saying that Mr. Healey was suggesting that. This is a question of punctuation. All am suggesting is that if we made this decision it would be irrevocable, probably for all time. Given all this, given the uncertainty of the world to-day and given the finality of this decision, I would suggest to your Lordships that this is neither the right moment, nor probably the right decade, for us to make this supreme act of national renunciation. That is why I am glad that the Government have firmly decided to retain our nuclear capacity, for the time being, with the V-bombers and thereafter with a British force of five Polaris submarines.
Since we spend less than one-tenth of our Defence budget on the nuclear deterrent, it is rather odd how our debates on Defence policy at times tend to be monopolised by this nuclear issue. I hope that we may, to some extent at least, redress this balance in our debate this afternoon, and I, for my part, propose to pay at least equal attention to our need to maintain well-equipped, suitably deployed, mobile, highly trained and sufficient conventional Forces.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, am Ito understand from the figure of 10 per cent. that we spend only £200 million a year on nuclear weapons, including all the provisions which have been made for Polaris?
EARL JELLICOE: Yes; in fact, it is rather under 10 per cent., and will continue so, as was made clear by my right honourable friend in another place in the Defence debate there.
I should like, first of all, to deal with equipment, and I trust that your Lordships will not feel that this old bottle is not properly imbued with the new spirit of Service interdependence if I concentrate in the main here on the Royal Navy. So far as equipment is concerned, the Army, as I think we all recognise, has in the past, at least sometimes, been rather the odd man out. Those of us who were platoon commanders in 1939 and 1940 have only too vivid memories of the sort of symbols with which we used to represent our missing anti-tank rifles. I will not delve into the inventory of new equipment coming into the Army to-day—I do not think it would be appropriate in this sort of debate; but I should like to suggest that the flow of this equipment can be measured by the rise in expenditure on the Army's new fighting equipment. Two years ago we were spending at the rate of £70 million a year on new equipment for the Army. Last year we were spending at the rate of £80 million a year. This year's expenditure will be £100 million, and the increase will continue.
Next, the Royal Air Force. I think by common consent the R.A.F. to-day is not only a superbly trained but also a well-equipped arm. The major operational aircraft now being developed for the R.A.F. are the TSR 2 and the P1154. Your Lordships have all heard a lot about the TSR 2, and I am therefore not going into a great deal of detail about it. All I am going to do is to confirm that good progress is being made with the project. The first flights of this aircraft will take place shortly, and I have no doubt that when the TSR 2 starts to replace the Canberras in the tactical strike and reconnaissance rôles in about three years' time, the R.A.F. will possess in that aircraft one of the most formidable weapons systems of the present time.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, can the noble Earl give me the actual time when the design of the TSR 2 first came off the drawing board?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords. I am afraid I cannot; but the development order was placed about four years ago, and for an aircraft of this complexity to be where it is now is not in the space of four years doing too badly. The P1154 comes, of course, a little later in the time scale.
I should like to say that it is disappointing—and I would be the first to admit it—that a common aircraft for the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force to replace both the Sea Vixen and the Hunter did not prove a practicable proposition. But let me make one thing quite clear here. This was not a case of Service rivalry and pig-headedness. Both the Air Ministry and the Admiralty would have welcomed the successful development of the common aircraft, and both Services were prepared, in order to secure this, greatly to compromise their requirements. We are now, in any event, embarking on the full development of the P1154 for the R.A.F., designed to replace the Hunter at the end of this decade. Its primary rôle, as the Hunter replacement, will be that of Army ground support. With its S.T.O.L. capability and the ability to go right forward in the battlefield, it will be quite invaluable in that rôle.
Next, the Royal Navy. I have touched on the Polaris force in my opening remarks. Your Lordships, as we were reminded the other day, admire tradition, especially naval tradition. I am sure, therefore, that you will be glad that these vessels, the most powerful warships this country has ever possessed, will bear the honoured names of "Resolution", "Renown", "Repulse", and "Revenge". On the Polaris force I would in addition say this. The Navy is proud to discharge the responsibility which has been placed on it of being the chief custodian of our national deterrent in the 1970's. The Navy will discharge that responsibility with its habitual efficiency. Nevertheless, I should like to make it equally clear to your Lordships that we are equally determined to maintain the strength and quality of our conventional naval forces.
I would suggest that our present plans demonstrate this. Take, for example, the field of naval aviation.

725
There the construction of the new aircraft carrier, on which the necessary design and development work is being pushed ahead with all possible speed, the return to service of the completely modernised H.M.S. "Eagle", and the choice of the Phantom aircraft as the Sea Vixen replacement, are all proof of the very substantial effort which we are devoting to this vital part of the Fleet. I know there has been some criticism of the decision which my right honourable friend recently announced to buy this American aircraft, the Phantom, subject, of course, to final technical evaluation and to satisfactory contract arrangements. Like other noble Lords, other things being equal, or almost equal, I prefer to buy British. But our responsibility, my Lords, is to see that the pilots of the Fleet Air Arm have the best possible equipment available to them. The Phantom, by all accounts, is the best all-weather fighter in the world to-day. The performance of the version to be developed for the Royal Navy, with its twin Rolls-Royce Spey engines, will be some 20 per cent. better across the board. I believe that this Anglo-American version of the Phantom will give the Royal Navy an all-weather fighter probably without equal in the next decade, certainly in the early part of the next decade.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the Noble Earl said that it would be 20 per cent. better across the hoard. Did I mishear him? Could he say precisely in what way it will be better.
EARL JELLICOE: I did not want to go into specific details, but, generally speaking, better in its performance.
My Lords, during the past months, since I took over from my noble friend the Leader of the House, I have done my best to see as much as possible of the Fleet, and I, for one, have been tremendously struck by the new ships coming into service. I have seen the Oberons, the Counties, the Leanders and the Tribals; and I believe that these new ships of the conventional Navy are, ship for ship, and class for class, as good as, or better than, the equivalent ships in any other navy in the world to-day. Finally, dealing with naval equipment, I would make it clear that we have made good progress with our long-
726
term plan for replacing the older escorts by modern frigates. Since January, 1960, 24 escorts of post-war design have either joined the Fleet already or will have done so by the end of 1964. In addition, nine Leanders are either under construction or have been ordered. And we intend to keep up the momentum of the programme for modernising and keeping modern the escort Fleet. This is the backbone of the Navy, as the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition knows, and underpins the Fleet in every part of the world.
The best equipment and the best Forces are useless unless we can get them where we want them when we want them. It is for that reason that mobility is so important. The tactical mobility of our Forces will be greatly improved when the Army takes delivery of the light helicopters, the order for which my right honourable friend recently announced. The tactical mobility conferred by Transport Command has recently been greatly enhanced, and it will be further enhanced when we take delivery of the new HS681 tactical freighter which the Government have decided to develop. The strategic transport capacity of the R.A.F. will be immensely strengthened in the next two or three years when the Belfasts and the VC10s arrive on the scene. They will supplement the present fleet of Britannias and Comets and will in fact, when in service, double the strategic capacity of Transport Command.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, can the noble Earl say when the HS681, to which he attaches so much importance, as we do, is going to come into service?
EARL JELLICOE: I think the latter end of the 1960's. It is some way off.
LORD SHACKLETON: 1970.
EARL JELLICOE: The latter end of the 1960's. I think recent events have shown the ability and the efficiency with which Transport Command have met all the simultaneous commitments which they have had to discharge.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves helicopters, could I ask whether the whole of these new helicopters are to be British made?
EARL JELLICOE: I think the intention is that the initial buy will be "off the peg" from abroad, and then the subsequent buy will be from a British firm.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: You will buy American as required, and then later on have copies made of the American design and replacements from British industry. Is that it?
EARL JELLICOE: I think I gave the noble Earl a very clear reply to his question. He can place what interpretation he wishes on my reply.
As recent events have shown the ability of Transport Command to discharge their obligations, I think they have also demonstrated how maritime power can be used to exert the right influence in the right place at the right time. That is why I, for one, am so glad that our programme of reviving our amphibious capability is going forward so well. There is the modernised "Bulwark", which I saw set sail for the Far East the other day; there are the two new assault ships of high speed; and then there are the six new landing ships logistic (as they are called) which the Army are about to commission. This means that by 1966 we shall have a fast and flexible amphibious force able to lift the fighting arms of at least a brigade group and capable of intervening quickly and decisively anywhere within the reach of sea power. No less important, to plan and prepare for the use of this force a new command is being set up, that of the Commodore Amphibious Forces. All those of us who remember the amphibious improvisations of 1939 and 1940 will know how important it is to keep this vital military art, amphibious warfare, fully alive and kicking.
So much for material. Given the progress recorded in the White Paper and given the decisions recently announced by my right honourable friend, I believe that, broadly speaking, this side of the Armed Forces is now, or shortly will be, catered for. I might add that it is also catered for within the financial discipline—7 per cent. or so of the gross national product—which we have imposed upon ourselves.
At the present time manpower, not material, ranks as perhaps the most chal-
728
lenging problem facing the Armed Forces. I would summarise the present position in broad terms as follows. So far as the R.A.F. is concerned, recruitment is good. So far as the Royal Navy is concerned, it is reasonable. So far as the Army is concerned, it is, as yet, only fair. But, my Lords, the Army's recruiting position is improving. After the bumper crop of 1962, 1963 was, of course, a very disappointing year indeed for Army recruiting, but there have recently been encouraging signs of an improvement, and on February 1 of this year other ranks strength had risen to 152,260. While this, of course, represents a shortfall of some 8,000 from our total other ranks requirement of some 160,000 men, I would suggest that a shortfall of this order does not call for any departure from our policy of all-Regular volunteer forces. It does, however, call for all the determination, energy and imagination which we can command, in order to stimulate recruitment and to foster re-engagement.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I agree, but I should like to ask a question—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I beg your pardon? I want clarification of the figures just given. We have been dealing before, not with other ranks strength specifically, but dealing with the overall strength. There was supposed to be an overall strength of 165,000, and then it went up to 185,000. Some people then argued it should be 200,000. Will the noble Earl tell us what the present overall strength actually is?
EARL JELLICOE: I think it is 172,000-plus, which again is a shortfall of about 8,000. I should like to say that to this end of stimulating recruitment and fostering re-engagement we should welcome all the assistance which I am sure many noble Lords can give; and, equally, my right honourable friend and myself will gladly examine any proposals to this end which your Lordships may proffer during this debate.
There are many other aspects of this manpower situation on which I should have liked to have touched but with which I will not deal to-day. There is

729
the question of living standards; there are all the side-effects of early marriage and, with them, the need for Service housing. There is, above all, the need for recruiting quality as well as quantity; and, in the educational field and the field of training, the need for keeping up with the Newsoms and the Robbinses. All these are vastly important areas, and I think they are, in their way, worth a separate debate of their own; because manpower is the essence of the problem of the Armed Forces at the present time. I should like to suggest, if your Lordships could afford the time, that we could very profitably have a separate debate on manpower and all the associated subjects which go with it.
My Lords, I realise that I am open to the reproach that much of what I have been saying about our conventional Armed Forces may sound rather theoretical. I have been looking to the future, to the new equipment which the Forces will be receiving, to their enhanced mobility and so on; and I would be the first to agree that an ounce of practical demonstration is worth a ton of theoretical disquisition. But, my Lords, if that is so, then I would claim that our Armed Forces have in recent months amply demonstrated, by their performance, that they are fully adequate to the tasks which they have been called upon to discharge. If our conventional forces were in fact as ill-equipped, immobile and as thin on the ground as the Opposition have sometimes tended to suggest, then it is hard to see how they could have responded as they have responded to the simultaneous emergencies with which they have been confronted, in Eastern Malaysia, in East Africa and in Cyprus.
I think I am entitled to take for the Government that meed of credit, but in so doing I do not propose for one instant to take the credit away from those to whom it really belongs—to our Armed Forces themselves. We have all, I think, been impressed by the smoothness and efficiency with which Transport Command have discharged their recent tasks; we have been struck by the quietly ubiquitous response of the Royal Navy to these recent operations. And may I add that I, for one, find it fitting that, in their Tercentenary Year, four out
730
of five of the Royal Marine Commandos should be deployed East of Suez.
But if any one arm of our Forces has borne the brunt of these operations, it has, I think, been the Army. We can all, wherever we sit in the House, take pride from the recent performances of the Regular units of our modern Army. The modern British soldier has given an astonishingly fine account of himself, whether in confronting the problems, both of climate and of terrain, in Eastern Malaysia; in acclimatising himself to the problems, part military, part diplomatic, of East Africa; or, most difficult of all, in dealing with communal strife in Cyprus. There, our troops have not been fighting people: they have been tackling the very much harder task of people fighting each other; and there is no military task—and I am sure that here your Lordshps will agree with me—which tests discipline and training more than this. I myself do not find it altogether fanciful to suppose that the recent and healthy improvement in recruiting for the Army may not be unconnected with the image which our modern Army has put before us recently—that of a tough, well-disciplined, well-equipped, well-trained and, above all, restrained and very humane force.
My Lords, it is, of course, important for us to have the right forces, but it is equally important for us to have the right policy. Perhaps, since we are approaching the witching month of June, or October, or whichever month it may be, it is not unexpected that from time to time our Defence policy should be somewhat guyed by some members of the Opposition as being, somehow, chauvinistic, or a throwback to an earlier age of outworn jingoism. It is true that in certain respects we still live in an age of nation States; and because of this, and because the forms of regional and international organisations are still developing, we believe it right to retain, in the last analysis, an independent option, as I mentioned earlier on. Yet, we do not delude ourselves—and this I would wish to underline—into thinking that this is the rule rather than the exception. The whole logic of our contemporary world is towards interdependence, and in that increasingly interdependent world our real security must increasingly lie in the Alliances to which we are pledged and

731
in the groupings of which we are members. That, of course, is the reason for our active membership of the three great regional Pacts—NATO, CENTO and SEATO.
But, my Lords, our military interdependence is not governed only by these formal Alliances. We also make a major contribution to peace-keeping within the framework of the Commonwealth in a whole number of ways. As we have recently seen, this business of helping our Commonwealth friends to make their peaceful way in the world is by no means an easy one. How long this Commonwealth military rôle (if I may so term it) will continue, I should hesitate to say, but I think that all the signs are that we shall have an indispensable part to play here for many years to come. At one extreme we shall continue, as at present in Malaysia, to protect our friends against those who, professing to abhor imperialism, seek to impose their own and, at the other, our political and military experience, and our ability to help train the forces of nascent nations, will remain at the disposal of those who are resolved to establish independent and good government on a foundation of reliable and well-trained defence forces.
My Lords, I would go further, if I may, for the benefit of those who misrepresent our policy as cast in a jingoistic mould. I would not wish at this stage to enter into any discussion over the precise relationship of the Royal Navy to the United Nations; nor would I wish to cross swords with those who, like Mr. Wigg, feel that we should have no Navy at all. But I should like to take the opportunity of reaffirming that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government fully to support the efforts of the United Nations in the preservation or restoration of peace throughout the world. Time and again, as in Cyprus to-day, Britain has been called upon to fill a dangerous vacuum. But this does not mean that we have been acting against the common interest. Indeed, it is we, and we alone, who have made the United Nations' political and military presence in Cyprus possible.
732
I should like to quote two sentences from the important speech by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary at Geneva last month. He said that:
"It is in my view essential to build up the peace-keeping rôle and capabilities of the United Nations."
He then went on to say:
"We are very ready to discuss these ideas or others designed for the same end, with all those who are interested."
This will remain our steady aim.
My Lords, in conclusion I would say that it is no very easy task to introduce a Defence debate in this Chamber, because, of all the problems that beset the modern world, those in the field of defence are possibly the most stubborn and intractable. In this setting it would be almost incredible if, over the years, we had not made mistakes and committed errors of judgment. Of course we have: and I do not doubt that we—or our successors—shall make more in the future. And yet, by any fair, practical, criterion, our Defence policy has been successful. Our stated overriding aim has been the avoidance of major war. There has been no major war. We have set ourselves the task of providing mobile, highly professional, compact forces to deal with trouble spots, or potential trouble spots, all over the world. In 1964 these forces have surmounted the rigours of simultaneous testing in three different continents. We have aimed to arm our men with first-rate equipment. In great measure I believe that we have succeeded. The new generations of tanks, aircraft and warships can hold their own with any. All this has had to be done without overstraining a delicately balanced economy. And I would remind noble Lords that the man in the street pays less for national Defence to-day that he does for drink and tobacco. Above all—and this is a truly national achievement—the men themselves, as has been demonstrated by the events of recent months, have done and are doing a job of which we can all be proud. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House approves the Statement on Defence, 1964 (Cmnd. 2270).—(Earl Jellicoe.)

SALE OF BRITISH LION FILMS LIMITED
3.35 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, with your permission, I wish to make a statement about British Lion on similar lines to that made in another place.
At the end of last week the Board of the National Film Finance Corporation unanimously advised the acceptance of the offer from Sir Michael Balcon's Group to purchase British Lion Films Limited. This offer complies fully with the conditions for the sale of the company which were summarised by my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development in another place on the 4th February and which have subsequently been formulated in detail by the Corporation. The N.F.F.C. consider it to be more advantageous than the other two firm offers which were received—that from the Freedom Group and that from Mr. Sidney Box's Group, the latter of which did not fully meet the conditions. My right honourable friend has to-day authorised the National Film Finance Corporation to accept the offer of Sir Michael Balcon's Group.
The Group is well qualified to take over the ownership and running of the company. It has the assurance of efficient and proven management and the support of five groups of film makers, two of which consist of Mr. Frank Launder and Mr. Sidney Gilliat, and Mr. John and Mr. Roy Boulting. My right honourable friend has been advised that the financial arrangements proposed by Sir Michael Balcon's Group should provide adequately for the continued efficient running of the company and will not conflict with the stipulated conditions. I believe your Lordships will agree that this is a satisfactory outcome.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for making this important statement. The noble Lord will remember that there was considerable concern among workers in the film industry, and also among independent producers, when the Government announced their intention to sell British Lion, an organisation which had given a great deal of support
734
to the independent film industry. We feel in the circumstances that the arrangements that the Government have now made will be satisfactory. But in order to ensure that this British Lion company will be there to assist the independent producers against the two large film organisations, could the noble Lord say—because, of course, we do not know what policy decisions a board may make from time to time—whether the Government intend to require the new organisation to give an option, at least, to the Government in the event of their deciding to sell to other organisations, so that before that could happen Her Majesty's Government would have the opportunity of taking back British Lion and of ensuring its independence?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, among conditions that were laid down was, first of all, the right of* the Government to nominate a director to the board, a right which of course it will exercise; and, secondly, the N.F.F.C. will retain the right to veto the company's voluntary liquidation and also the right to veto the sale of its undertaking.
LORD REA: My Lords, can the noble Lord possibly tell us whether the Government have in fact nominated people to this board?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think it will be of interest to the House to know that Sir Lionel Heald has been nominated and so has the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger.

MALTA
3.38 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, in reply to a Question on Malta, put by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on March 10, I indicated that a statement would be made after the resumption of talks between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Prime Minister of Malta. My right honourable friend has to-day made the following statement in another place. I will make it in his own words:
"Some weeks ago, the Prime Minister of Malta, Dr. Borg Olivier,
* Should be "the N.F.F.C." See col. 737.

735
informed me that the Maltese political Parties were still unable to agree upon joint proposals for their Independence Constitution or upon any procedure by which the issue could be referred to the electorate for decision. He therefore asked the British Government to settle the matter on their own responsibility.
"Since the points of difference centre upon delicate issues affecting the relations between Church and State, I was naturally anxious that any decisions I might have to take should be based upon as wide a measure of assent as possible. Therefore, before replying formally to Dr. Borg Olivier's request, I invited him and the leaders of the other Parties to discuss the position further with me. I also sought the views of the Archbishop of Malta.
"I had hoped that it might be possible, if not to reach agreement, at least to narrow somewhat the gap between the opposing points of view. Unfortunately, the talks were unsuccessful and revealed no basis for any compromise.
"In the circumstances, Dr. Borg Olivier decided to defer his request to me to adjudicate, pending the holding of a referendum. It is his intention to present to the Malta Legislature a Constitution drafted by his Government. Provided that this is endorsed by the Assembly, he will submit it to the electors through a referendum in which they will be asked the question:
'Do you approve the proposed constition for Independence?'
"The ultimate responsibility for deciding the Constitutions of dependent territories rests with Parliament here. Nevertheless, we always try to take full account of public opinion and of any special circumstances in the country concerned. I therefore assured the Prime Minister of Malta that, provided the referendum is held under conditions which, in the opinion of the British Government, are fair and free, we will endeavour to be guided in our decisions by the wishes expressed in it by the Maltese people.
"With the agreement of the Prime Minister of Malta, I would propose to
736
appoint observers to witness and report upon the conduct of the referendum."
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for his statement about the Independence Constitution for Malta, but many of us are nervous lest this Constitution should be rushed. I would ask the noble Marquess whether he can assure the House that enough time will be allowed for the people of Malta to consider this Constitution, after its publication by the Malta Government, even if this means the postponement of the date of independence beyond May 31. May I also ask him this question? I am delighted that there will be observers at the referendum. Will the noble Marquess consider the appointment of observers from other Commonwealth countries? Will he also consider the inclusion among the observers from this country of members of all Parties from another place? I am sure that he would agree that they are in the best position to know what the meaning of a fair vote is in an election.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl. Regarding the first point, I will most certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to this question, to ensure that full account is taken of the question of adequate time. As regards the second question, about observers, at this stage I cannot say from what communities or countries or walks of life these observers will be drawn, but I will most certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the questions put to me by the noble Earl.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, could the noble Marquess tell us what will happen if the majority of the electorate reply "No" to the referendum?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, if the majority of electors reply "No" to the referendum, I presume that that would mean that they do not wish to have this Constitution for their independence.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, could the noble Marquess inform the House what will then happen? Has he another Constitution up his sleeve?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:My Lords, I am not in a position to go into this question any further at this point.

SALE OF BRITISH LION FILMS LIMITED
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with the indulgence of the House—and I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene—may I say that I slightly misled the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in the reply I gave to him? The position is this: that the National Film Finance Corporation's representative has yet to be appointed, but the two directors I mentioned have been invited and accepted office as trustees of the mandate laid down for the company by the Secretary of State.

THE STATEMENT ON DEFENCE
3.44 p.m.
Debate resumed.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH rose to move, as an Amendment to the Motion, to leave out all the words after "House" and insert "has no confidence that the policy set out in the Statement on Defence 1964 provides effectively for the defence of our country and its overseas obligations." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to move, on behalf of the Labour Opposition, the Amendment which stands on the Order Paper, in which we express the view that the present provision for Defence is not sufficient for the security of our country and for meeting our overseas obligations.
I was rather astonished to hear the noble Earl, when he opened his speech this afternon, say that he thought our Defence debates were usually conducted with an air of artificiality. I must say that I cannot remember a Defence debate in this House which has been marked by such a state of thinking. I have always given the House credit for being concerned with matters of Defence and I think that this applies to all sides of the House. We have put down our Amendment because we feel that the House and the nation should give sufficient attention to this matter and understand what is being spent and what is
738
being provided to meet the needs of our national defence and overseas commitments and yet have available a proper Strategic Reserve.
I have some experience of this branch of Parliamentary and Government duties and I am not able to agree that the case that the noble Earl tried to make out has been made. I also regret that, early in his speech, he should have made what apparently were supposed to be quotations from speeches of my Party Leader in another place and Mr. Denis Healey and was unable to match them up to questions put to him by noble Lords in respect of these quotations. I think that is a great pity.
I am also bound to express disappointment at the manner in which the Leader of the Conservative Party at the present time has made a definite decision that the question of the nuclear deterrent, on which he sets such store, must be made an issue at the General Election. I think that that is a fundamental mistake on his part and that when we have finished stating our case to the country the Conservative Party will find that it will react against them very seriously. We heard from the present Prime Minister, just a few weeks before he left this House, that our Defence policy is all right, so long as we are spending one-seventh of the national output on Defence
LORD CARRINGTON: 7 per cent.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That was a slip of the tongue, my Lords; I intended to say 7 per cent. of our overall production. To-day we are faced with a budget for Defence of around £2,000 million. I measure this not merely against the output of the country as a whole, but against what the Government think is the maximum they can extort from the nation for their annual Budget. When we take the history of the Budgets of this Government, we find that they took over a Budget of £4,190 million in 1951 and that the Budget for this year, adding the Supplementary Estimates for 1963–64, will reach £7,000 million. If we take the percentage for Defence alone in that Budget, we find it is a very different percentage for Defence from the pre-war Budgets, not only those between the First and the Second Great Wars but also those before the First War. It looks as if there has been a complete change

739
in the outlook of Governments on what is a proper percentage.
It is being gradually instilled into us that no capitalist Government in my lifetime has ever provided a sufficient percentage to meet the situation at the outbreak of war. From Khartoum onwards, we cannot find one. Of course, with the extraordinary change in the value of currency, we find we have to spend a good deal more than formerly, in financial figures. But when we say that we are going to spend two-sevenths of the national Budget on Defence, and at the same time say that we cannot afford to give a shilling or two extra to nurses when they ask for it, it does not really make sense unless we can show an overwhelming case for that method of expenditure. Moreover, I think it is fairly clear that, whilst we have this enormous Defence budget of £2,000 million, we are not getting value for money in respect of the amount of security which is effected for our own country, or to provide us with adequate forces to deal with our overseas commitments. I want, if I can, to try to demonstrate that this afternoon.
Of course things are changing rapidly in the world. The overseas commitments that we had are rapidly changing. We have seen a different state of affairs arising within the Commonwealth itself from what it was even twenty years ago. Incidentally, I might also point out to the noble Earl (and we hope his tour of duty as the Admiralty will be successful, because of his famous naval father) that when he expressed confidence that the Navy can now get to the proper place in the proper time, and will always be there, there is a great deal of change in the matter of where our bases are from what it was 25 years ago. In regard to your equipment in ships, therefore, you have to take great care to measure where you proceed from, and what requirements you have for permanent overseas bases which would enable them to proceed in time for every one of your overseas commitments—although, of course, in some respects a place can be properly provided for temporarily by action by air instead of by sea—a state of release by air instead of by sea. These are all very different states of affairs from those for which many of us used to try to administer in Defence.
740
But when we analyse the detail of Defence expenditure, we find an extraordinary thing. How has it grown? It grew rapidly in 1950 for two reasons, one of which I candidly confess was as a result of part of my policy and my Government's policy: that in the state of the world we needed National Service, and we were bound to have the expense of National Service. This included the great achievement of setting up a permanent military reserve. Although it was mounting from that point of view, it mounted still more at the time because of the experience we were drawn into with regard to the United Nations' support of the American and British intervention at the start of Korea. America and Britain were acting, as they usually have to, as leaders in the defence of the cause for which the United Nations stands.
Now we have roughly £500 million additional to our Defence budget since 1951; but we have not got the forces that we had in 1951—not by a very long chalk. We were maintaining then personnel of between 800,000 and 900,000, in addition to the fact that we always had a Strategic Reserve. We were able to maintain our duties overseas then at once, because we had the reserves to send, in spite of the fact that we were still fighting our way back from all the dangers and destructions that had come to our country during the war. These are the facts.
If you want to look at the present position, which is how we judge the strength of our Defence, you have to come back to the Defence White Paper of 1957, which adopted a different basis altogether. First, it was to abolish National Service and to rely, in the main, upon the nuclear deterrent for security. The saving to be effected on National Service was £100 million in the following year, and it was expected by the then Minister of Defence, Mr. Duncan Sandys, to be a progressive saving. But it did not even save it in the first year. Now we have forces which have been placed at one or two different levels this afternoon. It looks as if the Government have placed at one time the maximum personnel required for the three Services to be 375,000—far less than half what we had in 1950. You have still to meet the

741
same overseas commitments, as well as to meet your proper obligations.
We have had an examination of the figures of recruiting this afternoon by the noble Earl, and he has given us certain figures. Almost the first thing he mentioned was the position with regard to the B.A.O.R. forces. I think it is true to say that our B.A.O.R. forces, even put at a figure of 55,000, are nothing like the size of the commitment that we entered into originally. I quite agree that probably right through the period we have never been able fully to live up for any length of time (I am speaking from memory as to the figure) to the four divisions that we undertook to keep there. But now here we are under a fairly fixed promise to maintain 55,000 men. Are they there? We did not get an indication this afternoon: it looked as if there might be as few as 52,000. That, I think, must be based upon the question as to whether our battalions over there, and other branches of the Army and Air Force Services, are dependent on whether each unit is up to strength. So far as I can see from the answers given in another place, it is admitted that in the Army, on the average, we are nearly 100 men per battalion short of strength. I should like to know, first of all, whether the strength of our forces over there is counted by battalions en masse, or whether it is counted by the actual number of soldiers in the ranks of the forces over there.
Recruiting has been very much advertised. There was some satisfaction, I think, two years ago because it was thought that the advertisement campaign had led to an improvement in recruiting. I do not know whether or not the recruiting advertisements have been continued, and whether they are being maintained in a sufficiently attractive form. But certainly I think one of the real reasons for the little boost of 1962 and early 1963 was the fact that so much unemployment crept in, and some enlistment was perhaps the alternative to living entirely upon the dole. At any rate it is quite certain to me that recently, if trouble had arisen in just one more place, you would have been in difficulty. Cyprus came on top of trouble in Aden, Malaysia, Zanzibar, Tanganyika and Uganda. How many
742
more calls you might have had at that time I do not know; but I know that the Army could not supply them all. It was perhaps just as well that the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty remembered that there were four out of five activities going on where help in making up the strength was given by the Royal Marine Commandos. It is right that there was this help; I think it should be there as part of the general defence of the country for meeting our commitments. But it shows how fundamental it is to get a proper recruitment of Army personnel, and also to see that other things are ready, in connection with their mobilisation, for the scene of action to which they have to proceed.
Then I hope the noble Lord the Leader of the House, when he replies to-night, will be able to tell us whether he has any firmer ground for hoping that we shall have the right numbers of personnel in our Forces. He might also tell me (because as I have been too busy I have not had the time to look it up to-day as I had intended to do so), whether the total strength of the Royal Marines is included in the 88,000 on the Admiralty Roll, and whether, in view of the fairly satisfactory recruitment we seem to have had, their numbers have increased or diminished.
I should also like to have some assessment of how far the growing efficiency, which I believe to be the case, of the Commando type of aircraft carrier for taking adequate numbers of personnel to a scene of action has turned out to be satisfactory. From what I have heard, it has been very satisfactory indeed and I hope it will continue to be so, and will even improve. Then the question should be asked whether there is any prospect of building still more of these light aircraft carriers for this purpose.
I look at some of the other things which the First Lord of the Admiralty has mentioned to-night, and I must say I feel very disappointed by some of them. Let us take the question of the Royal Air Force. May I ask the Government whether or not they are satisfied, in regard to both the Royal Air Force and the Army, about the numbers and qualifications of the technical members of the ranks of those two forces? If I recollect

743
aright, within the last twelve months it has been said that the Army was short of nearly 10,000 trained technicians. This is at this time of day, when we are suffering so much in many areas from the failure of the industrial system of our country to absorb large numbers of persons leaving school, so that my noble friend Lord Lawson told me only the other day that in the County of Durham there were 1,300 young persons attending what they called the dole schools. Those are people who go back to school because they have not been able to get a job on leaving school. There ought to be some special effort made by the Government so that these people can get some training in technical courses arranged for boys who have left school and who could be trained for technical work in the Services. I think that should be looked into.
I am very disappointed with regard to the equipment of the Services. I shall leave my noble friend Lord Shepherd, and I hope the others who speak, to go into more detail about this, but when I was making my own notes for the points I intended to cover this afternoon I felt very concerned at the way in which matters were going with regard to supplies to our country of things which were required for the Fighting Services.
In the first place, we have to look at the nuclear deterrent. In the White Paper of 1957 the nuclear deterrent was to be the Blue Streak. That failed after a huge expenditure on it. It was not the fault of Parliament that it failed; it is the responsibility of the Government. Then we were led to build our hopes upon Skybolt, and that did not materialise, so it was seemingly only an afterthought that at Nassau we got an agreement under which we were to get, not British nuclear submarines but American nuclear submarines, to start with, carrying the Polaris missile, and perhaps hulls to be built later, but with American engines and American machinery. Demonstrate to me how far I am wrong, by all means, when the noble Lord comes to answer, but certainly there is this tendency all the way through.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if the noble Earl will allow me to inter-
744
rupt, I do not think that statement ought to go on the Record without being corrected. The Polaris submarines are to be built in Britain; the reactors are to be British, and the only things that will be American are the missiles.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The reactors are to be of British design—when? Have we a British naval reactor designed?
LORD CARRINGTON: The same reactor as is going into the "Valiant".
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It has just been put back for months because of faulty material that was reported some two years ago. So far as I can tell, we have not the faintest chance of getting that for some years to come, and I do not know yet that it will be possible to prove that this particular type of reactor will be able to stand up to the requirements of a Polaris-delivering submarine. That has yet to be proved. That was an extraordinary answer for the noble Lord to give.
Let us take aircraft. We heard this afternoon that we were going to have the P1154, which was going to be a joint aircraft provision to suit both the Services—the Navy and the Air Force—and, although it was said that there was not the slightest quarrel between the two Services about it, it just could not be arranged. I take it that the P1154 is still to come along. The Phantom is now to be provided in place of the Sea Vixen, instead of having a utility machine between the two Services. That is an American machine, and I daresay the later supplies of them will be built as aeroplanes here. There may be some alteration in design or in the engine, but it does not cheer me a bit to know that we have to go to the United States of America to get the aeroplane itself.
We heard about helicopters this afternoon. Nothing would have been indicated to your Lordships' House if I had not cross-examined the noble Earl, but it was quite clear that what I had heard outside was true, and that the helicopters will come from America, although we may copy them later, making up the numbers we want by working on them in this country. When I think of the hundreds of millions of pounds we have poured out in the last twelve years, and

745
see how little we have got as a result, in actual supplies to the Forces, I just wonder what sort of control the Government have exercised over their research departments. It really is an amazing position.
One of the special things which apparently is to be pursued by the Conservative Party at the General Election is that we in the Labour Party are all the time following entirely the wrong idea with regard to Defence, and on this occasion in regard to the nuclear deterrent. I am not ashamed of the record of the Labour movement as a whole on Defence in this country. We were very often—large numbers of us, at any rate—standing behind Winston Churchill from 1935 to 1939 in all his futile efforts to get a move on with regard to the rearmament of the country in those days. Nevertheless, we went into battle very ill-provided for. We have seen in war after war how the working classes of this country respond to their country's needs when they find they are called upon. We want to see that the defence which is provided to-day is the right one for them.
If your Lordships want to look at it first of all from the point of view of interdependence, then I would draw your attention to the fact that the NATO organisation you talk so much about to-day was founded upon the initiation of a Labour Government—not from the United States, but from this country alone, first through the Treaty of Dunkirk, which I signed myself, with Ernest Bevin, then the Brussels Treaty, then the general agreement we made in 1949 with the United States. Do not let us forget that. If the Conservative Party want to make Defence a challenge at the General Election I, for one, shall be quite prepared to meet them on the hustings. The attempt they are making now to discredit us will be overborne by telling the true facts of the situation.
When it comes to the question of maintenance of the defence of the Free World, the growth of NATO and how it was built up, I could tell the House of visits to Denmark, Norway and other countries in order to swell the ranks of the Western Free World in the organisation—efforts in which we were successful. When the Government talk to us now, as they do, they seem to think they
746
have only to put the word "Socialist" into the mouth of our late Leader of this House, the present Prime Minister, and everybody must recoil in horror and fear at the danger of a Socialist Government coming in. Yet in fact we have done great service to our country, and will do it again.
When you come to the question of the nuclear deterrent, what is the case of the Prime Minister on this? It seems to change from time to time. In his early days of support for the nuclear deterrent it was almost as if it were the only possible way that he, or his Foreign Secretary, could be present at the top table in the nuclear world. I have never heard such nonsense as that in my life. What does he mean when he talks of the pledge—in words that at any rate always seem to us to have been used before—that it was the aim of this country, with the United States, to try to prevent proliferacy in the producing of nuclear weapons widely throughout the world? The kind of speeches that the Prime Minister has been making in the support of their view about the nuclear deterrent is just the thing that justifies de Gaulle going on with his proposals, and will lead to an adoption of the same thing in other parts of the world as well. I am just amazed that the Prime Minister, after the speeches he used to make here as Foreign Secretary, has given way to such a justification, first of all, for adhering fixedly to the nuclear deterrent.
Then there is this question that it must be independent. I have to concede this from what the noble Earl said again this afternoon—and I have heard it before—that both the Polaris and other forces were to be done collectively with NATO. We heard not a word to-day about whether you have settled yet the question of the mixed-manned force. Perhaps we can hear a word about it from the noble Lord the Leader of the House when he comes to answer to-night; because certainly, so far as I can see, there is no agreement yet inside the Cabinet upon that question.
It comes down to the point now, as Mr. Wilson said the other day in the other House of Parliament, that you pick up the official magazine issued by the Conservative Party Headquarters, and find

747
that on January 11 they proudly displayed—after saying a few days before that of course Defence ought not to be a Party question—a great argument for the nuclear deterrent, and said that, "We have adopted this because it is supported by the Chiefs of Staff." What sort of position is that, from the point of view of those of us who have also been experienced in Government? People remaining in office as Chiefs of Staff must of necessity support their Government loyally. But it is not the practice of the Government, nor should it be the practice of the Conservative Party who support the Government, to quote the Chiefs of Staff as if they and not the Government were responsible for a thing of that kind. This sort of campaign that has grown up to me politically stinks, and I think it has got to be faced as to what the intention is.
What are the other reasons given by the Prime Minister for bringing it along? One of the most dangerous things he has said has been that we must have an independent control because we could not always be sure that we should get the help we wanted on this point: in other words, that some action of the United States, or some other of our Allies, would be such that we should have to act with nuclear weapons on our own. There was not a bit of explanation, so far as I could find from the noble Earl who put the case this afternoon, as to whether that kind of thing is relying upon first strike or second strike. Perhaps the noble Lord who will answer to-night will tell us. Perhaps they will let us know what independent control means. Do you wait until you have been hit by this thing, or do you go off in support of your policy? We should like to know. This is the kind of thing that has made people think and think again.
I agree entirely with my Leader in another place that however far it has been necessary for us to be equipped with the knowledge of how to construct nuclear power, when it comes to the question of matching what should be done in the Alliances—if you are going to have a Defence of the Free West under an Alliance—then you should maintain the Alliance at all points until it is broken up. I hope that that is understood. I cannot accept for one moment either of those two main points made by the Prime Minister as to the reason for the main-
748
tenance of this independent nuclear deterrent. Let us think. Supposing you make the first launch, and that you have done it without reference to the Alliance you are in for the defence of the Free West, what will be the answer to this country? You must know full well that unless you have done it in agreement with the other Allies—not an independent decision, but a launch agreed and carried out by the Allies—you would have nothing but total disaster. The speeches of the Prime Minister on this matter are inviting a policy to be developed in other countries which would be completely disastrous for the people of this country. I think that has to be looked at very carefully.
As to the actual steps that a Labour Government would take, if elected, they have been explained again and again. I must not quote, but if you want further and deeper explanations your Lordships can read for yourselves the House of Commons Hansard of January 16, in a very important Defence debate which took place weeks before the issue of the Defence Paper. A proper note of the points made could have been taken, and proper explanations put into this actual Defence Paper. But it was not done. Although I have a number of other matters I wanted to raise, I will not because of the time, but I say that we have a quite clear policy about this.
Instead of proposing to set fire to the V-bombers, we have said consistently that we will not interfere with the V-bombers so long as they can be kept in service. I do not think for one moment that some of the plans and schemes which have been made, to alter them here and there, so that they can fly low and escape air attack and return, because they would be below and out of reach of certain radar influences, would be possible with these old and ageing V-bombers. I should not like to have the responsibility of sending pilots and their crews on such a journey as that with a V-bomber. That is my own view about it. There can be no question, therefore, of our doing away with the V-bomber force at present.
In regard to the other question which was hurled across the House the other day, Mr. Wilson has made it perfectly clear—however clever they were in throwing it at the time they did and when other questions had not been

749
answered from the other side when they were asked—that, from the point of view of our membership of NATO, if the NATO Alliance want their base for the despatch of missiles by submarines at Holy Loch continued, we should have to agree, and would agree, and would support the NATO decisions. But do let us get away from this constant misrepresentation of what Labour has said, and what it is saying to-day. Most of it is twisted and turned about, as it was from wherever the noble Earl obtained his information on the two points he raised this afternoon. Do not let that be repeated. If we are going to fight on Defence, let us have a clear fight. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all the words after ("House") and insert ("has no confidence that the policy set out in the Statement of Defence 1964 provides effectively for the defence of our country and its overseas obligations.")—(Earl Alexander of Hillsborough.)
4.22 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, before dealing with the main points of Lord Jellicoe's speech, I should like to pay a tribute from noble Lords on these Benches to all ranks of the three Services for their discipline, devotion and patience.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, told us to-day about the progress of the amphibious Forces, and we on these Benches are very pleased to hear of this progress, because, in fact, for years past, we have urged upon the Government from these Benches the desirability of fast, mobile forces being available at all times. I agree with the noble Earl, too, that it is desirable to have a manpower debate as a separate issue from the one to-day, and we should welcome such a debate at some time in the near future.
In the early part of his speech the noble Earl spoke for a considerable time—and I do not blame him for it—on the so-called British independent nuclear deterrent, but although I listened very carefully I could not find that the noble Earl really answered the main points against the retention of the deterrent. He put up a rather facile point for it, but did not answer any of the weighty objections against it. To my mind, this
750
argument about the retention of a British independent nuclear deterrent ceased to be a serious argument when the Government, rightly or wrongly, and I believe rightly, abandoned Blue Streak. Up to that time it was possible to talk of a "British independent nuclear deterrent". In my view, since then it is not. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in an intervention described quite accurately what the situation is so far as the Polaris missile is concerned, and on his description alone I would say that it is no longer British or independent.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, made an important statement to-day which has never been made before. He said that the Government would be prepared to abandon the British independent nuclear deterrent in certain circumstances. This is a highly important statement. It is true that the circumstances appear to be that we would abandon it when we could trust our Allies; but, even so, the Government are obviously moving some way from their original position. I think the public and the Press ought to take notice of the statement made to-day by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe.
The question, so far as we are concerned, is, could Britain ever use or threaten to use the independent deterrent independently of NATO or against Allied wishes? In our opinion, they could not. It is quite impossible, as the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said, to imagine Britain independently using the deterrent against the wishes of its Allies. The White Paper, in paragraph 7, in giving some sort of defence for their view, talked about the temptation of a potential enemy, which one presumes is Soviet Russia; and their reason for retaining the independent nuclear deterrent is that otherwise a potential enemy
"might be tempted—if not now, then perhaps at some time in the future—to attack in the mistaken belief that the United States would not act unless America herself were attacked."
Why should the Soviet Union or anybody else be tempted to believe anything of the kind? There are very clever and highly educated people in the Soviet Union; they can read; and Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty starts in this way:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or

751
North America shall be considered an attack against them all."
What is clearer than that? There is no question of America abandoning us or anybody else. She is under the most solemn obligation, as are all the fifteen countries in NATO, to go to the aid of any one of them who is attacked. So I think paragraph 7 of the White Paper and the whole case of the Government on that score is knocked out.
In my view, national security, in the sense that the Defence White Paper uses the term, is out-dated. We must have collective security. In fact, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, paid a great deal of lip service to collective security today. Are we taking sufficient steps in this direction? The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, defined the various spheres of interdependence. Let us examine three of the most important of them: first of all NATO. We are all agreed that, in theory, there is need to sustain NATO. But political, economic and military pressures have been acting against the unity of NATO, and paragraph 14 gives, in my view, a highly optimistic view of British efforts in this direction. One of the great difficulties, of course, about the NATO situation is the joint control of the nuclear deterrent, both the worldwide ones in the hands of the United States and those in the hands of NATO itself, of the Supreme Commander of NATO in Europe.
At its meeting in November last year, the Political Committee of NATO Parliamentarians' Conference, in considering this whole question, seriously recommended that there should be developed within NATO, under the NATO Council, a unified strategic planning system aimed at the development of a full strategic consensus among the members of the Alliance in order to establish an effective basis for discussion regarding the use of both nuclear and non-nuclear forces. They also suggested there should be an elevation of the NATO Council into a high-level Allied forum for unified strategic planning, and that such a revised NATO Council should engage in world-wide strategic planning in the broadest sense, political as well as military. I am glad to see that in paragraph 10 of the White Paper there has been some development in this sphere and that, as noble Lords will see, there
752
"have been the appointment of Allied officers to a Joint Strategic Targetting and Planning Section at Omaha in the United States, the formation of the NATO Nuclear Committee and the appointment of a Nuclear Deputy to the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe."
All these, I believe, are highly desirable signposts to the future. They carry out what we in the Political Committee last November had urged upon the NATO Powers; as chairman of the Committee I am grateful to the NATO Powers for going part of the way to meet us, and I hope that will continue.
As the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, pointed out, nothing was said by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to-day about the mixed-manned force. I have never been against the mixed-manned force to the extent that some have, and I personally am very pleased that the Governments have decided to look into the question and to make an experiment in mixed-manning. I think it is the right thing to do. In paragraph 11 the experiment is mentioned. I quite agree that the mixed-manned submarine was not really a starter. I think to go to sea in a mixed-manned submarine would daunt Nelson. But I see nothing which is not feasible in a mixed-manned surface vessel, and the fact is that in the merchant marine a very large number of vessels are mixed-manned in this sense. They go to sea perfectly happily and safely with a crew made up of all sorts of nationalities.
I would suggest to those very much against the mixed-manned force—in the Political Committee last year most of the Labour and Conservative representatives of this House and another place were against the mixed-manned force, although the Committee as a whole was not against it—that there is this problem of Germany, and this is one way in which, at all events, Germany can have some share in these weapons. Anyone who feels this is not the right way is, I think, under an obligation to say what he would do with the very real problem of giving Germany a share in the future of these weapons.
The noble Earl did not say anything about the Northern Arctic, the northern "skullcap". I have been very much impressed recently in reading an article by, I believe, a Norwegian, Admiral Elis Biorklund, in the March issue of the

753
Contemporary Review, which is in the Library. He describes at some length this northern "skullcap", which is the shortest route between the United States and the Soviet Union for air and submarine, and he warns us of the danger of neglecting this area in defence. Apparently there are not nearly the defensive weapons, particularly naval ships and the like, here that there are in the Mediterranean, and he feels that maybe we are neglecting this particular area. I should like the noble Earl the First Lord to have a look at this article; I think he will find it interesting and stimulating.
I feel, having been to NATO Parliamentarians' Conferences—which always have strong representation from Members of your Lordships' House—for a good many years, seven or eight years, that NATO now needs fresh inspiration; there is too much machine and not enough heart and mind, and not enough imagination. This is not the fault of the officials, who do their job very ably; it is really the fault of the Ministers.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: More harness than horse.
LORD OGMORE: More harness than horse, and not enough whip and carrot, if I am not mixing my metaphors; anyway, not enough thought about it, not enough imagination. I think it is quite time the Ministers had a look at the Declaration of Paris, which was made in Paris in January, 1962. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, knows a great deal about that. He was a great sympathiser before he became First Lord of the Admiralty, and I hope we still have his sympathies. In fact he was a member of the delegation to the Parliamentarians' Conference.
EARL JELLICOE: I hope the noble Lord will not mind my interrupting. I almost interrupted when he said I was paying lip-service to collective defence. I do not think when he reads what I said he will find that that is so. I would assure him that my feelings towards NATO remain as they were.
LORD OGMORE: If the noble Earl takes that personally, I entirely withdraw it so far as he is concerned. I always regard him as a very civilised and cultured man, if I may say so. The last thing I would regard him as doing would
754
be paying lip-service. What I meant was he in his official capacity; the Government were not really carrying it out. They are carrying it out to some extent, but not as much as I should like.
The second really important interdependence—I do not know whether the noble Earl mentioned this, but if he did not, I am sure he had it in mind—is our contribution to the United Nations. Here of course we have done a fine job or, rather, our troops have done a tine job in Cyprus, which is the most recent place in our minds. I feel it is absolutely essential to build up a permanent force. Your Lordships will remember that we had a debate in this House on February 20, 1963, on my Motion on the question of a permanent United Nations Force. I think everything various noble Lords who took part in that debate said has come true already with regard to Cyprus. If we had had a force of the kind envisaged we should not have been in the difficulties we have been in; nor would the United Nations—this scratch force, hurriedly gathered together at the last moment from nations who have had no experience whatever of the part of the world to which they are sent, will not do. One has to have a permanent force.
I am glad the Government have taken the matter up so far as the appointment of staff is concerned, according to the Answer of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to me on March 12. I am very pleased indeed the Government have taken up with the Secretary-General, if not the full force, at all events the staff side of it and staff planning. I think that is most important.
I should like, as we are talking about armaments, to press for disarmament. I believe we must press for this at all times. We must ease tension and lessen the enormous burden on the world of these vast armaments. The recent foreword by Mr. Khrushchev to an Italian translation of his speeches, including proposals for a non-aggression pact between the NATO Powers and the Warsaw Treaty Powers, is, I think, deserving of being taken up see what are the chances of success. We must never forget that it might be possible to obtain real disarmament. Here again

755
I feel our own Ministers have been speaking with rather different voices. In Geneva Mr. Butler called for a nuclear bonfire and the freezing of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles, whereas in the House of Commons on February 26 Mr. Thorneycroft said there is no proposal whatever that the United Kingdom should in any circumstances forgo the Polaris submarine. I believe Mr. Butler was instancing circumstances in which we would forgo the Polaris submarine; and I cannot, subject to correction, reconcile those two speeches.
Here I am subject to correction by the right reverend Prelate who will follow me. In Paragraph 12 of the White Paper on the Government's Defence policy there is a rather curious sentence:
"Our nuclear contribution is vital as an insurance for the future—indeed, as an assurance that we shall have a future."
I should have thought the Almighty would have been the Authority to decide whether we are going to have a future, not the British Government or the Soviet Government or the United States Government or even NATO: it is a matter for God. However, on these matters I claim no authority, and if I am wrong no doubt the right reverend Prelates will correct me; I am prepared to be corrected.
The third interdependence—the last one I want to talk about—is the Commonwealth itself, the need for Commonwealth assistance, of which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, spoke. In Commonwealth defence the Government have, quite rightly and properly, played a part. I would pay them a tribute for the part they have played in Commonwealth Defence. I think the speed with which they acted, and with which the troops acted, is deserving of our gratitude, both in East Africa, as was mentioned in paragraph 18 of the White Paper, and in Malaysia, which was mentioned in paragraph 16. I am afraid that a good many more of these situations may crop up, and I hope and believe that if they do Her Majesty's Government will deal as promptly with the question as they have done in the past.
However, there is an area of tension not mentioned in the White Paper, which I think might crop up and in
756
regard to which we might be called upon for forces in the near future—I refer to the Somali border with Kenya. I think that undoubtedly, as Mr. Sandys said in his statement, although it does not appear in the White Paper, this is a matter which we should be prepared to undertake and underwrite, if necessary. Why this has not come into the White Paper, I do not know. Possibly it was written some time ago and has only just been printed. That is an important obligation which we might have to discharge.
Finally, a word on the Territorial Army. I would not by any means go all the way with Colonel Wigg, who has been referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to-day. But I do go this far with him: I consider that the Territorial Army deserves much better treatment than it has had for years past and has at this moment. I must protest that in this rather voluminous and extensive Statement on Defence—it is true that part of it is taken up by pictures, but there is a good deal here—there is only one short paragraph devoted to the future of the Territorial Army. There is one other short paragraph which talks about its past; but there is only one which deals with its future as such. I consider that that is rather ominous.
This paragraph is ominous, too, because it says that from 1965 more "teeth" arms and administrative units will be provided for the Territorial Army. What is the situation now, in 1964? Why have we to wait until 1965 before the Territorial Army is brought up to the strength in weapons and armaments that it should have? I think this is quite scandalous, and I hope that, quite apart from Party, noble Lords on the Back Benches opposite will support me in this. For many years past we have had debates on the Armed Forces which have not been Party matters, and all of us in this House have supported the Territorial Army. I think this is a confession in the White Paper which should not have to be made. It is high time that the Territorial Army was fully equipped with the weapons it needs, to train with and to operate at any rate on a peacetime scale. It should also be equipped with the administrative units and services that it needs. That is all I have to say to-day. Once more I should

757
like to confirm that we on these Benches have every confidence in the three Services, and we shall do everything in our power to support them.
4.44 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I recognise that this is a subject of such technical and professional quality that a contribution from this Bench might almost seem out of place; I certainly make it with diffidence and, I hope, with brevity. But you do not need to be an expert to realise the intricacies of modern Defence policies, or to acknowledge, as the noble Lord opposite has just done, our own gratitude and pride for those men in our Forces who at the present time are preserving the peace in so many places throughout the world. Equally, all reasonable people, to whom the noble Earl referred at the beginning, would echo the statement of basic policy as it is set out here; that the keystone of it is the prevention of war.
Speaking in terms of those destructive powers which are now at our disposal, he reminded us that the threat of nuclear war still lies heavily upon the conscience of the civilised world. So it is quite right that in a Statement on Defence it should be made clear at the beginning that
"Nuclear weapons are so devastating that unless we prevent them from being used, we shall not be able to secure the homeland or carry out our obligations to those who rely upon us."
Having all agreed to that, I think we ought also to recognise that this danger is one with which we may become too familiar. The deterrent has deterred. It has, as this particular paragraph reminds us, been at least part of the reason why we have had peace, if an uneasy peace, for 19 years. But it has not stopped us as a world from living on the edge of a volcano; and any civilisation that continues there, in that position, without seeking every possible means of putting it right, is not worthy of the name of civilisation.
I think there is something a little too complacent in this reference to the preservation of peace. The nuclear deterrent has acted as a deterrent in this postwar period; but it has done so at a great cost—at an increasing expense and an increasing size; and the danger of
758
its possession extending to other countries than those at present possessing it certainly has not been reduced. The nuclear stalemate, therefore, is not a static position, and it is not in itself a contribution to peace.
I do not want to elaborate on that, nor do I want to go in any detail into the constant concern to which the noble Earl referred earlier, of Christian opinion throughout the world at our present condition. It has been made volubly known to us by those who have made their protest in terms calling for unilateral renunciation. The bulk of the Christian world does not go with them in this, but it goes with them in the same concern; and there is hardly any gathering of representatives of the Churches throughout the world—and there have been two in my mind, one in Odessa and one in the United States within the last six months—which does not echo just this same thing: that it is our duty to press upon Governments the constant need to go on looking for, if you like, holes in this wall of the stalemate, so that we can begin to bring about a better situation. The Test Ban Treaty has certainly raised our hopes, and has left us asking what the next step should be.
It is just for this reason that I presume to refer to two particular points, partly already made familiar to your Lordships in this debate, that come out of the Statement on Defence. The first is in paragraph 12, in regard to which the noble Lord who has just spoken has reminded us of the theological issue. It is true—and I would echo his own words—that it is the Almighty who has an assurance of our future; but I think I would go on to remind him that what kind of future that is, is left to decisions which are within our own control, and so He has ruled it. Therefore, whether it is the more distant future which the noble Lord has in mind or the nearer future, what I should like to ask is: in the relationship between the insurance that nuclear weapons give us and the present security which we derive from our conventional forces, does this statement, for instance, of our present disposition of Forces represent a step forward from the position in which this country might be forced to resort to nuclear weapons first?

759
Some years ago, at least, it was quite definitely stated as a matter of Government policy that the nuclear umbrella (if I may refer to it like that) was accepted as necessary. It might be because of a deficiency in conventional arms. It might be, of course, because the nuclear weapons we have, particularly the V-bombers, are far less effective as a second strike than as a first strike. But, however that might be, I can only say that while anything which might lead to general nuclear warfare would be intolerable in any circumstances, it would seem far more intolerable that we should be in a position where we might have to launch it first. It seems clear that one limited way in which tension could be relaxed and the dangers reduced would be for nations to get away from the need or the readiness to strike first with nuclear arms; and we would ask, from our own Assemblies, of any Government of our own, whether their policy is being shaped to this end.
The second question has already been closely canvassed by the noble Earl and noble Lords opposite who have spoken to it. Our main objective, as paragraph 5 has stated, is true disarmament and all the steps within this to control and reduce nuclear weapons until they can be eliminated as a potential threat to us. Our own Government over many years have, through channels of diplomacy, been working to this end, and they have been responsible, as we recognise, for the initiative and for the continuance of negotiations very often in moments of complete breakdown. I would speak for the Churches here when I say that we must be behind any Government policy that presses on continually for a solution to this problem and makes clear to us, as a nation, what costs it might bring to us.
But in this long process, to an increasing number of us this notion of the independence of our own British deterrent does not seem to fit into the picture; and I cannot but repeat, in a sense, my perplexity as it has been voiced on the other side of the House. It seems to us certainly not enough for Christian assemblies to pass motions condemning nuclear war. We do not want to do that. We want to be informed, we want to be realistic; and it is for that reason we find it so difficult to understand, in this context of the independent nuclear deterrent, how far
760
it is genuinely independent, or at least how far it could possibly remain so when V-bombers give place to the Polaris, seeing that independence must really connote all the processes from production to delivery.
It is also questionable to us how far, even supposing it is independent, or so long as it is, there could be circumstances in which this country could contemplate making use of it independently of our Allies. To have recourse to nuclear arms could not be an isolated act in an isolated part of the world. It would be, or could be, the prelude to a holocaust to ourselves and all other people. Is there any part of the world where British interests and loyalties could justify something that might involve the rest of the globe without at least the concurrence of our Allies? Or, if we come nearer home—and I imagine it is nearer home that we have in mind—are there any realistic circumstances in which the defence of this country itself could require independent action in the nuclear field which did not, and would not, involve sooner or later our own Allies? We have grave doubts—and I think we voice those of many of the public generally—whether this whole notion of independence is not being over-stressed.
These doubts are reinforced by another question which has already been touched upon: whether, by clinging to the idea of an independent deterrent, we are not losing the chance of making our own constructive steps to control and disarmament. It is not a satisfactory answer to claim on the ground of past history that nuclear possession is always a passport to power or prestige or influence around the conference table. We recognise the importance of the part played there by Her Majesty's Government in many negotiations. But it is questionable, where the same situation exists to-day, whether the development within the NATO countries or in the Disarmament Conference itself is not making this kind of passport less and less effective. What is more, this attitude seems to be a direct incitement to seek the same means and to adopt the same attitude. Few nations may take it up, but if nuclear possession is publicly being labelled by us as an entitlement to a particular sphere of

761
influence it is impossible for us to escape the charge that we are indirectly encouraging that very proliferation of weapons which we are seeking to avoid.
We all want our country to exercise its moral influence upon the situation—the kind of influence which we believe it ought to exert. I hope that we could see this influence used in different ways more consistent with the modern international scene and the crying human need—indeed, by declaring our own readiness at least to share control of what we have with our Allies. I speak here, like the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, with great interest and some hope for what the noble Earl said earlier—that the statement in this White Paper about the retention of our own deterrent is not so hard and fast as it sounds. Certainly, if I may quote the plea passed not only by the British Council of Churches but by an overwhelming majority of the Church Assembly last month (in which both laity and clergy were present), it is that we believe that
"Britain should express her willingness to forgo the claim to independent nuclear action if thereby more effective machinery can be established for shared control of the deterrent in any part of the world and so the proliferation of national nuclear forces can be halted".
We have said "if thereby". We have not gone as far as pleading for immediate unilateral renunciation. We claim that there is here the possibility of some fresh initiative which we think would lie in our own declared readiness not to cling to something which, by its surrender, might contribute to the elimination of this danger elsewhere.
We are aware that all this is to raise many other issues: relationships between NATO itself, distinctions between the general control or direction of policy, the actual power of final decision, the pressing of the button, and so on. These are complex questions, but cannot be insuperable if we have a will to them. What seems to us desperately important is that in a world where false ideas of national power or prestige are prolonging the threat to human peace, this country should take a step to show her readiness to curtail or renounce some of her own independence at just that point where people are most sensitive.
There will be throughout the country, as there are in this House and between
762
the Parties themselves, wide differences of opinion on this issue. It is surely very dangerous on this particular issue to adopt attitudes that are too hard and fast. In the intricacy of our own situation there is a need for fluidity in policy and a readiness to adjust or even to compromise it, if thereby any step forward can be gained which will relieve the tension elsewhere. Possibly, it seems disastrous that certain ideas like the independent deterrent should become so established in people's minds; they have become almost clichés, a kind of nailing of the national flag to the mast.
The Churches themselves would make a very special plea that this kind of issue does not become aggravated by the pressure of Party politics in an Election year. The electorate can be misled: they can be encouraged to fasten on to phrases or ideas emotionally and quite unrealistically. This would be equally true of those who cry, "Ban the Bomb", as of those who cry, "Retain the independent deterrent".
Under the pressure of all this, we are all aware that Parties, or certain sections, certainly, of people, may be forced into positions from which they cannot easily withdraw, even if circumstances later demand it. There will no doubt be differences between the Parties which have not yet been expressed, but many of us have a suspicion that their differences on this issue are not as wide as many public pronouncements suggest. That may be true of many political issues, of course, but on issues of national policy in the region of war we think the matter is too grave to be handled in this kind of way. Nuclear war and all that may affect the possibility of it is not a Party concern, nor a national concern; it is a concern of the whole world: and we hope that in the coming debates before the country this issue will be lifted up as far as possible above the dusty arena of the General Election.
5.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: My Lords, last week in your Lordships' House a number of noble Lords from the "tribal areas" had quite a field day, and earlier this afternoon I reminded your Lordships that to-day is St. Patrick's Day. As we are discussing Defence, it may not be

763
out of place in your Lordships' House to remind you that, during Hitler's war, Ireland—and I speak of the island, without reference to current political boundaries—provided the Armed Forces with six field-marshals. I would name them in alphabetical order: Alanbrooke, Alexander, Auchinleck, Dill, Gort, and, if I may be allowed to add it at the end of the list, Montgomery. I doubt whether the "tribal areas" can equal that record.
My Lords, I should like to try to lift this debate out of the realm of controversy and deal in my speech with only two matters: first, the Central Organisation for Defence; and, secondly, the problem as to whether the Armed Forces of our nation can continue to support British foreign policy adequately in a disturbed world without some form of National Service—and I would emphasise very strongly the word "adequately". The Central Organisation for Defence has been given a general welcome (and your Lordships will note that I say "general" welcome) by all political Parties in your Lordships' House and, so far as the Armed Forces are concerned, it has been agreed on a Cabinet level. I suggest that we must now do all we can to make this new organisation work and be a success. All inter-Service bickering should now cease. Since I have advocated this particular organisation for so many years, I should like to explain certain matters, which are not mentioned in the Statement on Defence, 1964.
The first thing to be clear on is what are the assets that have been gained. First, policy and the overall control of operations are now centralised under the Secretary of State and the Chief of the Defence Staff. It may be that the Services think they have something to fear. I would say that the Services have nothing to fear. The management remains in the hands of each separate Service, although the Secretary of State will have the right to intervene if he wishes to do so. He is the captain of the inter-Service team. Next, the staff structure in the new Ministry of Defence will ensure that operational problems are dealt with promptly, on an inter-Service basis from the earliest beginnings, and this will be a tremendous improvement. It will be greatly helped
764
by the integration of signals and of all intelligence, which matters are already very well advanced.
On the administrative side, the appointment of a Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Personnel and Logistics) and a Deputy Under-Secretary (Administration) will ensure that a big push is given to the question of integration and for increased interdependence on all administrative and logistic matters. We are also better off—far better off—in the complicated and vastly expensive business of the formulation of weapons requirements, research and development, and production, because there is an inter-Service staff under the chairmanship of the Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff (Operational Requirements). Also, high-grade scientists and Service officers in the Defence Research Committee and the Weapons Defence Committee are both under the chairmanship of that outstandingly experienced Chief Scientific Adviser to the Minister of Defence.
Lastly, on that point, my Lords, it must be the hope that the Central Organisation for Defence will result in a reduction of manpower at the top. It looks as if this will not be the case to begin with. That may he understandable, and I think we have to accept it. But if, after, say, one year, the manpower at the top is greater than the present Ministries added together, then I suggest to your Lordships that some explanation will surely have to be demanded by Parliament in no uncertain voice.
There are some rocks ahead. The new Defence Organisation will cause a big upheaval, and I have the feeling that there will be scenes of intense military confusion in Whitehall as we approach April 1 next. But we must not be dismayed if that should happen: it is bound to take time for this organisation to settle down. We must let it evolve gradually, learning as we go along and not being afraid to make changes when it is seen that they are necessary. In fact, my Lords, I would say do not let us be too critical at present. Give the new organisation all the help we can, and do not let us demand to be given exact details as to how this or that will be handled—because it is too early yet to say. We must all push at the back of the scrum and give it a good start.

765
I heard a great deal of criticism from senior serving officers of all three Services when the scheme for a unified Ministry of Defence was launched. But I regard it as a most encouraging sign that this opposition appears not only to have disappeared but to have been transformed into a positive enthusiasm—certainly among all the more enlightened senior officers. For myself, I am enthusiastic about it; and I am confident that it will greatly increase inter-Service harmony and efficiency. But I would sound a note of warning: that no amount of reorganisation can ever replace the need for decisions by the Minister on major matters of policy. That, I am sure, is very true.
My Lords, I should like to deal with certain matters in a little more detail and, being a soldier, I will take the Army as an example, though the same problems will arise, in principle, for the Navy and the Air Force. The Army can be confident that its domestic affairs will be handled, much as they have been in the past, by the Army Board of the Defence Council. The Army Board has replaced the Army Council, but has exactly the same membership. There is the difference that the Secretary of State for Defence can attend and take the chair if he wishes, but it will be more usual for the Minister of Defence (Army) to take the chair.
Officers are always very anxious about their promotion, and this matter of promotions will be handled, as appropriate, by the Chief of the General Staff (who was formerly the C.I.G.S.), direct with the Military Secretary Branch of the Secretary of State for Defence. Promotion to Major-General, or to two-star rank or above, with an inter-Service flavour, must first be cleared with the Chief of Defence Staff, as is the case to-day. The normal Army promotion boards now in the War Office will continue. I am delighted that a senior and experienced general officer, General Moore, has been appointed as the First Defence Services Secretary to be the direct contact between the Services and the Palace, between the Secretary of State and the Queen. He should be the servant of the Chief of the Defence Staff and the three Chiefs of Staff in helping to produce the essential long-range forecast of senior appointments, many of which are now entirely inter-Service.
766
Staff training in all three Services will need to be very carefully studied, bearing in mind the requirements of technical and inter-Service staffs and so on. I believe that it is enormously important that all officers should believe in the new organisation and have confidence that it will in no wise jeopardise their careers as soldiers, sailors or airmen. For this reason, the career structure of officers must be handled by the Army and not by the Ministry of Defence. Their careers begin at Sandhurst; and I suggest to your Lordships that the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst is neither a true military academy nor a university. We try to make it both. In certain arms an officer on leaving the Army has no commercial value. In the United States of America and in Canada the cadet remains for four years at his military academy and gets a degree which is accepted in civil life. I would suggest to your Lordships that we might examine that procedure.
Some years ago it was agreed that an officer could have guaranteed employment in the Army up to the age of 55; that is to say, if a major was passed over for command of his regiment he could stop on in the Army until he was 55. I think that was a great mistake. Once passed over for promotion, an officer loses interest and enthusiasm. That is why I think the whole career structure of the officer in each Service needs very thorough investigation so as to give confidence and attract the right type of boy. I think the starting point should he the difference between the pre-war, happy-go-lucky, financially independent, "huntin, shootin' and fishin'" officer of the 1920's and the early 1930's and the ambitious, hard-up with nothing save his pay, highly trained officer of the 1960's.
You see, my Lords, the times have changed greatly, but the system very little. A major factor is the tremendous increase in staffs—single Service, inter-Service, technical and Allied. These make great demands on the time available and lead to much unsettlement in the lives of individuals and units. The Army to-day has over 800 officers seconded overseas with our Allies and in the Commonwealth countries. The overall shortage of officers in the Army is some 2,000; and the staffs continue to grow in size. Because I was one of

767
them, I know very well the enormous staffs maintained at all NATO headquarters in Europe, at least half of whom do not do a full day's work. Their time is mostly spent in reading papers. Nobody can read intelligently more than half the papers turned out; and the other half is not worth reading. Perhaps under the new organisation the problem of staff will have to be reviewed on a Ministry of Defence basis.
I suggest to your Lordships that undue criticism of the Defence effort of Britain can do immense harm to the prestige of our country overseas and to the morale of the Fighting Services. Do not let us forget that the spirit of the warrior is the greatest single factor making for success when it comes to fighting. Our country has to-day, roughly (I stress roughly) the following numbers of soldiers deployed overseas: Cyprus, 7,000; Aden, 6,000; East Africa, 5,000; Malaysia, 6,000; and the Navy and Air Force have played their full part in this deployment. We have 3,000 British troops in Hong Kong, not counting the Gurkhas. We have troops deployed in Swaziland and British Guiana. My view is that unrest in countries for which we are responsible has been handled in a way which is beyond all praise. I believe that the Ministry of Defence and the three Service Ministries deserve our gratitude and our thanks. They, and the Armed Forces, have never been less open to criticism, and such criticism as is made in Parliament is, I presume, for Party political purposes.
Now I should like to take a look into the future. I think that that is important. In the past, there has been a tendency for each Service Ministry to decide on the shape and size of its own Service and, perhaps sub-consciously, to try to bend its role to build up its importance and to build up its share of the Budget. I feel sure that in the new organisation there will he genuine inter-Service thinking, which will truly and consciously place the interests of the country before the sectional interests of the Service. That is what I hope. The result will be that the Chief of Defence Staff, on behalf of the Chiefs of Staff, will be able to advise the Secretary of State for Defence on a truly national programme for the rôle, shape and size of the Armed Forces. That will enable
768
the Secretary of State, after Cabinet approval, to issue orders accordingly to the Ministers of Defence of each Service.
In your Lordships' House on November 19 last I gave it as my opinion that the concept of an all-Regular Army is not appropriate to the needs of the 1960's, nor of this troubled world as we peer into the 1970's. The reason I gave was that it is not big enough; nor can it be built up quickly enough. I said that some form of National Service was indicates. I was very careful not to say exactly what form it might take, because that would need the most careful investigation, in consultation with industry, the trade unions, the headmasters of schools and everybody else interested in the youth of our country. For instance, the age of call-up and the length of service would be factors of great importance.
Your Lordships would be quite entitled to say to me, "If we turn over to some form of National Service, what sort of Army do you envisage?" And I should like to try to answer that question. I should like to see, for the future into which we are moving, an Army with a Regular content and a National Service content. I should like to see the Regular content somewhere about the figure of 100,000—highly paid, good pension, terminal grant free of tax, high educational standards, difficult to get into; in fact, an Army which would attract the best type of lad in our country, and even he would find the competition for entry very intense; an Army in which the minimum engagement would be for, say, nine years. I should like to see a National Service content also of somewhere about 100,000—two years' service, half the pay of the Regular, good terminal grant, a guaranteed job on leaving in that his employer must take him back if of good character, and pay as a Regular if he should take on later for nine years or longer.
Naturally, such a proposal would need very careful investigation. I would say that it would take two years before such a National Service Act could be put on the Statute Book, maybe longer. And I would hope that Parliamentary investigation of the proposal would he by an all-Party Committee. The matter is too serious for it to be made a Party political issue. The great advantage of

769
National Service is that you can play tunes on it. By that I mean that if the world is peaceful and commitments are few, the call-up can be small. But if troubles seem to be looming ahead and commitments begin to grow, or look as if they are going to grow, the call-up can be larger.
I do not suppose that any of your Lordships will disagree with me when I say that the rôle of the Armed Forces is to support British foreign policy. With the type of Army I suggest for the future, we could tackle any problems that might arise. At present, our resources get very stretched because of the German commitment. If it is British foreign policy to keep over 50,000 troops in Germany (I say, "if") and, also, if it is British foreign policy to deploy soldiers from Hong Kong across the world to British Guiana—if it is British foreign policy to do both those things, then I believe that it cannot be done properly and adequately without some form of National Service. And I prefer to use the words "National Service": I do not like the word "conscription".
Lastly, one hears it said on all sides that it would be political suicide for any Party to advocate a return to National Service, certainly before the General Election and, indeed, at any time. I am not so sure. It may well be political suicide for a Party to decline to face the issue and to decline to bring home to the youth of Britain their responsibilities to make a contribution to the safety and to the honour of their country.
5.29 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think that the House will be grateful for the speech made this afternoon by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester. It was a powerful and well-argued speech. Its greatest significance, if I may say so, was in showing that the problem of nuclear weapons is not one confined to the two political Parties. This is not an Election "gimmick"; this is a problem that has exercised the minds of every intelligent man and woman of this country for the last two years. It is therefore with deep regret that we find that this important and vital issue is being used on a Party platform, when it is quite impossible to argue a sophisticated case in the proper manner.
770
The noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, who always speaks with so much charm and humour, has again delivered himself, I think, of a good deal that we would sympathise with, and particularly when dealing with the new Defence set-up in Whitehall. I heard him some two years ago speaking of the "tribal areas". I must admit that on that occasion I took exception, because I thought he was referring merely to Scotland. I cannot see how he can exclude Ireland from the "tribal areas", because my reading of history is that Ireland has created far more trouble to the seat of Parliament than either Scotland or Wales.
This is an Election year, and the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister said in the early days: "Everything we say, everything we do, every posture we strike should have the General Election in mind." There will be many issues at the General Election—housing, economics, schools, hospitals and the cost of living. None of these issues are issues upon which the Government appear to want to fight the Election. They have selected Defence. As I said earlier, this is a subject which it is hard to discuss in public; it is hard to discuss with facts. Any discussion that is worth while depends upon facts. Those of us who have had anything to do with the Services, and have had the privilege of visiting Service establishments, meeting senior Service officers and even meeting Ministers, all realise the considerable difficulty we have in deciding what information we shall give, not only in your Lordships' House, hut on the platform. The noble Earl nods his head in agreement.
It was only a few weeks ago that the Government said that the V-bomber had attained a new rôle and that it would have a low-strike capability. That may well be. But we cannot ask, and we should not expect a reply from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, this evening, what will be the speed of that aircraft; what will be its performance so far as height it concerned; what its life would be as a low-strike aircraft, and particularly for information as to the training of the pilots. These are important factors of information, but we are not able to ask these questions because the answers must be secret. In the case of Cyprus, not one of us would wish to ask the Government:

771
"What is the strength of that battalion?" and name it.
We could not, in the case of Malaysia, ask what is the strength of a particular squadron of armoured cars. We could not do the same thing in the case of East Africa, or the B.A.O.R. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, well knows from a year or so ago that when I came back from Germany I quoted some of these figures, and I was very careful to take only those units which I knew were not in the front line. But you cannot discuss Defence rationally and properly unless you have facts. That is one of the reasons, I believe, why the Government have taken this particular issue to discuss: because it is the one vital issue of the country on which facts cannot appear. I think this is a bad service to our country.
I am particularly concerned, as I am sure the noble and gallant Viscount who spoke last is, in regard to Malaysia. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has seen the words of Dr. Soekarno in to-day's Times. Here he has deliberately stated that the confrontation will be increased. Anyone who knows that district (I see the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Birmingham here, and he knows the area and knows the jungle) will know the terrible difficulties our Forces must have in carrying out any form of operation. There we have a 1,000 miles front, and we have 6,000 to 7,000 troops in the area. If this confrontation is increased, these troops will not be sufficient. I should like to ask the Government where reinforcements will come from. Yesterday, as reported on this morning's radio, the Prime Minister challeged the Opposition in regard to conscription. We are not the Government. It was not we who abolished National Service; it was not we who sent these battalions under strength: it was the Government. Surely it is the Government that we should ask: "What are you going to do about it during the months that you retain power?" I hope we shall have an answer to that question this evening.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, whether he can give us some indication of what the Government propose to do in regard to increasing recruiting figures. Having
772
recently visited the Servicemen, and spoken to them, both in Germany and in the Far East, I do not believe that it is a question of pay; I think it is largely a question of the conditions under which our soldiers are asked to serve. When you are trying to recruit the right type of man, the intelligent man, you have to recognise that in this society he wishes to be married, and, therefore, you have to take into careful consideration the accommodation that you provide for your Service personnel.
I recognise that in Germany we are providing accommodation for our soldiers of all ranks superior to what they are likely to have in this country, and I would give a special commendation to the Government for that. But there are in the Service two Services, if you like to put it this way: those who are privileged to live under those conditions and in that accommodation, and those who are not. There are units who have come from Hong Kong and Singapore and who perhaps for many years have not been based in the United Kingdom; they have come from the Far East and gone to Germany with their families, and there is insufficient accommodation. I saw some of the accommodation in which these soldiers were living. My heart broke when I saw children who were unable to be provided with the normal British food, because the accommodation in which the Service people were living precluded them from cooking, and therefore the only opportunity they had for a meal was to go into a German hotel. Quite apart from the expense, there is a considerable difference between the diet of a British child and that of a German child. I hope that the Government will look into this matter carefully.
I realise that there are difficulties in dealing with this matter quickly, but I believe many of them could be overcome if we could give far more flexibility and resources—and I would stress the word "resources"—to the voluntary units who are to-day looking after our Service personnel. By and large, these voluntary bodies are there to look after the soldier in the barracks. I do not suppose they have the resources—certainly they had not in September—even if they have the authority, to look after Service families in Germany and also in the Far East.

773
I would therefore hope that the Government would give support and flexibility to these families and the welfare organisations.
May I also say in passing—and I will not develop this theme—that I believe there is some considerable difficulty being experienced by our British Servicemen in regard to hire-purchase agreements. Perhaps the noble Lord will look into this and we might discuss it later. I believe it is becoming quite a serious matter.
I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when he replies, because the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was quite silent on the matter, whether he will deal with H.M.S. "Blake". The noble Lord will remember that H.M.S. "Blake", which was built at considerable cost, was put into "mothballs" because there was a shortage of skilled staff. It was a very modern cruiser. We believe that H.M.S. "Blake" was taken out of service in order to provide a nucleus of our skilled men for killer submarines. Can the noble Lord say with any assurance that the Navy are likely to obtain the skilled men required for the new fleet of Polaris submarines without in any way preventing the growth of the killer submarine fleets and without having to take out of service such ships as H.M.S. "Blake"? I ask this because I heard a rumour some time ago that possibly H.M.S. "Tiger" was to be taken out of service.
In regard to transport aircraft, when one looks at the line of communication to the Far East from this country one wonders whether there is not some point in the comment by the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, some two years ago about building a base in Australia. I would not go quite so far as he did, just making this the main base and withdrawing from the East into Australia, but I think there is a strong case for stockpiling in Australia. When we look at this long, stretched line of communication and at the aircraft which are available to us we see that that line of communication could well be broken and our Services would be placed in extreme difficulty.
When the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, replies would he say when we may expect the VC.10? I understood that this aircraft was shortly to go into the Royal Air Force Transport Command, but I
774
think I saw a note in the House of Commons that we might not now expect it until 1966–67. If that is the case, we should be very grateful to be told why.
This debate, obviously, must be deep on the question of the nuclear deterrent. A good number of years ago I certainly took the line—and I do not mind admitting that I have had to change my view—that there was a case for this country to have the nuclear deterrent, but like the Government of the day I did not visualise it as an independent nuclear deterrent. It was only after Nassau that it became an independent nuclear deterrent. Prior to that it was always a contribution to Western Defence. It was part and parcel with the United States of America a deterrent to any attack by the Soviet Union. When I first supported the deterrent I did not anticipate that it would ever be regarded as an independent weapon. I often wonder why there has been this sudden change in the attitude of the Government towards the independent deterrent. Is it the fact that the Government themselves are becoming so conscious of their dependence on overseas equipment?
My Lords, if we were to go through the list of equipment in all our Services, particularly of the last two or three years, and also of equipment which is now coming into service, we should immediately be struck by the very large percentage of foreign-developed weapons. May I remind your Lordships of the Belgian rifle; the American tactical nuclear weapons, Sergeant and Corporal; also of the fact that the Canberra is equipped with an American nuclear device; German bridge-building equipment; French helicopters which are now in service, and in spite of our helicopter industry we go to the United States of America for our new equipment. There is the Australian anti-tank missile; the Italian pack-howitzer; the 105 tank guns from the United States of America and Sweden; and now we are buying the Phantom fighter.
When I was in the NATO Parliamentary Conference I always advocated that countries within the Alliance should try to purchase each other's equipment, that we should try to stabilise and get continuity of equipment, but this appears to me to be a one-way traffic.

775
We are supplying very little. In fact, it would be interesting to know from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when he replies what equipment we are providing on a major scale that we are able to sell. My memory goes back to Australia. What has Australia bought? For fighters they bought the Mistaire; for a strike aircraft, not the TSR 2 but the TFX. New Zealand have bought, not our transport aircraft—and, heaven knows! we have built sufficient—but the American Hercules. These countries within our own Commonwealth are not able to support our various industries. Why is it, when we have poured these millions of pounds into research, that we do not seem to be able to produce the equipment which satisfies them? I am sure the House is entitled to a reply.
I feel my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition dealt adequately with the question of the independent deterrent, but may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, this. If the Prime Minister says that we need to have the nuclear weapon—the deterrent—to give us the right to sit at the top table, which top table does he mean? Does he mean some special group within NATO, or does he mean some new committee which will be set up to effect world disarmament? The noble Lord must come out straight this evening. Is the possession of a nuclear weapon the sole credential for any country to sit at a table to discuss design? It is a very serious issue if the Government believe, as I think they do, that it is the sole credential. How then can we say to Germany that she should not make an alliance with the French to produce the Paris-Bonn nuclear force? If that were to happen the possibilities of war in Europe would be manifold.
We have paid great tribute to our soldiers in Cyprus. I wonder whether the Government have learned anything from Cyprus? Surely, there are two lessons. First, when a problem like the Cyprus or the East Africa problem arises, speed of action is necessary, it is vital; and I grant that the Government did well in reacting to the Cyprus problem at Christmas. The other factor—and it is quite clear now to the Government—is that when we are called upon to undertake a police action, it should not be undertaken by one nation.
776
It becomes too involved on one side or the other. The Government themselves have had to admit this. Therefore, as we know, reluctantly they have agreed to the United Nations' force. I would suggest that, in response to our friends in Sweden, in response to Mr. Lester Pearson in Canada, and in response to a number of other countries, we should take this opportunity of building as quickly as possible a United Nations' police force.
My Lords, we have a special part to play. As my right honourable friend Harold Wilson said, we have a common structure within our forces, equal, if not superior, to that of any other country in the world. This, perhaps, should be our greatest contribution to a police force. I would hope that we should do something more than merely make protestations. I believe that, having regard to the lessons we have learned in Cyprus, and the lessons we might have learned if there had been hostilities in East Africa, we should now go to the United Nations and really work, and for once show our belief in that Assembly.
5.50 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, I am extremely sorry that I have to start by apologising for the fact that I cannot remain in the House until the close of this debate. It is a thing I very much dislike doing, but I made an engagement some months ago. Indeed, if I could tell your Lordships what it is, I think you would appreciate the reason why I must keep it.
In my speech I propose to take the advice of the noble Earl who opened this debate. He said he hoped that in this debate we should not talk all the time about the nuclear deterrent, but would endeavour to redress the balance of the debate. I am not going to talk about the nuclear deterrent. I said last November that it was a subject which I did not feel I sufficiently understood to be able to make up my mind about. I also said that I did not think I had access to all the information necessary to form a reasoned judgment on it. I am still of that opinion, and I am still in that position. I also said then that I did not think it was a suitable subject to put before the electorate, and I am still of that opinion. In that connection, I feel that the remarks made on behalf

777
of the Churches by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester must carry a lot of weight, inside and outside this House, even though a remark on the subject by a Cross-Bencher like myself is probably regarded as unimportant.
The one subject I propose to talk about is manpower for the Army. We talked about that in this House last November; we talked about it again in February, when we had the Reserve Forces Bill before us. It has recently been discussed in another place repeatedly and, incidentally, heatedly. It is discussed frequently in the Press. Everybody knows that the Army is short of men. Everybody knows that recruiting is very disappointing. The White Paper itself says that the build-up of the Army was delayed, which I think is a fairly euphemistic expression. Since everybody knows these things, and so much has been said about it, I fancy that Ministers came down to the House this afternoon hoping that we should not go boring on about it. But I am afraid that that is what we have to do until we are told and assured that some action is being taken to put the position right.
What should we do? The noble and gallant Viscount has told us that we should adopt a form of National Service. I do not disagree with him indeed, I happen to think that National Service is good for the country anyway. But there are certain things that one must admit about National Service. So far as I know, I think it is fair to say that the Generals in the War Office are not pressing for it at this moment, for reasons which I understand. But they perhaps do not take sufficiently into account the wider long-term factors about which the noble and gallant Viscount spoke just now. Secondly, one has to recognise that National Service cannot affect the situation for about two years. But the decisive point about National Service, I think, is that it is quite unrealistic to imagine that any political Party will announce its intention of reintroducing National Service with the General Election around the corner. It is unrealistic because I believe that leaders of both political Parties have long since persuaded themselves, against the weight of the evidence, that National Service
778
is extremely unpopular and political dynamite.
The Minister of Defence said recently in another place:
"If I had to choose between being 8,000–5 per cent.—short on the total Army requirement, as I am, on the one hand, and having conscription on the other, I would choose what I have."
I am quite sure that he would choose what he has at the present time. But saying that does not solve the problem: it does not alter the fact that there is a big shortfall in manpower, and it does not show how it is to be corrected. Moreover, it is my submission that the problem is much more serious than the Government, if I may say so with respect, would have us think. What is this figure that is being spoken of as the total Army requirement? I believe it is a figure of 180,000. But is that the total Army requirement? Where does that figure come from? I would remind your Lordships that it was in 1957 that the new Defence policy was adopted, a policy that would rely, in the main, on the "big loud bang"; and as regards conventional forces it was stipulated that what we should need was sufficient to meet our requirements to our Allies, with a reserve available to put out the occasional bush fire.
When that policy was announced, a figure of 165,000 was given as the target for the Army. Not even then, my Lords, was it seriously argued, so far as I know, that 165,000 represented the calculated requirements against the probable commitment. To the best of my belief, 165,000 was the figure to which the Government thought they might recruit without having to resort to National Service. That figure of 165,000 soon proved to be too low, and it was raised, first to 175,000 and again, in 1959, to 180,000. Since then, I suggest, two fresh things have happened. The first is that it has become apparent to many people—certainly it seems so to me—that it will not be possible to recruit up to 180,000 for any reasonable period without some form of National Service, provided that we are going to continue to have full employment in the country. The reason why recruiting went up in 1962 was that for a while we ceased to have full employment. That is a new factor which has come into the picture. Another one, I suggest, is that since 1957 we have come

779
to realise that the process of liquidating an Empire involves us, and is likely to involve us, in a great many commitments that we had not brought into account then.
The plain truth, my Lords, in my view, is that the figure of 180,000 is too large measured against the possibilities of voluntary recruitment, and too small as a figure representing our proper requirements. I believe that a new appraisal is needed, and that in the new Defence structure that is being set up a very good opportunity exists for making that new appraisal. I thought that in what he said the noble and gallant Viscount was proposing something very similar. A new appraisal is needed, and the Government must then say what number of men we actually need and how we are to get them. Meanwhile, if I may make a suggestion to both political Parties, it is that it would be wise at this time not to talk too much as if National Service were an obscenity which in no circumstances would they impose upon the country. Because, assuming that both Parties fancy their chances in the next Election, I think they should avoid it in case there are some red faces not so very far in the future.
But National Service cannot, for the reason I have given, be introduced at this time, and therefore every possible expedient should be tried to mitigate the situation. I have the noble Earl's words when he opened this debate. He spoke of
"… all the initiative, imagination and determination that we can muster";
and he invited us to make any suggestions which we thought we had to mitigate the position. Therefore, I will be bold enough to take him up on that.
I know, of course, that the War Office are doing all they can to stimulate recruiting—they know their business far better than I know it, and I would not attempt to teach them. Nevertheless, I think it is fair to assume that the War Office could do more if they had more money. The first thing, therefore, that I would suggest is that the Government should make it plain to the War Office that any reasonable proposal which will really stimulate recruiting in the immediate future will be backed un by them and that finance will be found for
780
it. As I say, the War Office know far better than I do what they can do, but I think that, given more money, they could have a "crash" programme on married quarters—and I entirely agree with the remarks made on that point by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
They could also do more than they have done, I feel, to assure the potential recruit that the Army really will be a fine career for him; that soldiers will not all be treated alike in this respect, but that men will be given opportunities commensurate with their talents, technical skills and abilities; also, that at the end of their Colour service everything possible will be done not only to give them a job, but to give them a good job. In that connection, I must confess to an interest as Chairman of the Regular Forces Employment Association. But I certainly believe that more could be done in this direction and that more publicity could be given to what is being done.
There are some other things which I think, with respect, the Government might do to ease and mitigate the situation. I do not understand why the Government will not authorise the use at this time of the Emergency Reserves. As The Times put it:
"If ever there was a time when the Army was short of men it is surely now."
I think that most of the men in these reserves would be glad to be used, and I believe they could be used to great advantage. Another thing that I should like to see the Government do is to make an announcement about the future of the Gurkhas. The situation about the future of the Gurkha contingent, so far as I know it, is somewhat vague, and I should have thought that any idea of running the contingent down at this time would be unwise and should be dismissed.
I am going to be bold enough to suggest something else to the Government. I do not like saying this, but I believe it should be said. The Government must see to it that our troops are not put through further experiences of the type that they have been through in Cyprus during the past weeks. I am not criticising what the Government have done in Cyprus: I think it is an awful problem, to which probably there is no good solution. And I am not,

781
of course, detracting one iota from the praise that has been given to our troops for the manner in which they have conducted themselves, which is past all words good. But I am saying that pictures in the newspapers of a British soldier, sitting in a British armoured car, being held at the point of a pistol by a Greek Cypriot irregular, and stories in the newspapers about our soldiers being "frisked" at a Greek Cypriot road block, whatever they may be, are not stimulants to recruiting. I will go further and say that I hope the Government will not allow our troops to be committed to operations in Cyprus under the United Nations unless they are given perfectly good, clear, honourable terms of reference.
Finally, my Lords, we must remember that manpower does not include only other ranks; it also includes officers. The question of officer shortage was mentioned by the noble and gallant Field Marshal. I need not repeat the figures he gave, but I agree with him that it is a problem of quantity and quality. Particularly as regards quality, I should like to make a suggestion. I need not turn to the reference, but the White Paper admits that last year there was a big fall in university entry. We need the university entry. Incidentally, I am not saying this as an aspersion against Sandhurst, for some time ago I arrived, quite independently, at the same conclusion about Sandhurst as that voiced tonight by the noble and gallant Field Marshal. But I repeat, and I think that it will be generally agreed, that we need the university entry. In these competitive days if you want a slice of the good cake, if you want to put your spoon into the cream jug, you have to be competitive; you have to go out and get what you want. I read recently with some pleasure that the Army have been authorised to offer ten university scholarships a year. I wonder if the Minister who is replying to this debate would care to tell the House—I shall read Hansard with great care to see what he says—how that figure of ten scholarships a year compares with what other large organisations in civil life, including, for example, the National Coal Board, are doing.
Another aspect of officer recruitment is that mention is made in the White
782
Paper of short-service commissions, and a statement is made that they are again falling, followed by a statement that the Government propose to take some action about it. I shall be very interested if the Minister cares to give us some information as to what action the Government contemplate, because it is my belief that fresh thinking on that subject has been needed for some time. We ought to get far more, especially from the ranks, of short-service commissions, and I believe that in this respect, if not in others, the Army might take a lesson from the Royal Air Force, who seem to be rather more clever at it than the Army has been.
Those, my Lords, are my suggestions, and I shall quite understand if the Minister, in replying, says that none of them is any good. But what I hope is that the Government will from now on treat this matter rather differently from the way in which they have treated it so far. In other words, that they will refrain from playing down this problem. For example, I think the noble Earl committed himself to the statement that, as regards the Army, the situation on manpower was only fair. I believe that it is just bad, Gamma-minus, and that it should be treated as such. After all, what is the position? Our Strategic Reserve, so-called, is constantly committed, with very few exceptions, overseas. Our units, especially the Foot Guards and infantry, are woefully under establishment, in spite of the fact that they are working to very low establishments specially authorised to avoid breaking up units, and our commitment to our Allies remains unfulfilled. We have got away with it so far, and the White Paper claims, and is justified in claiming, that all demands have been met. But in spite of that, the situation is inherently dangerous; and it is not dignified and not fair on officers and men. I hope that the Government will make it plain that they regard it in that way, and that they intend in the near future to put it right.
6.11 p.m.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion which stands in the name of my noble and gallant friend Lord Jellicoe, the First (and also, I fear, the last) Lord of the Admiralty. Although the noble Earl is my friend (at

783
least I hope he is), and although I had the honour to serve under his father in the Grand Fleet, I would not support his Motion unless I were convinced that Command Paper 2270 showed quite clearly that the Government are pursuing the right course in their policy for the defence of this country. As most of your Lordships will be aware, I am a fervent advocate of a maritime strategy for this country and, in fact, for the whole Alliance of the Free World. In my view, this Statement on Defence shows beyond doubt that this is the view taken by the Government, and that within our resources they are taking the necessary steps to provide the ships and the aircraft, the weapons and the men required to pursue such a strategy.
There are one or two matters in the White Paper on which I should like briefly to comment, but before passing on to that I should like to say how much I agreed with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, from the Benches opposite, about the need for considering a base in Perth, Western Australia. The noble and gallant Field Marshal has mentioned it. I myself mentioned it eighteen months or two years ago in this House, and I happen to know from American naval friends that such an idea has been in their minds for quite a long time.
The other thing which has transpired in the course of this debate to which I should like briefly to refer is this question of National Service. I was very interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, and the noble and gallant Field Marshal, and I want only to make one comment. When I wore my industrial hat I found that, when young men came to us to work in all sorts of capacities, two years in the Army, the Navy or the Air Force had done them a lot of good; and when National Service ceased our difficulties in industry were increased, because, quite honestly, the Services had done some of the training for us and had made them better men. On that point, when the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, was speaking, I was reminded that among the papers I found when I cleared up my father's desk after his death, now many years ago, was a whole sheaf of papers in which he was supporting Lord Roberts in his
784
campaign for National Service in about 1909.
I welcome the statement in paragraph 28 about fissile material. It has seemed to me for a long time past that we and our American Allies must be reaching the point of saturation in the stocks of this explosive. After all, to put it crudely, we only want to blow Russia up once. At any rate this welcome decision should release finance and other resources for more pressing needs. Nevertheless, I fully support the Government policy on the independent British deterrent which is clearly set out in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Paper. I do so, as I have said before in this House, because I am not prepared to entrust the honour, welfare and safety of this country into the hands of any other nation, however reliable they may be, or appear to be, as Allies.
This brings me to the mixed-manned force. I must at once say that I do not like this political gimmick. I do not believe that a vessel of the merchant-ship type—or, for that matter, any surface vessel—is a suitable firing platform for the Polaris weapon. These surface ships can be easily sought out and destroyed; and when they were rolling and pitching in a heavy sea, I do not know how they would succeed in putting their missiles on target. The submarine or submersible is, of course, an ideal vehicle for the Polaris weapon. If the weather is very bad, the submarine can dive and go down deep where it is comparatively quiet. I know from my own experience in World War I that if the weather in the shallow waters of the North Sea was very rough we went deep to have a quiet time and give the crew a rest. The Merchant Navy has, of course, had much experience with crews of mixed nationality, but in naval ships under naval discipline matters are not quite so straightforward. These 25 ships would be a naval force, and the first query which arises in my mind is what flag would they wear. NATO has no flag, so far as I know; and they could not fly the United Nations flag. I think that under International Law a warship must fly some flag; and undoubtedly they would be warships.
There are other minor problems which arise in the manning of these ships. As all your Lordships will know,

785
United States naval ships are dry. British bluejackets do not take kindly to coffee, iced water and iced tea; nor, I suspect, do German or Dutch sailors. In the very unlikely event of President de Gaulle allowing the French to join in this party, the French matelots would undoubtedly demand their daily ration of wine. We have been through all this before—I have—in the Mediterranean in World War II, when we had British naval liaison parties in ships of every nationality. It so happened that most of them came back to me with their complaints about the food and the drink, or lack of it. I have also had some experience of integrated staffs, staffs of mixed nationalities; and food and drink were always a problem. Just after the last war a staff mate of mine wrote a most amusing article for Punch under the heading "The Integrated Break-fast". The integrated breakfast, I should explain, is fried eggs and bacon, with a dollop of apricot jam on top. It is not nice. I had to eat it, but the British sailors did not like the integrated breakfast. But, speaking seriously, I hope that the Government will be successful in persuading our Allies that this particular plan is not very sound. I cannot believe that it is seriously supported by the United States Navy or by naval opinion in the United States, any more than it is supported, so far as I am able to find out, by any of our own naval people. I suspect that this plan emanates from the State Department at Washington, aided and abetted by our own Foreign Office; and I must say, quite frankly, that I regard it as a military nonsense.
To turn to aircraft carriers, I welcome the decision to design and build a new aircraft carrier. I realise that size and design must depend largely on what type of aircraft will be available to operate from it. It seems to me that the principal function of our aircraft carriers in the future will be in support of our land forces in operations rather similar to those going on now and, even more important, in an anti-submarine rôle—that is, the protection of our vital sea routes and lines of communication.
In considering the design of this new aircraft carrier, I do not think we should think in terms of air strikes such as Taranto, or of the enormous and
786
terrific air strikes of the United States—Japanese war in the Pacific. The potential enemy's fleet is mainly submarines, with possibly a few surface raiders. For myself, I think that the day of the really big aircraft carrier is out. I notice in the papers that tenders for the building of this new aircraft carrier are not going to be called for until the Spring of 1966, so there is plenty of time carefully to consider her design. I must say that I would prefer two small ones rather than one large one.
In any future war our convoys will be bigger and faster than any of those we saw in the last two wars. As the bleating goat tied to a tree attracts the tiger, so will the convoys attract the enemy submarines and aircraft. It seems to me that our convoys will require not only surface escorts but carrier-borne air cover in addition to what air cover can be given by shore-based aircraft.
This brings me to Coastal Command. Are we really satisfied that the rebuilt Shackletons are adequate for the important duties they will have to perform? Coastal Command is given only three short paragraphs in the Statement, and nothing is said about new aircraft for that vital force. Last time I spoke on this I expressed the hope that Coastal Command would not remain the Cinderella of the Air Force. I must say that paragraph 187 of the White Paper we are debating does not entirely relieve my anxiety on that score. Again, the convoys will require escort by hunter-killer submarines. "Dreadnought", "Valiant" and another one to be built will be invaluable for this purpose. I suppose that the Oberon class, though not so effective, could be used for this escort duty. But now that no more are to be built, I hope we can be told that further hunter-killer, nuclear-propelled submarines of the "Dreadnought", "Valiant" class are going to follow. I read in the Press that—
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt my noble friend in this respect? I can give him that assurance straight away.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I read in the Press that the 7,000 ton Polaris armed submarines of the "Resolution" class are to carry as well as their Polaris

787
weapons, six 21 inch torpedo tubes. Apart from their deterrent duties, it seems to me that these important vessels could at any rate in the outer oceans, perform without any alteration duties in an escort, hunter-killer rôle.
Although it is not referred to in the Statement, I particularly welcome the decision recently announced to make certain alterations to the "Tiger", "Blake" and "Lion", whereby they can carry four helicopters by removing the after 6-inch guns. This will certainly increase their versatility and usefulness in the sort of naval operations one can envisage over the next decade. One newspaper report said that this was going to be cheap conversion, but I have seen other reports that each one is going to cost about £1 million. I do not call it cheap, but I think it is a good plan to do it.
Finally, I come to paragraph 67. The entry to Dartmouth is still below what is needed. I wonder what the explanation is. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, can give us a clue when he replies. I wonder whether the boys who are able to take the necessary "A" levels do not find the Navy a worthwhile career; and, if so, why not? At any rate, I think that this is an important question. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who suggested that we might have a separate debate on questions of the training, education and manpower generally of the Services. If such a debate were arranged, I personally should be most interested.
Last week I had the opportunity to meet and talk with a most distinguished French Admiral, now retired. During the last war he served under both Cunninghams and Sir Bertram Ramsay. He holds the D.S.O. among other British decorations. I told this old friend that we were to have our Defence debate to-day, and discussed with him some of the naval problems which surround the allied navies. I also asked him, "What shall I say in the debate?" As I left his house he called out, "Don't forget, speak about the Navy, John." I have spoken about the Navy, because, like my French friend, I believe that the allied navies, supported by air power, are the kernel of the nut in the maritime strategy that we must pursue.
788
None the less, I am most anxious that all three Services should continue, and improve on, the close co-operation which recent events have shown already exists to a marked degree. Under the guidance and direction of the Secretary of State for Defence and the new unified Ministry, I feel that this co-operation will rapidly improve at every level and in every function. Although the powers-that-be have chosen to ignore my suggestion that April 1 is not the most happy choice of a launch date, I wish the new Ministry much success in the testing times ahead of them, and hope they will just write me off as a superstitious old sailor.
6.28 p.m.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: My Lords, my contribution is so small that I am sure you will be pleased to hear that it is also short. However, I make no apology for speaking, because what I have to say is, I think, directly contributive both to recruitment and to continuity of service. I have noticed that no one to-day has mentioned one of the strongest points of all in relation to recruitment—namely, the influence of the woman. I say this because I feel that modern situations require modern amenities, and the boy, or young man, who is considering joining the Army, the Navy or the Air Force will always be influenced by his mother, sometimes even by his grandmother; and the man who is considering remaining long-term in the Services will, again, always be influenced by his wife. For this reason, I feel that it is important to look to the welfare services that are supplied to the Army, to a lesser extent to the Air Force, and to a very much lesser extent to the Navy, by voluntary organisations.
I speak on behalf of a vast number of welfare workers whose aim is to serve the type of man whom we have been discussing this afternoon. In this connotation I speak in regard to other ranks and not to the question of the recruitment of officers. Again and again welfare workers are restricted in the work they can do, and in the amount of help they can give, because of a series of difficulties which are constantly obtruding themselves and preventing the work from being carried through to the full.

789
In my position as Chairman of the W.V.S., which interest I declare, I am responsible to-day for nearly 200 women serving overseas, as far afield as Hong Kong, Brunei, Gan, and wherever serving men are. From them I have learned enough to feel that I really know what I am talking about. I have visited these women in different installations; I see them as they come home. I feel that the contribution they can make to the welfare of the men, to the easing of difficulties and the elimination of problems is of paramount importance. This is constantly being recognised both by commanding officers and by the relevant Ministries themselves. But the ever-present difficulty for all voluntary workers carrying out this type of job is that their preventive work in the field of welfare has no variable by which it can be measured; and, in spite of the fact that the graphs of both drunkenness and V.D. go down sharply where this welfare work is done, there is no way in which one can evaluate what is achieved by these services.
If it were possible for all of us who work in this field to have some means by which transport could be made available to full-time, recognised and accredited workers on a definite basis, in which checks of every sort and kind were imposed; if they could have such transport, commensurate with what is at present available to members of the Services or to the dependants of certain Servicemen; and if arrangements could be made in regard to lodging and board, many more welfare workers could be put into the field and much more work could be done, with most revealing consequences. Welfare is always a boring subject and is put at the bottom of the tray, be it the in-tray or the out-tray. Therefore, I beg your Lordships to examine this side of the work, something which may seem trivial when one is discussing as big a problem as your Lordships are discussing to-day. Nevertheless, it has a very definite bearing, on the question both of recruitment and of continuous service. I should not dare to speak in this debate were it not that ultimately so much comes from good welfare wisely done on a continuous basis. I am convinced that the support of the welfare services has meant in the past, and ca n mean in the future, better recruitment and more continuity of service. I hope that your Lordships observe that, although the contribution
790
is small, the time taken to make it has been short.
6.35 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, that seems a very modest plea indeed, that there should be more transport for welfare workers; and, although I know nothing about it, I should like to join my voice to that of Lady Swanborough to that effect.
Yesterday at Question Time I asked the Government for some news of the Working Group which is going into the multilateral force; and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, replied that the technical sub-group of the Working Group, which was examining its military feasibility and desirability, had reported to the Working Group itself. It has been reported in the Press that the gist of that report was that the proposal was feasible militarily. I should now like to ask the noble Lord whether, when he answers the debate, he can give us any news about the probable time when we may expect the report from the Working Group itself, and also to whom we may expect that report to be made.
This is quite a fundamental point. It is not a mere bureaucratic detail. Will it be made to the NATO Council as such, or will it be made from the Working Group to the individual Governments? In the former case, if it is made to the NATO Council, what will be the position of the Governments of Norway, Denmark and France (who will have nothing whatever to do with the M.L.F. and have always declared so); and will those Powers which are considering joining it have to have their decisions and deliberations subject to the advice of those Powers which are opposed to the whole thing? On the other hand, if it is to be made direct to the individual Governments, does this mean that we are faced with something which, whatever it is, is not a NATO force but a private arrangement between certain Powers who also happen to be members of NATO, something which has been fixed up as between the individual Powers, not in accordance with the overall umbrella treaty which governs our defence in the West, not in accordance with the overall agreed NATO strategy which governs what would actually happen in a war—something, in short, which would be on a par with the

791
Franco-German Treaty, for instance, or any local, smaller arrangement which co-exists with the overall arrangement of NATO? In the latter case, how is one to dovetail the thing in with NATO?
I should like now to address myself for a few moments to the British Polaris submarine force, a subject which the First Lord brought up in his opening speech to-day. I do not think it should be necessary for me to state yet again what our position is in this matter. I am afraid the noble Earl got it a bit wrong, but he gracefully accepted correction on it. Let me go a little further into the future, because I believe that there is a certain amount of Party strife about the rather immediate aspects of this question, and that if one looks further ahead the two Parties are not so far apart on what ought to be done on the major issue affecting the defence of this country in the 1970's and 1980's.
The charge is sometimes made by the Conservative Party that the Labour Party is in a state of graduated unilateralism. This was a phrase invented by Mr. Julian Critchley in another place, and it is a good phrase. He said: "You are unilateralists; you are not going to burn the bombers tomorrow, but you are going to let them die off. You are not going to strive to keep alive the British independent deterrent, and this makes you graduated unilateralists. This would be what would happen if, supposing the Labour Party came to power, it turned those submarines into hunter-killers, not missile-bearing submarines at all." I would contend that the Conservative Party and the Government are also graduated unilateralists, only a little more graduated.
Let us look at the matter in economic terms. In the last Defence debate in the House of Commons, the Minister of Defence, speaking of the proportion of the Defence budget which went on the heavy nuclear weapon, spoke as follows [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 690 (No. 61), col. 459]:
"The best estimates I can make are that in 1964–65 the proportion"—
of nuclear to total—
"will be 8·4 per cent.; in 1965–66 it will be 7·6 per cent.; in the late 1960's about 8 per cent"—
792
that is when we start paying for the submarines and the Polaris missiles—
"and in the 1970's it will sink to less than 5 per cent. because by then the capital expenditure on the submarines will have been completed, as the capital expenditure on our V-bombers has been completed already. We shall simply be reduced to running costs."
I draw attention to this. In the 1970's the expenditure will be less than 5 per cent. of the Defence budget.
Everybody knows that no weapons system has ever been devised which lasts for ever. Not only do ships and missiles wear out, but also the defence catches up. The game of deterrent technology will go on, although submarines are not going to be invulnerable for ever. There is going to have to be another system after that. Already, the Americans are designing the fourth generation of Polaris missiles which are going to be some inches wider than the ones we are getting. It will therefore mean chopping the submarines in half, as the First Lord said, and putting in a new middle section to take these larger missiles if we buy them.
After the submarines themselves, there is going to be something else. What it can be we do not yet know: the Americans, no doubt, are working on it in secret; the Russians, no doubt, are working on it in secret; and, no doubt, it will be expensive. If we are to buy that from the United States, we are not going to keep the proportion of nuclear to conventional at 5 per cent. or below. Where are the plans for buying the next generation of nuclear weapons system after the Polaris submarines? Obviously, from these figures, they are not there at all.
The situation therefore is that the Labour Party would like, if it thinks it safe to do so, not to have the next generation, the Polaris-bearing submarines. It has no plans, in any case, for getting anything after that; and it appears that the Government, too, have no plans for getting anything after that. We are all graduated unilateralists these days; and, so far as I can see, it would be a good thing if this were brought out more into the open. This country cannot stay in the nuclear arms race for ever, and it is a pity to have a great deal of tension and heat generated about precisely the length of time we should stay in.
To turn to another point on this, as a matter of fact one cannot really say that

793
we are in the nuclear arms race any longer: we are not in the business. The Minister of Defence, speaking in the country on March 3, said, I think—he used an emotive phrase—that if we allow ourselves to be beaten into giving up our weapons, or something like that, and if we do not get the Polaris submarines, we shall be out of the independent deterrent business for ever. He spoke of skilled teams being dispersed. This is not really the right picture because we are not in the independent deterrent business now. We are buying these missiles from the United States. We cannot make them—at least, we can make them but we have decided it is too expensive to make them ourselves.
Let us look for a moment at the question of dispersing the skilled teams. If those submarines are not built and equipped with the American missiles, what will be the difference? The skilled teams building the submarines will, very probably, not be dispersed, because a Labour Government, I think, are quite likely to go right on building the submarines to use them for a hunter-killer rôle. The skilled teams building the reactors which are going to drive those submarines will not be dispersed either, because the hunter-killer submarines need to be powered just the same as missile-bearing ones. The skilled teams which used to build missile circuitry, which is the most skilled job in the weapons game at the moment anywhere in the world, were dispersed by the Government several years ago, when they gave up the Blue Streak programme. We have not got skilled teams in that business any more.
The skilled teams which might have been making the navigation system for the submarines, the inertial navigation for the ships themselves, have never been called together by the Government, because we are buying American navigations systems to put in those submarines. The skilled teams which were making fissile material to put in the warheads of the rockets have been dispersed by the Government because, according to this year's White Paper, we are no longer making fissile material for weapons. So far as I can see, the only skilled team which will be dispersed by a Labour decision not to arm those submarines with American missiles is the skilled team which actually screws
794
the existing British made fissile material on to the top of the bought American rocket. This is a small skilled team, and it is not a very skilled job. It also seems to me extremely unlikely that they will be able to do it without American help, since the rocket is American built. I believe the charge does not lie at all. We are not in the business of building everything for ourselves. We could get back in now, if we took the economic decision to do so, and we could get back in in ten, twenty or fifty years' time, if we took the economic decision to do so. At the moment, there is no capital of technology or skill to be lost by not buying those missiles.
I should like to revert for a moment to this question of accounting—the percentage of our Defence budget which goes on nuclear weapons. The First Lord laid emphasis once again on the familiar point that the British independent deterrent costs less than 10 per cent. of our Defence budget, and we had the Minister of Defence in the House of Commons saying that that percentage is going to go down. Our nuclear arm—the Prime Minister's phrase—costs less than 10 per cent. Ten per cent. of our Defence budget is about £200 million. The R.A.F. costs £500 million, almost precisely, per year. My Lords, £200 million looks about right, does it not? The V-bombers might well account for two-fifths of the cost of the whole Royal Air Force.
Let us look a bit further. The Army costs £485 million. The Army of the Rhine is nearly one-third of the whole British Army, so let us assume that it costs about £150 million. But the Army of the Rhine is part of "our nuclear arm", because in any war that anybody can imagine, and in every war that anybody has planned—major war in Germany—that Army is going to have to fight with nuclear weapons within two or four days. This is part of "our nuclear arm". I therefore think it is arguable that we should count the entire cost of Rhine Army in with the percentage which we show goes on nuclear weapons.
The Navy costs £435 million a year. Its capital units, its biggest units, its most expensive and powerful units by far, are the aircraft carriers. These are, in effect, nuclear weapon systems. They are

795
capable of carrying nuclear-armed bombers, and do so. We should count the cost of those carriers—not 100 per cent. of the cost of the carriers but, I think, a good half of it—in the percentage which goes on our nuclear weapons. I think that if the Government wanted to give a true picture of what proportion of our Defence budget goes on actually enabling our fighting men to fight a nuclear war, and preparing them to do so, we should not find it was 10 per cent. at all, but we might find it was something much more like 30 or 40 per cent. I hope that when these matters are discussed as we go on in time these questions will be more frankly dealt with, and that the Government will give to the people of the world a truer picture which is that all our forces are nuclearised; that, with certain small exceptions, the whole lot are dual-purpose forces which can fight conventional or nuclear; that in a big war they would fight nuclear. And the expression "our nuclear arm" or "the deterrent", as a small, 10 per cent. thing, should be bell, book and candled out of common use because it gives a completely misleading picture.
6.48 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, like the noble and gallant Field-Marshal, welcome the new Ministry of Defence and the very close co-operation that it envisages between the Services. In the early days of my life as a soldier each Service worked in its own compartment and knew little, and I am afraid cared less, about the problems and duties of the other Services. To-day we have a very different picture, and the co-operation between all Services is remarkable.
I feel I must say a few words about the deterrent and the question of our independent deterrent. If we cast our minds hack to the First World War and the lasting horrors of gas warfare, we may ask ourselves why this weapon was not used on the Continent in the Second World War. And the obvious answer must be that the Germans knew full well that this weapon would boomerang on them and that the potential of the Allies would he far more destructive than their own. I think this makes a strong point for the deterrent.
But what of the independent deterrent with all the arguments for and
796
against its retention? There is a very telling argument in favour of retention that I think has not been extensively used. Since the Norman Conquest this Island has not been invaded; and this has been due to our ability at all times, and in some cases alone, to fight back and prove to all that we are masters of our own destiny and depend on no-one for our defence. Our nation rises to greatness when we have our backs to the wall and are fighting for our very existence.
We remember with pride the Battle of Britain. But this is the point I wish to make: we also remember the boost to the morale of our great civilian population when the one-way bombing ceased and our bombers went out from these shores to hit back at our enemies. I do not believe that the people of this nation will ever forgive any Government that denudes them of the power to retaliate should the disaster of war overtake us again. Are we going to stand by and see France, whom we have helped to liberate in two world wars, become an independent deterrent Power while we crouch under the shield of America? I trust no foreign country with the safety of Britain.
My Lords, may I now turn to the the Army, which is the Service to which I have the honour to belong. We well remember the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, saying on the Committee stage of the Bill which to me will always be remembered as the "Admiralty Board Bill": "We are all becoming so terribly dull." My Lords, could we not go madly gay and upgrade the Army to the rank of the Royal Army? It has certainly done us royally in the last year. I believe that this would be of great assistance to recruiting. We are all snobs in our own way; and I think this might be a great thing for recruiting in this country. The subject of recruiting must be very much in our minds at this time because of the rôle so many of our troops are undertaking at this moment. There is probably no more difficult rôle than one in action with the aid of civilian power, that is being undertaken in so many parts of the Commonwealth. It means sudden disruption of family life of those of our men who are married, an uncomfortable, dangerous and nerve-racking rôlefor an unlimited period.

797
I should like to know whether these men get overseas pay and allowances for the period of their service in the many lands to which emergency has taken them. The rates of pay have been substantially increased in the last few years; but if we are to get the recruits we need in the future we must keep constantly under review the terms of service and rates of pay commensurate with those in civilian life. In the more stable circumstances prevailing in Germany and in this country the main consideration continues to be married quarters, children's education and social amenities. It does not appear that there is a great deal of fraternisation with the civilian population in Germany, and this makes it all the more important that social facilities are provided, which are out of the question otherwise, due to the language difficulties.
There is another point that I want to put before your Lordships to-night and which I do not wish to put forward in any Party spirit, but with great sincerity. It appears that Mr. Wilson, in his talk with the President of the United States, suggested that in doing away with the independent deterrent there would be money which could be used to strengthen our conventional forces for a "bush fire" service under the United Nations, a rôle for which, I believe he stated, we were ideally suited. We have seen how dangerously stretched our forces have been in the last year. Would this rôle be shared by America and by other United Nations countries; or does it imply that we are willing to rush about all over the world putting out bush fires at the beck and call of the United Nations?
Of course, the President of the United States was reported to be pleased with this, because public opinion in America is no more wedded to the idea of that rôle for its Services than public opinion in this country would accept it, without very definite safeguards for our Services. There can he no doubt that if we undertook this rôle we should have to withdraw our forces from Germany, strain our Strategic Reserve or go back to National Service.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is it not quite true that we are all very grateful to Canada for coming in and relieving us
798
from a very difficult situation now; and also for the promise of help from Sweden, Finland and the others? Why should it be called a great hardship for Britain to do this?
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, we should be able to do this if we were quite certain that other people would come in. One must agree that the response over Cyprus had been a long time coming.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It might have been quicker if we had asked the United Nations to come in earlier.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, may I turn for a moment to the Arabian Peninsula and ask my noble friend about the progress on the township of Little Aden? I saw it two years ago. The work was starting there; and I am interested to know whether it has been possible to occupy any part of this cantonment and how much work has been done on catering for a larger number of troops than was envisaged when the project was planned. The White Paper seems to be rather vague on this subject.
Finally, my Lords, may I pay my humble tribute to the Royal Air Force Transport Command for the brilliant way they have met heavy demands? The efficiency and degree of safety with which they have managed to move troops in a series of emergencies must be admired by all. I trust that the trouble in the Commonwealth will soon be over and that the men of our Services will at an early date be restored to their families.
6.58 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the events of the past weeks and months have made it abundantly clear to all that we are still living in an age where it requires power to keep peace. On Friday week, Good Friday, remembering the behaviour of Pontius Pilate, we must bear in mind that a very grave guilt lies on the shoulders of those who, having responsibility, authority and power vested in them, shrink from using it effectively. A generation ago—when we stood in the same relation to the First World War as we now stand in relation to the Second World War—out of a false

799
sense of the value of collective security, out of a mistaken impression that we were setting an example which others would follow, we allowed our power and our authority in the world to fall; and we were instrumental in tempting dictators to engage in aggression which we should have succeeded in deterring.
More recently India, out of a very natural and proper wish to get on with the development of her country, neglected her defences and tempted an aggression by China upon her. By contrast, in Cuba we have seen the effect of frustrating the aggressive design of Russia in that island when a country takes firm, resolute and determined action, and has nuclear power to back it. At best, this is not a state of affairs that we should welcome, and as one of the two Lords Temporal in Holy Orders in your Lordships' House I should be the first to say that this is a state of affairs which should be superseded as soon as possible. But the fact remains that this is the way things are at present. They need not go on like this, and if we can possibly discover a method of refining the way in which our power is deployed and planned, it should be investigated.
I believe that the British manned nuclear-powered Polaris-armed submarines are a great refinement on the V-bomber nuclear deterrent, and very much to be welcomed on this account. We ought to do everything we can to encourage those engaged in and responsible for the Polaris project to get on with it with the greatest possible despatch. At some risk of engaging more closely than would be prudent the noble and gallant Field Marshal on my right, I would say, as a sailor, that although one may have proper doubts about the mixed-manned Polaris-armed surface force, I do not think that it is all "poppycock" and I think that the Navy certainly ought to have a good "bash" at the trials which are about to he undertaken by the United States Navy. I heard the other day that the ship they have selected is the U.S.S. "Biddle". I think your Lordships will agree with me that it appears that the Admiralty are entering into the spirit of the game when I say that among the steps they have so far taken about this trial is the appointment of an officer by the name of Lieutenant Biddle.
800
I wonder if I can ask, when the season comes around to autumn, and we may expect to have invitations from either the Minister of Defence or the Admiralty to visit units of the Fleet, whether it might be possible for visits to this ship to be included among the invitations. It is to visit European ports, and it would be very nice and very proper if such a visit could be arranged, because decisions about this have to be taken on political as well as on naval grounds. Another reason for wanting to go and see this ship is that those who went could come back and take up the point made in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. Instead of talking about life on the lower deck, they could talk about maritime ecology.
Turning for a moment from nuclear weapons to the rest, I should like to say how much I welcome the suggestion in the Statement on Defence not to refer to these forces as "conventional". One could hardly find pictures in that Statement of less conventional activity by Forces less conventionally armed and engaged. And I think that we should all wish to pay the greatest tribute to their skill, patience, resource and long-suffering in all the things they have been doing in the past weeks on our behalf. Apropos of that, I feel that there is rather more than was understood in the suggestion, made in another place last week, that there is a case, if more of these operations go on, for reviewing the criteria on which we advise Her Majesty to make honours and awards. The measure of success in these recent operations is surely to be judged by the speed with which order is restored; and the less fighting that takes place, the better. These are very different criteria for the award of medals and similar distinctions from those we have used in the past; and unless this point is looked into, I am not sure that very distinguished service will not go unrewarded. If we are to continue to place troops in the sort of position we saw Corporal Harding, of the Life Guards, in last week, it is essential that we and they should be able to feel that the quality of their operations is matched by thinking and decisions of the same quality in Whitehall.
One would have to be very naïve not to suspect, when we see rickshaws

801
being burned in Zanzibar, cars and lorries overturned in Pnom Penh, mutinies going on in East Africa, communal riots in Cyprus, and at the same time a new direct airline being opened between Moscow and Nicosia, that there is some sort of relation between some of these events. It is impossible to have the high regard for British Intelligence, which I am sure we all have, without wondering sometimes whether the response to Intelligence indications is as swift and sure as it can be. It is impossible not to wonder whether all the plans prepared (and I am sure that the quality of all this work will be immeasurably improved when the Central Organisation of Defence is set up) are not too closely applied to the operations which obviously we must plan for as the result of our Treaty obligations but fail to take sufficient account of the actual realities of the situation. Of course, we cannot expect the Government to answer on these points, all of which are covered by the Official Secrets Act, but I think that the condition and situation of our troops at the moment require high efficiency in planning and intelligence, and direction from the Admiralty. For this reason, the Central Organisation of Defence is greatly to be welcomed.
When this concept was first mooted, in the White Paper in 1958, it was for reasons of economy and efficiency, and to promote team work between the Services. I think that on the ground of economy the prospects so far are a little disappointing. The Act for the transfer of functions indicates, in its Explanatory Memorandum, that the cost of the move alone is going to be £3·3 million. There is a recurring cost of £1 million, and just a hope of economies in the future. I may be misreading this, in which case I shall be glad to be corrected, but I think that Parliament has the obligation to insist that, after the first year, we shall see reductions both in manpower and money in the Central Organisation of Defence in the interests of efficiency and economy and of the troops themselves.
As to team work, I understand that during the war, when the present right honourable Member for Woodford was Minister of Defence, in order to improve the team work in the Ministry of Defence he had installed a wardroom, mess and
802
bar for the use of staffs. I know of no more basic and elementary way of securing teamwork between staff officers, and I am a little disappointed, if my facts are correct, to hear that this practice is not being carried over into the new building. It is a small point, but, in my view, an important one if teamwork is to be taken seriously.
These are small suggestions and criticisms, but in general and broader terms I personally should like wholeheartedly to support the Defence policy of the Government as it now stands. It is only right, of course, that we should seek to share to the maximum extent possible our present Defence burden with our Commonwealth partners, our partners in our Alliances, and particularly with the United Nations. But we have to face the fact that, over a week after we have asked for their help and presence in Cyprus, argument is still going on about their pay, their composition and their terms of reference. Much as we should like this United Nations peacekeeping force to work more effectively than this, and much as we strive to bring it about, it has not yet happened.
It is only right that we should seek to reduce the burden of our Defence But the Government deserve, not our criticism, but our congratulation for what they have so far managed to achieve in terms of disarmament, and notably the Test Ban Treaty. It is only right that they should seek to economise as much as it is safe to do so in the case of a normal non-nuclear force. But until these economies can be made for good reasons, and until these burdens can be shared with a force which can share them effectively, I believe we have a duty to our own people in this island, to our brothers in the Commonwealth, to our partners in our Alliances, and not least to those other nations who are at present our friends but who might so easily be tempted to make themselves into enemies. We have a duty, for all these reasons, to keep the power that we now have, and, at any rate for the time being, to retain a large measure of its control in our own hands, which, for all practical purposes, is the only place where we can be sure it will be used boldly, firmly, swiftly and decisively to restrain the forces of chaos and to preserve the peace of the world.
7.14 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: My Lords, you will forgive me if for a few minutes I take your Lordships away from the nuclear battle down to the more mundane close battle of the Territorial Army, which is referred to in paragraphs 140 and 141 of the Defence White Paper. I should like to deal with the latter paragraph first, because that deals with the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve, which, as your Lordships know, allows men to be called out prior to Proclamation. I notice a statement there that further steps are to be taken to increase the numbers. This pleases me. But I am somewhat perturbed that the paragraph goes on:
"It is hoped that employers will give every encouragement to suitable young men to Volunteer."
In a small way, I am an employer of men who are in the Territorial Army and who have come forward and asked me if I would agree to their going into the Emergency Reserve. I have done so. But I know how difficult it is for an employer to give that consent.
A man may be called away for a period up to six months. We are encouraged by other Departments of the Government to try to make his abilities more efficient to cut down the manpower and get the best out of the men we have. But if, having done that, the best man has gone on reserve he may well be lost. This naturally makes employers very anxious before giving consent for their men to join. I hope that the Government can give some consideration to this matter in their further thinking. I have wondered whether there is not a call, with the bigger employers, for something on the same basis as is used, I think, with disabled men. Most big firms have to take on up to 5 per cent. of these. Larger firms might be asked to allow up to 5 per cent. of their manpower (if the men wanted to go) to be eligible for the Volunteer Reserve, but above that proportion of 5 per cent. the firm could say "No". I feel that some scheme on this basis should be considered.
I should now like to turn to paragraph 140, which deals with the Territorial Army, and its possible use in Germany from 1965 onwards. There is one slight concern in this—the fact that it has been
804
mentioned that reinforcements may be supplied either as individuals or as small sub-units. Small sub-units are certainly feasible, but individuals may be somewhat difficult to manage. Quite frankly, I think that everybody is worried about this point. I understand that in the case of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve it is possible for a man to volunteer to go to the Royal Navy and serve for a period. I wonder whether something of this sort could not be brought in in connection with the Territorial Army and the Regular Army, so that from time to time a man could volunteer (he would still remain in the Territorial Army) to do service with the Regulars and then come out. It would be for a limited period, of course, but it would get away from the business of selecting people. That again might be worth looking into.
The last point I want to bring up is the question of taxation of Territorial Army pay. It seems rather anomalous that a man is taxed on the pay he gets, and that in many cases he is nearly paying for the service he is giving. By the time he has taken in various ancillary expenses, such as getting to the drill hall, things for training and possibly buying his food (it is true that he has certain allowances, but these do not cover the expenses), he is then given pay, upon which he is taxed, and he finds that he has very nearly paid to come. One wonders whether something could be done about this. I know that in the Regular Forces it is rather different, because the serving man's main occupation is that of being a soldier, sailor or airman. But if he is a Territorial, his main occupation is something else. He has been called up by the Government to serve his country; he has been promised that he will be paid for his service. He is paid, and the money is then taken away from him. I know that this matter is causing a great deal of concern. One only feels that the Inland Revenue must have been pleased when the noble and gallant Field Marshal Lord Slim stated that a Territorial was "twice the citizen".
7.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, we are coming to the end of a rather long debate, and I think we have to start getting back to the main theme of the

805
argument. Since I last took part in a debate on Defence in your Lordships' House (I regret that I had to miss last year's debate) the Party opposite have certainly made what I might call giant strides, inasmuch as they now agree that the nuclear deterrent is something that is a necessary evil, so long as it is American and not our own. They argue that the British deterrent cannot be independent, because some of it comes from America; and this implied distrust of America, to my mind, does not fit well with their own arguments that they place their total reliance on the American shield. One cannot have it both ways; it is not logical.
I know that the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, argue that by having our own nuclear deterrent we are not trusting America; but, as the noble Earl, Lord, Jellicoe, said, that is entirely untrue. Of course we trust America, but if, as the White Paper says, there were no power in Europe capable of inflicting unacceptable damage on a potential enemy, the enemy might be tempted—if not now, then perhaps at some time in the future—to attack in the mistaken belief that the United States would not act unless America herself were attacked. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, quoted this particular extract and he derided it. I agree with him entirely that the Russians can read and they are well educated, but they are not the only possible opponents, and we have seen mistakes which have been due to the fact that the t's have not been crossed and the i's have not been dotted.
The next argument of the Party opposite against our having a deterrent is that it represents a fraction of only 1 or 2 per cent. of the Western striking power: I think it was the right honourable gentleman Mr. Harold Wilson who said that. Again as the White Paper says:
"The V-bombers by themselves are, and the Polaris submarines will be, capable of inflicting greater damage than any potential aggressor would consider acceptable."
It is not the size of the deterrent, it is the damage which the deterrent can do, which deters and makes it credible. The Americans do not object to our having an independent deterrent or they would not have agreed to provide us
806
with the Polaris submarine. As the White Paper says:
"The Nassau Agreement recorded the conclusion that the provision of Polaris missiles to the United Kingdom by the United States 'created an opportunity for the development of new and closer arrangements for the organisation and control of strategic Western Defence and that such arrangements in turn could make a major contribution to political cohesion among the nations of the Alliance'."
So much for that.
Although I entirely agree that we should have our own nuclear deterrent, I am afraid I am not, as I have said in previous debates, entirely in agreement with the weapon that has been chosen, the Polaris submarine. It seems to me we are locking up money, effort and manpower in a weapon which, although effective as a deterrent, could not be used in any other rôle. It may be of course that by the time Polaris submarines have come along we shall have succeeded in having some form of nuclear disarmament. Here I am with the right reverend Prelate in the wish that this may be so.
If there were no alternative I should not be adducing this argument, but surely we have the alternative in the present V-bombers and in the TSR2 to come. It may well be that the decision was taken by the Government at a time when they did not appreciate the full capabilities of the TSR2. However, it has now been done, and I am with the Government in their general policy, if not with this particular detail of it. There has been much criticism of the TSR2 on other occasions by the Party opposite, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that the Australian Air Force had bought American aircraft instead of the TSR2. Surely it was the criticism of this aircraft in another place by the Party opposite on occasions which could well have been responsible for the fact that the Australians did not have this aircraft. I think one of the remarks which was made was that, if the Party opposite came into power, this particular aircraft would be wiped out.
LORD SHEPHERD: No.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: It was said at the time, and that was the time when the Australians were making up their minds whether to buy this aircraft or an American aircraft. It is a great pity because the Australian Air Force and our

807
own Air Force work very well together in the Far East and it would help considerably, both operationally and mechanically, if they could have the same aircraft.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that point, will he tell us his evidence for suggesting that the Australians did not buy the TSR2 because of certain criticisms? Is he really serious and has he evidence to support this? It shows either incurable frivolity on the part of the Australian Government or a situation which is very serious and ought to be looked at.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I have been credibly informed by a source which certainly should know that this was one of the arguments taken into consideration by the Australian Air Force, and I do not blame them. After all, why should they buy aircraft which, if another Government comes into power this year, would be cancelled? We have to pay enormous sums of money because there will be that smaller number of aircraft coming off the line.
The decision of the Government to go ahead with the TSR.2 is one with which I heartily agree. It is one of the most flexible and versatile aircraft ever devised by any country. It can be used for the nuclear deterrent as well as the conventional rôle, and more's the pity that it has not been chosen for our own nuclear deterrent power. While the Government have been wise over this, I am not quite so happy about their policy on aircraft re-equipment for the Navy. I fully agree that the Government were right in the present circumstances to order the Phantom aircraft, but I fail to understand how we got ourselves into this position in the first place. Our own aircraft industry is as fine as any in the world, and in fact I think it is the most inventive of all. I cannot believe that our industry, had it been given the proper instructions and requirements, could not have produced suitable aircraft for the Navy. It seems to me that in dealing with the operational requirements of the Admiralty, the Air Ministry or even the Ministry of Aviation, there must at one time have been some bad bungling or else they did not look into their crystal ball the right way round.
808
On the subject of buying from the Americans, the Minister of Defence has announced in another place that helicopters will be bought from America for the Army. I have heard a rumour that, although originally it was thought that we should be able to make them under licence here, this is not now certain. I hope sincerely that this rumour is not correct, and perhaps my noble friend will let me know, if not to-day then later, what the form is on this matter.
T heard on the B.B.C. News this morning that it has been decided to close down eventually the bases in Libya. This, of course, is part of a continuing process which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he quoted my noble and gallant friend and one time superior officer as saying that we ought to have a base in Australia. This certainly gives one great pointer to this particular argument, but the reason I was going to bring this up was to emphasise the fact that all aircraft for Transport Command in the future must be capable of very, very long distances, because the time may well come when we shall have to do without staging posts.
We have heard a lot about the mixed manned force, and I should just like to say that I must disagree with my noble friend Lord Ampthill. It may well prove that this particular idea will not work out in practice, but if one looks back at how often the experts—and there is a very famous expert behind me who has said this is military nonsense—
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: "Poppycock", I said.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I think that was on another occasion. If one looks back on history one often finds that even the highest of experts have been proved wrong. But at least try it—and I commend the Government for doing so. If it fails, that is one good idea down the drain. If it is successful, it will go a long way towards cohesion in NATO.
May I ask the Government about two small points? Can they produce some form of propaganda, or some means, whereby they can put it across to industrialists that Reservists in general, and "Ever-readies" in particular, should be treated far better by them when they ask to go to their camps? They all

809
have to lose their holidays completely; and I think that even if they have to cut them in half it is something that is entirely wrong.
Finally, a plea which I make on every possible occasion in a Defence debate, and it is this. Can the Government devise some system by which we can have more members of the higher ranks of officers of all three Services coming into this House? As I have said before, we have the equivalents of the C.I.G.S., the C.A.S. or the C.N.S. in the Foreign Office coming here when they have finished their tours of duty there, and I think that is right. Surely we could have more new blood from the Services in exactly the same way. It is only in this way that we can be really up to date. In fact, we have had none since the war. I should like to end by saying that I have every confidence in the Government's White Paper.
7.32 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this is always a difficult time to start winding up in your Lordships' House. On the last occasion I was the only representative on these Benches, but I am rather better supported now, and I must therefore be rather more careful. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, may recall that he and I had a pleasant debate. I hone that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, will be back, because he made a number of rather startling assertions to which it is my intention to reply. In any case, I hope that if he is not here to hear them, the noble Lord the Leader of the House will be able to reply for him.
I would refer briefly at the start to the White Paper, which I think is a rather better job than that for last year. It is a little better written. It is rather purple in places, and it has that unfortunate statement about our assurance for survival in the future depending on the deterrent. As the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, pointed out, this really depends upon God. There are a number of statements, of that kind. We are twice told that it is the tercentenary of the Royal Marines, which is certainly a matter for great congratulation, although it was not necessary for us to be told twice. It would suggest that possibly the single hand that is bringing the Ministry of Defence, their reports and proposals into
810
one field, is not yet at work. Indeed, I would say that the Admiralty section of the Report is much the best written. It is certainly the best propaganda, and I think they carry the first prize in this particular competition. Despite this, it still conceals rather more than it reveals. It would be interesting, if one had the time—and perhaps some noble Lords have—to compare each paragraph in successive years and to see how, year after year, an aircraft becomes a project and a firm order, and comes into service some time in the mid-'sixties or the mid-'seventies. We should have a progress report of this.
I realise that the Government will not have much longer in which to heed my appeal, but, none the less, I would ask this Government, or any other Government, to try to give us information in a rather more intelligible form. If there is any one of your Lordships who is able to understand the precise expenditure on different fields of activity in Defence, then I can only say that he is a superman indeed. It may be that it is possible for noble Lords in the Government, aided by their Civil Service, to come out with these percentages like 10 per cent. or 43 per cent. of Bomber Command, or whatever it may be, but we simply do not know what the basis is. As my noble friend Lord Kennet pointed out, it is possible to suggest that a great part of our Defence expenditure goes on nuclear defence, because a great deal of our defence equipment has a dual rôle. I am not making anything of this point at the moment, beyond pointing out the great difficulty in judging where the money goes, or has gone. Of course, a great deal has gone—£20,000 million in the last twelve years. One of our purposes in this debate is to judge whether this money has been well spent and whether the Government's plans for the future will be satisfactory.
I should like to turn straight away to this question of the size of the Army. We had a very interesting, indeed, a rather sober speech from the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein. We know him well enough to know that he would never deliver an unsober speech. None the less, he always comes out with new ideas and new presentations of ideas. I will not say that I agree at this stage with what

811
he said; nevertheless, this problem of manpower is a very acute one. I wish the Government would not go on saying hopefully that they are working towards 180,000. It is this sort of jolly optimism, which fills all their official publications, that makes us rather suspicious of them. So far from working towards it, they are working away from it. If the figures continue at the same rate as they have in this last year and the decline goes on, we shall be having a smaller Army than we have at the moment. We are teetering on the 8,000 shortage at the moment, and it may start going down again.
This, of course, is an acutely serious problem. It would be interesting to hear again from the noble and gallant, Viscount what his proposals would be, other than for National Service—for which there are, of course, powerful arguments—if, in the absence of National Service, we have a further decline. We know that units are under strength, and we know particularly, as my noble friend Lord Shepherd said, that there are units, especially in Cyprus, with a really dangerously low number. I know the names of the units, as does the noble Lord who is about to reply. It is undesirable perhaps to give them, but the figures are extraordinarily bad, especially in the light of the earlier recommendations that in previous operations in Cyprus—admittedly of a rather different kind—it was important not only that the units should be up to peace strength, but above peace strength. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is not concerned at the effect on the morale of the troops in a situation like this. I make no more of this than to say that unless the situation is improved, we may be faced again with the need for some radical reorganisation of the infantry.
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked my opinion. I think the point is this—that there is no answer. If you take a unit like a battalion—which I know about, because I commanded one in peace time—there comes a moment when, by the time you have provided jobs in barracks and the guards, and allowed for leave, you have not enough soldiers to do proper training. The
812
soldier then gets rather fed up. Consider, for instance, a battalion going out to train with two companies. In war time a battalion cannot fight properly and maintain itself long enough without being relieved without four companies. So when the noble Lord asks what is my solution, my answer would be that there is no solution except some form of National Service, and it would require very careful examination as to exactly what form. Will that answer the noble Lord?
LORD SHACKLETON: Yes, I am very grateful. The fact is that it is, of course, for the Government to answer this particular question at the moment, and it seems to me that either they—and it is "they" at the moment—have to face the noble and gallant Viscount's suggestion or they have to think of some form of reorganisation. I do not believe that this situation ought to continue, and it is one, furthermore, that may get worse rather than better.
This brings me to the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Ailsa, who had a very interesting contribution to make about the Territorial Army. We all pay lip service to the Territorial Army. All Governments pay lip service to the Territorial Army. There are a few devoted people who put in a great deal of time and help to organise it, and we all know that it is not getting the support it needs. I am not an expert on the Territorial Army, but I wonder whether, in thinking about this manpower problem, the application of the "Ever-ready" idea, to which I know the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was devoted at one stage, should not be extended further.
If I understand it correctly, Territorial Army units will not operate as units in a military sense. They may do so in certain peaceful rôles but, as I understand it now, they are increasingly intended as reserves to bring line regiments up to strength. I should like to know whether I am correct in understanding this to be so, because that, I think, was what was said in another place. Indeed, it was said that members of Territorial units could expect perhaps to go abroad, but could not necessarily expect to be posted to the same unit. I had not understood before that this was the position, and I

813
shall be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, can correct me on it.
But if we really have come to this position, then, clearly, we have to think in a rather different way about the Territorial Army. It may well be that there is some application of the "Ever-ready" principle that will enable us, especially with very keen volunteers, to get our units overseas rather better manned, up to strength. It is a very technical question. The fact remains that the "Ever-readies" were originally introduced at the time of the Berlin crisis. We thought it was something of a political gesture. The Americans flew a full armoured division into Europe and the present Government invented the "Ever-readies", which have cost the country some money but, so far as I know, have not had the opportunity to give any definite service.
My Lords, the problem of recruitment is one that we could go on discussing at great length. It has been suggested that there are certain units for which it is particularly easy to gain recruits—it is particularly easy to recruit for the Royal Marines—and that we ought all the time to be reinforcing the success of special corps of that kind which are able to attract people and thereby get some extra strength. But I realise that this will not solve the problem which may be forced on us and which may lead to some more fundamental reorganisation.
We have not had much discussion to-day on the subject of present Russian strategy, and I think it is worth while considering again whether or not we shall find ourselves in the sort of position that we have been in for the last few years. Mr. McNamara, I think it was last autumn, made a statement to the effect that the NATO forces in Central Europe were stronger now than the Warsaw Pact forces. This may or may not be as significant as it sounds. It may well be possible for the Warsaw Pact countries, and I think Russia in particular, to reinforce their Central European and Eastern European forces very considerably; but, nevertheless, there is considerable evidence of a certain change in Russian strategy. There is evidence that no longer, or at any rate to a considerably less extent, do
814
we have to fear the possibility of overwhelming Russian so-called conventional forces. This arises out of publications, in particular one called Military Strategy, brought up-to-date a few months ago in Russia. And when we look at the great concentration of medium-range ballistic missiles, it suggests that Russian policy with regard to Europe in a military sense has changed and that we may be confronted much more with the threat of an overwhelming medium-range ballistic missile attack.
My conclusion from this, for what it is worth, is that this represents rather more of a defensive state in Russian strategy than we have seen in the past, and this might lead us to certain conclusions with regard to our strategy. It could be argued that we could now offer to reduce the size of our forces in Europe. I personally do not think we have yet reached that stage. Indeed, I think there is still strong argument for our trying, as the Government keep on pathetically saying they are doing, to attain this never attainable 55,000. None the less, it is against this background that we need to consider the strategy that we are following.
This brings me to the question of the equipment of our Forces. There is not time now to discuss all the equipment, particularly of the Army. We were told by the noble Earl, the First Lord of the Admiralty, that the Royal Air Force were well equipped. He then went on to mention three aircraft which they do not yet possess and which are research projects. In fact, the only aircraft he mentioned in relation to the Royal Air Force were aircraft which will not appear for a long while.
The first one he mentioned was the TSR 2, which is due in 1967. Here, in passing, I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, that I think we have had enough of this argument that it was Labour Party speeches which were responsible for losing the TSR 2 order in Australia. The noble Earl knows that I personally have a strong interest in this aircraft and that if it comes off it will be a very remarkable weapon in its basic rôle, which, of course, is not as a strategic bomber. It is certainly one which the Army will want. But we have not got it and shall not get it until 1967.

815
The next aircraft in this "well-equipped" Royal Air Force that the First Lord mentioned was the P.1154, and we are not going to get that for quite a number of years. He referred to the HS.681, and here he became rather coy. We asked him when it was going to come into service, and he then coined again this magic phrase:
"We are now moving on from the mid-'60s. The mid-'60s were for the Belfast. For the HS.681 it is the late-'60s."
Of course we know that in fact he means the 1970s, because in another place we were told that it would be six years before it appears. The HS.681, which is part of the present "well-equipped" Royal Air Force, is, of course, essential for the operation of the TSR 2, because both aircraft are going to be capable of very short takeoff, very flexible tactical aircraft; and whereas the TSR 2 can operate, I understand, without the type of logistic support the H.S.681 can give, the two, in the long run, are meant to operate together. But here again the Government have their time scales wrong, because they get the TSR 2 three years before the H.S.681 on which it will depend. I suggest it does not present such a tidy picture. It would help if we could be given a list of these aircraft, both their current names and, if possible, their future names, and certainly their previous names. There was an O.R.541 (or something like that), which now becomes the 681; and another, which was A.W., has now become H.S. It is exceedingly difficult to follow. The noble Lord is dealing constantly in these letters in Government Departments; and for all I know it might just be a letter applying to some new director of something or other. No doubt the Departments know them, but it is rather difficult for the rest of us.
In passing, may I repeat a question I have asked for several years now—and perhaps we can have a more precise answer now than the mid-1960s; that is, when is the Belfast coming? I ask this question year after year, but I never receive an answer. I hope that this time the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is equipped with a definite date. If not, he has time, even now, to find out. The Belfast is, in a way, a tragedy. The
816
Government have ordered only ten. This machine has taken a long time coming. People have been very rude about it. Even I, I am afraid, have called it the most expensive aircraft in the world; and that is certainly true, because the Government have ordered only ten and we need a great many more. I suggest that this is quite fundamental to the sort of problems that confront us in the world to-day, the sort of problems which worry the noble Lord in his present capacity in the Foreign Office, or the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, also concerned with what is happening. I am sure they both want many more Belfasts and, of course, VC10s. I would ask when the Royal Air Force are to get VC10s. I understand—and it was certainly expected by some people in the Ministry of Defence—that the Royal Air Force were going to get VC1Os in a few weeks' time. But now the only possibility of our defence forces flying VC10s is if they fly in B.O.A.C. aircraft, or possibly Kuwait Airline aircraft or some other. It really does present an extraordinary spectacle of lack of clarity in regard to objectives
The whole of the aircraft situation is a depressing one. I should like momentarily to ask further questions on the Phantom. The Phantom, I imagine, will come into service with the Navy some time in the middle-late 1960s—I think that would probably be the right phrase. The R.A.F., of course, will still be struggling along with the poor old Hunter. The Phantom, I hope, is going to be a great success. We should have liked to know (perhaps it would not be right to press too hard on this) how the Spey engine is going to work out. I am told there will be an increased range and reduced performance or reduced cruising speed. Whether this is improvement across the board, as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said, I am not quite sure. It is not yet, I gather, entirely suitable. I gather that it has to be strengthened for use on British carriers. I only hope that in this sudden rush which the Ministry of Defence had—they have produced this new aircraft rather late, out of a conjurer's hat, as it were—this particular rabbit is the one they really wanted.
It would be interesting to know why they did not include it in the Defence White Paper. It is always very nice to have something to say to the House of

817
Commons or the House of Lords. Ministers tell us so little on the subject of Defence that it is quite a good idea to save up one or two titbits for an occasion like this. But it is generally believed in the aviation industry that the reason why the Government do not announce decisions on aircraft is simply that they have no money left in the kitty. It was particularly important in this Election year to keep the sum to be charged at £1,999 million, which sounds so much less than £2,000 million, just as 9s. 11d. is a normal charge in a shop, because it sounds so much less than 10s. If it is true that we have not the money to place these orders, and all the time we are spreading our orders further and further, then I hope that the Government will tell us so. It is no good their pretending that we are getting things as fast as we can, and that the only thing holding up these orders is the fact that we are unable to arrive at an operational decision, when, in truth, it is the financial difficulty that is holding up this equipment.
Then I should like to ask about the helicopter. Are Shorts going to have the helicopter order? I have been told so many times it is one helicopter or another. I was told some weeks ago that the Government had virtually decided on the Hiller. Then Hughes came into the picture. The Bell was already there. I gather from what the noble Earl the First Lord said that it is the Bell which is to be ordered, and I wonder whether he could tell us whether there is any definite information on that.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think I can say straight away that no final decision has been taken.
LORD SHACKLETON: The only reason I conclude that it is to be the Bell is that we understood the Hiller was to be entirely manufactured under licence in this country, whereas the proposition with regard to the Bell was that a certain number were to be bought from abroad.
EARL JELLICOE: That is, in fact, incorrect. If it were the Hiller there would still be a further Royal Naval buy direct from the United States.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am very grateful to the noble Earl. He will not
818
blame us for trying to squeeze some facts by a careful textual examination of Government statements. Why have they not decided on this? Surely in the present situation it is a matter of great urgency that the Army gets the helicopter it wants as soon as possible. There may be some good reasons for this, but the Government have not given them. One could go on at great length on the problem of the helicopter.
There is only one other question I would have asked in relation to aircraft—I hesitate to mention the word "deterrent", but I shall have to come to this—and that is the suitability of the V-bombers for the low-level rôle. I do not propose to press very hard on this. We know that high-level bombers were used in the low-level rôle during the war. The situation to-day is different. There have been a number of technical criticisms of this. I am certainly not in a position to judge. But if this is such a good idea, I wonder why it was not thought of before. We know that the Americans are spending up to £1 million per aircraft to convert the B.52. We realise that they have a different wing and different engine arrangement, and it may be that this is not necessary with our V-aircraft. But we should like to know how far trials of this kind have been carried out; and how successful they are. We should also like to know how this affects the range and, in particular, the performance of the missile, which I had understood was intended to be dropped initially, before it fired, from a height of 40,000 feet. Will these particular aircraft have to climb at the crucial moment before they drop their missiles?
This brings me to the discussion of the deterrent. I am sure all noble Lords welcomed the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop or Chichester, in which he emphasised the desirability of not getting too caught up in political arguments on this particular question. Indeed, there was the plea of the Churches that we should try to avoid it at Election time. I know that a Government have no obligation to listen particularly to the advice of the Churches in this matter, and I would not for one moment suggest that necessarily it makes right those of us who are opposed to the course the Government

819
are following. But it was the Government and the Prime Minister, and today the First Lord himself, who charged straight into the battle on the nuclear deterrent.
I agree that it is a great pity—it may be unavoidable; and it is no good, if we are to have a democratic system, not to fight out great issues. But it is equally true that this is a peculiarly unsuitable one for judgment by the electorate. Indeed, it is even rather unsuitable for judgment in this House, if we are to believe the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, whose argument in favour of this deterrent was that during the war the one thing that was essential to morale was for people who had been bombed to think that they could hit back. If he thinks that that is a relevant argument, then, provided he will be here to get that satisfaction—
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I did not say that it was essential to hit back. I said it raised morale throughout the country that we were able to do so, which is a quite different situation.
LORD SHACKLETON: Well, I do not think there will be much morale left to be raised when we fire our sixteen or thirty-two missiles alone, which is presumably the thought behind having an independent deterrent, and we can feel that they are British ones. This is part of the difficulty of arguing on this particular problem.
Of course, the arguments against the deterrent are more difficult to sustain. I say this quite seriously. I am not suggesting that noble Lords on the other side are not sophisticated, but it involves more sophisticated argument of the kind that my noble friend Lord Kennet gave, in an extraordinarily brilliant speech both in economic and political terms. We on this side of the House know that most of us strongly supported the British deterrent. We supported it up to the moment of Blue Streak. I am not blaming the Government when I say at this moment that it was they who abolished the independent British deterrent.
I am not trying to make much out of these words, but the present deterrent is not a wholly independent one. Here
820
we get deeper and deeper into the refinements of an argument in which it has been suggested that an independent one is one that is under your control. But, of course, we have taken great care to suggest that for most of the time it would not be under our control, because the Government have rightly suggested that these weapons will be hypothecated to NATO, although they can in fact call them back. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, again used an argument which I believe to be quite misleading. He suggested that our security depended on our deterrent. This argument would suggest that Germany's security depends on Germany's deterrent; and the same applies to Holland and Belgium. It does not. It depends on the strength of the Alliance built up by the whole of the nuclear armament of the West. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, shakes his head. I can only tell him that this is the situation at the moment, and I do not believe that there are many noble Lords in this House who would say otherwise.
I find it difficult to see, too, what the argument in regard to the top table will be. Here, again, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, what particular conferences, what particular tables—this was a matter referred to in Lord Shepherd's speech—we should be enabled to sit at, or should not be enabled to sit at, if, by any chance, we were to give up our so-called independent deterrent. Again, I really find this a weak argument, and again an argument which makes it quite clear that it is essential for Germany, like France, also to have the deterrent. Then there is the regrettable argument that China and France will have it anyway. Little attempt has been made to dissuade France—it may be that nothing could be achieved in doing so—to refrain from developing her deterrent; and, of course, we have no right to attempt to do so.
I say quite seriously that I do not believe that the French deterrent is nearly as credible as our own. They are intending in due course, some time in the late or mid 'sixties, to equip Mystere bombers, which are certainly supersonic bombers, with nuclear weapons. I think they will be exactly as vulnerable, despite their greater speed, as our own V-bombers will be in the late 'sixties. As for their Polaris fleet,

821
the first submarine is not likely to appear before 1970, and their fleet of three will not appear before 1975. I greatly doubt—I say this quite seriously—whether the French independent deterrent may yet materialise. It is the product of the will of one man, and it may well be—the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, shakes his head; but I should have suggested that in other circumstances we may well find that it would be possible to do a deal in this matter and to think in terms of an Alliance force rather than national forces.
What, however, is particularly worrying is the fact that in the debate in another place, at the particular moment when Mr. Butler was seeking to get agreement on a freeze of nuclear weapons, Mr. Thorneycroft, the Minister for Defence, stated categorically that he would not forgo—indeed, I think he used the words "never forgo"—the five Polaris submarines. He said that there is no question and no proposal whatsoever that the United Kingdom should in any circumstances forgo these five Polaris submarines. This was quite a different statement from the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, took a much more reasonable line. He even visualised the possibility that we might be able one day to give up our independent national deterrent. I only hope that he will continue to do the good work for the Government for the short time that is left to him, and that we shall, in fact, see an advance.
Indeed, there were a number of remarks of this kind in the noble Earl's speech with which I would agree, and which I think would be welcomed also from the Liberal Benches. I hope he continues to push them along. Certainly he has brought them a good deal further in their attitude to the United Nations than they were at the time of Suez. We have, of course, the satisfaction of now seeing a British component of a united force in Cyprus. There is no doubt that it is vital that the United Nations should in fact be prepared to share in these responsibilities. There is no doubt that this country is carrying a quite exceptional burden, indeed a disproportionate burden, in keeping the peace throughout the world. We can therefore only be
822
grateful that the United Nations have decided to intervene in Cyprus.
There is another point in regard to the deterrent to which I should like to refer. I should particularly like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, whether he is happy about a situation in which, as a result of the decision to build the fifth Polaris submarine, I am told—and I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, whether this is so—important reductions in so-called conventional naval equipment have resulted. Certainly the production of the killer nuclear submarine has been postponed. How many frigates are now off the list as a result of the decision to build the fifth submarine? The point about this argument is that it is all very nice to say we want to rely on our own strength, but we are also reducing our strength in important directions.
There is a serious argument that needs to be thought out not only as to the situation throughout the world at present, but as to the position which we are likely to find in another ten years' time. I hope the new Ministry of Defence will be better at making appreciations of the type of war operations in which we are likely to be engaged. It is obvious that we are all deeply impressed by and extremely proud of the performance of our troops and members of all three Services during the events of the last few months. They have met a number of difficult situations with efficiency and with courage. But we have not been engaged in a full shooting war, even of a limited kind. And if we are confronted by such a war in Indonesia and require not 7,000 or 10,000 men, but 50,000 men there (and, after all, during the previous troubles in Cyprus I believe there were somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 men in the island), where are they to come from? Where is the equipment to take them there?
This is where we complain that the Conservative Government are pursuing not national prestige, but their own prestige for Election purposes. I say this quite seriously, especially when I have listened to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in which he said that Mr. Healey and Mr. Wilson had suggested they would make a bonfire of V-bombers and would chop the Polaris

823
submarines in two. This is simply untrue. I have looked through the relevant copies of Hansard. It is not possible for me to quote what Mr. Healey said, and I think that perhaps there have already been too many references to-day to speeches by Members of another place. But I would quote what Mr. Wilson said in an interview in America. When he was asked about the Polaris submarine, he said this:
"The position is, of course, that the Election has got to be held this year, and the submarines cannot have made very much progress by that time. We believe there is a need for a very much expanded conventional naval ship-building programme in Britain and we would hope to convert them from their present design to nuclear-powered tracker submarines. I do not know whether that will be technically possible, it rather depends on when the Election is, and how far they have got. If they had got, in a sense, past the point of no return here, we would obviously be prepared to offer them for the Western deterrent within NATO on whatever basis NATO is going to be organised. Exactly as the present Government, and in our view rightly, has handed over the V-bombers to NATO."
I hope therefore that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, might feel inclined to withdraw his remarks about Mr. Healey and Mr. Wilson, unless he can produce evidence to support what he said.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think it is important here to say that the point I was making was that, if we did decide now or in the future to opt out of our independent capability, we should in all probability be opting out for all time. I did not say—and I am sure that Hansard will bear me out—that Mr. Healey and Mr. Wilson were suggesting that we should make a bonfire of our V-bombers. I did not say that.
LORD SHEPHERD: You did.
EARL JELLICOE: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, says that I did. In fact I did not, and I am sure that Hansard will bear me out; but if it does not, well, then I am wrong. I certainly did not intend to say that. I did say, or intimate, that Mr. Healey and Mr. Wilson had suggested that we should chop our Polaris submarines in two. And that was on the basis of the remarks of Mr. Healey in another place, where he had suggested that they could be converted. I had certainly understood from that that this meant the re-
824
moval of their centre section. But if I was wrong about that, I will, of course, unreservedly withdraw what I said in that respect.
LORD SHACKLETON: I have too high a regard for the noble Earl to believe that he would intentionally mislead the House or take advantage of something like this. There was a moment when he was making his speech when I was afraid that the Prime Minister's own scriptwriter might have been working for him, but that was only for a very short period at the beginning and that was the unhappiest part of his speech. I would urge noble Lords who are inclined to disagree with us not to attribute to the Opposition views which are not held.
Obviously there is more than one view in the Labour Party, as there is in the Conservative Party, but I would certainly suggest that the arguments in regard to the deterrent are of a very difficult kind. They are views which are held, not only by members of the Opposition. A large number of independent commentators—and I do not mean only The Times correspondent, but certainly one Chief of the Air Staff, certainly General Cowley and many others—have gone on record that we ought in our own interests, and in the interests of the Alliance, put more strength into our conventional arms and get away from this pursuit of a nuclear independent dream which is already fading from sight. It is against this background and the waste of money over these years, and the inadequate situation in regard to aircraft and Army equipment, that we have moved this Amendment; and I am only sorry that the Government have not been able so far to answer some of the points we have made in the debate.
8.18 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, we have had, as usual, an interesting and long debate; we always have an interesting debate when we talk about defence. We have had three rather unusual speakers taking part, the first in the shape of the first noble Lady who has ever taken part in a Defence debate, the noble Baroness Lady Swanborough, who I know has had to leave but whose contribution was a welcome addition to our debates. Then there was the right

825
reverend Prelate; and my noble friend Lord Sandford—although in what capacity he was speaking I am not quite sure; I think probably more as a naval officer than someone in Holy Orders. They were three very welcome new additions to our speakers in these debates.
A large number of points have been raised and questions asked. It is perfectly true that my noble friend the First Lord had answered many of the questions before they were asked, but I shall do my best to answer some more in the course of my remarks. If I do not manage to answer all of them—because I have been asked a phenomenal number of questions—I hope your Lordships will not think I am being discourteous. I will most certainly write to those of your Lordships whom I do not answer personally. I do not want to take up the entire time in answering questions because there are a number of things of my own that I want to say.
This is the last Defence debate we shall have in which five separate Departments are concerned. On April 1 the reorganisation of Defence takes place, and my noble and gallant friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein has, if I may say so, expressed most clearly the advantages which we hope will accrue as a result of these changes. One of the major objectives of this reorganisation is to make easier the tighter control of the vast sums of money which we now spend on national defence. To this end, the staffs at present engaged in the four separate Departments in planning and co-ordinating programmes of research, development and production are being regrouped, in both the physical and the organisational sense, so that in the future they will function as a single team working to the same basic plan. By this means we hope to ensure—and I think we shall ensure—an intimate association between the staffs responsible for the detailed planning and execution of programmes and those responsible for oversight of the programme as a whole. If we can achieve this measure of unification—and, as I say, I think we can—the benefits will be important and far-reaching.
My Lords, it is true that on April 1 there will be a temporary increase of 70 in the total unified Ministry of Defence—that is, 70 out of a total of
826
24,000. But we plan, as the Estimates show, to make staff reductions during 1964–65 which will more than wipe out this increase. So I hope that we may be able to avoid next year strictures from my noble and gallant friend behind me. It is also true that, in this eventual overall decrease in headquarters staff, there will be a modest increase in the number of senior posts in the new Ministry. I think that is a small price to pay for the important objectives which we have outlined; and, remembering the very large sums of money involved, I do not think we should be so short-sighted as to begrudge the new organisation its necessary ha'p'orth of tar.
My noble and gallant friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, who I know has also had to leave, and a number of others of your Lordships, talked at some length about manpower. My noble and gallant friend behind me, as I understand it, advocates an Army of about 200,000, half Regulars and half conscripts. As your Lordships know, we aim—and I see nothing wrong in aiming—at an all-Regular Army of 180,000. I do not want to play the "numbers game" which we used to play so much in the last two or three years, but I should like to make this point. It may very well be that, with a two-year period of National Service for half the force, the effective strength of an Army of 200,000 might be less than an Army of 180,000 Regulars—that is, after allowance has been made for the training staff and the continual changeover of individuals going backwards and forwards from their units overseas. The real issue, it seems to me, is whether we should go for a 50 per cent. conscript Army, not because we cannot get Regulars but as a matter of organisation and national policy; and we believe that we should not. My Lords, in this respect I am afraid that I cannot agree with my noble and gallant friend behind me; nor with my noble friend Lord Ampthill.
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: My Lords, I never mentioned the word "conscript".I said that it was a nasty word. I said, "National Serviceman".
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, with great respect to my noble and gallant friend, I think that that is a distinction without a difference.
However, I very much agree with many of your Lordships who have spoken about the importance of the recruiting task which faces the Army—because it is the Army with which we are primarily concerned. A great effort is needed to improve the rate of the build-up, and the basic theme for the recruiting effort will be to show the Army as it is to the young men of today. Recruiting is picking up, although it is still not so good as we should like it to he. I think that perhaps one of the most important things that we can rely on, both now and in the future, is the achievements of the Army in the last few weeks. Through the news headlines and on the television it has been possible for the people of this country to see what sort of people are serving in the modern Army, as well as the very important tasks which they have to carry out. I hope your Lordships will agree that the recent pay review has also shown that the Government take care of their responsibility to ensure that the position of Servicemen compares well with positions in civilian life.
The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition asked about the strength of the Royal Marines, and whether or not they were included in the 88,000. Yes, my Lords, they are included; and, of course, they are fully up to strength, as the Royal Marines always are. He also asked me whether we are building any more commando ships. Sooner or later, the two ships we have at present, the "Albion" and the "Bulwark", will have to be replaced, but at the moment there is no question of building any additional ships of this sort.
The noble Earl also gave me notice last night that he was going to ask me a question about the reactor at Dounreay. First, let me say that the Admiralty have never sought to hide the technical difficulties which have been encountered in the development of this land-based prototype. There is no suggestion that this is a reactor intended for installation in submarines: it is a land-based reactor. I am sure the noble Earl will agree that difficulties and setbacks are inevitable when
828
development is being undertaken in a novel field, where much had to be learned as we went along. I do not conceal that this latest setback has been a disappointment, but steps are being taken to rectify the material failure, and we do not think that there will be any delay of any kind in the reactors to be installed in the Polaris submarines. The noble Earl has said that he wants to know how much has been spent to date on the land-based prototype. The answer is approximately £28 million, including work on the buildings. Did the noble Earl wish to say something?
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I was going to ask whether it is not a fact, as I have submitted before, that the goodness and quality of material, and mistakes in the welding and piping, were among the matters of which we were given warning in 1960 and 1961 by one of the officers of the venture, who refused to accept the material supplied.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this failure is much more technical and complicated than that, and I do not think I can go into it any further, except to say that we hope that it will be rectified very shortly.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: May I just ask this? In fact, the actual cost from the very beginning must be much more than the £28½ million devoted purely to the reactor. The whole situation which has grown up there seems to me to be much bigger than that. Perhaps, some time later on I can ask for more details.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I really do not think the noble Earl should challenge me. I told him what the total sum is. Either he is accusing me of misleading the House, or of telling him a lie. The total figure for works, buildings and reactors is £28 million up to date, and that is the figure.
The noble Baroness, Lady Swan-borough, who I know has had to leave, made, I thought, a very interesting point about the welfare workers. I will, if I may, look into this point and write to her on it, as I will to my noble friend Lord Gosford on his point, that no ex-Service officers have been made Peers since the end of the war, or have been

829
made Life Peers. I think that is an interesting point which we might well look at.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who I know has also had to go, bowled me out yesterday in a supplementary question about the multilateral force. I cannot tell him when the Working Group will report, because I do not know; but the report will be made to the individual Governments who took part. I think that perhaps his interpretation of what would happen in that case if a force were formed is probably right, but a great deal of discussion will be necessary as to how it would be fitted into the NATO scheme.
There has been a great deal of criticism, and strong criticism, of the Government's policy from the noble Lords opposite, and the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has moved an Amendment which is, in effect, a Motion of no confidence in the Government's policy. There has been criticism of our nuclear policy, criticism of our conventional effort and criticism of the various weapons with which the Forces are equipped. I will try to answer these criticisms a little later on, but I want to make one or two general observations about defence and foreign policy.
My Lords, how does one judge whether or not a defence policy is successful? Defence, as I have said on a number of occasions in this House, is only an instrument of foreign policy, and without a sound economy you cannot have a foreign policy. The success of a foreign policy is measured by the outcome, good or bad, of its diplomacy and whether the interests of the country have been advanced and safeguarded. Defence policy should therefore be judged by its success in meeting the demands required by foreign policy. Have the Forces at the disposal of the Government been adequate and adequately trained and equipped for the need? Have they contributed properly in the Alliances to which we belong? Have they been a deterrent to the greedy, the covetous and the wrong-doer; and, above all, have both the foreign and defence policies of the Government been successful in averting a major war? If these be the right criteria of judgment, then the Govern-
830
ment's Defence policy has been immensely successful.
In the twelve years of Conservative Government we have avoided war, although it has been necessary on a number of occasions to make military interventions of one kind or another; and our forces have carried out their task quickly and successfully, and not least in the last few months when British Forces all over the world were engaged in protecting British interests and helping Commonwealth countries out of difficulties. Look around the world to-day. We see 6,000 troops doing a useful job in difficult situations and, I may say, with little thanks from any of those who are principally concerned. I am glad to think that at least some of that burden is to be shared with the members of the United Nations who have consented to be part of the peace-keeping force. Our troops were flown out to Cyprus in R.A.F. aircraft, and in a matter of hours—troops which noble Lords opposite said did not exist were flying out in aircraft which noble Lords opposite said did not exist.
I agree largely with what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said about having a United Nations peace-keeping force; but, as they know, it is easier to say this than to achieve it. For the time being it seems difficult to do this, although we shall continue to do our best. I would point only to what has happened in Cyprus, which gives some suggestion of the difficulties in this respect.
Some six or seven thousand miles further East another large British Army is actively engaged in supporting our Malaysian friends in meeting the challenge of President Soekarno's confrontation policy. The Indonesians have publicly announced their intention to crush and devour Malaysia. We are committed—and willingly committed—to their defence. From the great base at Singapore—a base which only a year ago some members of the Party opposite saw no point in maintaining—we are equipping, supplying and directing these large forces which are patrolling and fighting guerrillas in some of the most difficult terrain in the world. Does the noble Earl want a reference? I will willingly give it.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Not from me.
LORD CARRINGTON: No, my Lords, it was not from the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition. This is the difficulty with the Labour Party. One never quite knows who to believe.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am the one to believe.
LORD CARRINGTON: If the noble Earl wants a reference—and there has been some talk about a reference—it was Mr. Paget who said:
"Turning to Singapore, I do not know the point of maintaining a base in which we depend upon an organised Communist labour force in the docks."
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? May I ask him, as the Leader of the House, was that speech not made in the current Session? We have had an awful lot of quotations from the Commons, and they were all from that side of the House.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is in order; because it was in the last Session, I am in order in quoting it. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, does not remember. I quoted it before and he was caught out then.
These troops in Malaysia are well-trained, well-led and well-equipped for their task and, just as those in Cyprus, they are doing a magnificent job. Your Lordships will recall also the efficient and speedy operations in East Africa where, once again, non-existent troops were flown out in non-existent aircraft when the three East African countries asked for help in the uncertain days after the revolution in Zanzibar and the Army mutinies. The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition indicates dissent. Well, he was not in the House. We were told there were no transport aircraft and the Army could not cope with these things. The noble Earl must not say it did not happen; it did. We have heard it in debate after debate in the last three or four years.
British troops are engaged in keeping the peace in British Guiana. British Forces are on patrol in the South Arabian Federation. British troops are in Swaziland, and British troops are going about their normal garrison duties in Hong Kong and elsewhere in British
832
territories. We have some 52,000 men carrying out their normal duties in Germany. In all these cases, and at one and the same time, the British Army, transported by the R.A.F., has met the demands which were made upon it and carried out its tasks resolutely and successfully.
My Lords, what is true of the Army and the R.A.F. is equally true of the Royal Navy. The Commando ship H.M.S. "Albion" and her two helicopter squadrons have carried out over 8,000 operational sorties in support of the operations in Borneo. In the recent operations in East Africa, to which I have referred, H.M.S. "Centaur", as well as providing general backing, was able to complete the airlift ashore of 45 Commando in little over an hour. Nobody, not even the most disgruntled member of the Opposition, not even the noble and most formidable Cassandra, the Leader of the Opposition, can say that these emergencies have not been well managed and that our Forces have not responded as they always have done to the tasks we have asked of them. Of course, we have primarily to thank them, and to congratulate the officers and men in the ships and regiments and aircraft. But the Government can, and should, claim credit too. After all, they would have been blamed if there had been any failure or inadequacy. But the Government plans have succeeded, and the highly mobile forces which we have organised and trained have carried out their rôle all over the world at very short notice. My Lords, we have nothing to be ashamed of in this record, and a very great deal of which we, the Government and people of this country, can be justly proud.
It is often said in your Lordships' House and in another place—and we have often seen the allegation in newspapers and cartoons— that a great deal of money has been wasted on equipment which was either cancelled before it went into production or on equipment which, according to the critics, has not met with the success that was expected of it. My Lords, I understand to some degree this sort of criticism coming from those who are entirely ignorant of Defence matters. On the face of it, to spend money on research and development of a weapon which in the

833
end is cancelled seems both extravagance and mismanagement. But to anybody who has any idea of the complexity of modern warfare and modern weapons, and the rapidly changing strategic and tactical scene, what is incredible is not that these cancellations and failures sometimes occur but that such a high proportion of what we set out to do is successful. I wonder whether those who criticise have ever bothered to investigate what happens in the United States of America or in any other technically advanced country of the Free World. We are dealing with weapons of such extraordinary complication, of such advanced performance, that in all countries there is a proportion of failure. Technological advance is so rapid, change of circumstance so frequent, that in all countries there must sometimes be a change of mind over whether or not the development of a weapon should be continued.
Other countries, too, have had their expensive failures in trying to develop sophisticated equipment. In the United States, for example, the B.70 has encountered very serious difficulties which may preclude altogether its adoption as a bomber; and these difficulties have not yet been overcome, in spite of enormous expenditure. The Navajo bomber had to be cancelled after the expenditure of 680 million dollars; the Rascal missile was cancelled after 448 million dollars had been spent; and numerous other fighter aircraft have gone the same way. The Federal Republic of Germany's attempt to build submarines of non-magnetic steel has ended in at least temporary failure. The programme has gone back three years as a result. The French prototype Balzac V.T.O.L. aircraft crashed, killing the pilot; and the cost of each aircraft has risen from 3 million dollars to 8 million dollars. The Swiss had to cancel their Pilatus P.A.16 fighter and bought Hunters instead.
After all, in 1964 when we talk of developing a new aircraft for the R.A.F. we are to some extent looking into a crystal ball. We have to make up our minds what our requirements will be when the aircraft has been designed, developed and tested and finally come into service, because it will take more than ten years from its conception to
834
its birth. When we talk of the new aircraft carrier, to which my noble friend, the First Lord made reference, we are speaking of a ship which will still be operational between 1990 and 2000 and which will operate aircraft whose specifications are still unknown and whose performance will be far ahead of anything we know at the present time. When we compare our programme with that of the Americans, who are a great deal richer and more powerful industrially than we are, we must remember that they can afford to start two or three projects for the same requirements and subsequently choose the best, cancelling the other two, while we have to put all our money on one development and make that development succeed.
My Lords, I say this, not in excuse for our failures, but in pride for our successes, because I do not think that there has ever been a time in peace time when the three Services have been so well equipped or their equipment so up to date. The new guided-missile destroyers of the Royal Navy, the new "Leander" class frigates, the Buccaneer, the Seacat—all these are ships, aircraft and weapons which are as good as, if not better than, anything that anybody else has got. Of course, what is true of the Royal Navy is true also of the Army and the Royal Air Force, as my noble friend Lord Jellicoe has told your Lordships earlier this afternoon.
Finally, I come to the perennial problem of our nuclear policy and whether or not it should be eventually abandoned, or abandoned now, as both the Labour Party and the Liberal Party would have it. I must say that I find it extraordinary that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, should say that we should not discuss this problem in front of the electorate because it is too sophisticated and complicated for them to understand. I should have thought that this was one of the things that we all ought to understand; because, after all, it is a matter of life and death for all of us.
We have on numerous occasions in your Lordships' House covered the position and argued the merits and demerits of the retention by Britain of nuclear weapons. I confess that I do not feel disposed to go over it all again. Our case is on record and in the next

835
few months it will be the duty of the electors of this country to decide whether or not they wish Britain to remain a nuclear Power, sitting at the conference table (I am just going to come to that point) as we did during the discussion of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, by virtue of our possession of nuclear weapons, contributing our part to the NATO Alliance and yet reserving our own independence in the last resort. They will have to decide whether one can for all time put one's trust in somebody else; whether it is likely that nuclear blackmail could be used on us, were we to have no nuclear weapons of our own; and whether there is a risk of miscalculation on the part of the Russians—and later, perhaps, on the part of the Chinese—on the assumption that the United States might not be prepared, in the last resort, to back her Allies.
My Lords, these are grave matters and I, for one, do not doubt what the answer of the electorate will be. I think that they will find it puzzling that at a time when the French are developing nuclear weapons of their own, as well as when the Chinese are openly admitting that they are developing nuclear weapons, at a time when we have a powerful nuclear force in the V-bombers, and an even more powerful nuclear force building in the shape of Polaris submarines, we should contemplate such a course of action. They will find it astonishing that the Labour Party should propose to give all this away and that we should relegate ourselves to the non-nuclear league, when, for an expenditure of substantially less than 10 per cent., we can remain in it (and I do not agree with the figures and arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, used earlier on).
For what possible object? I do not believe it can be the money. The sum itself, spread over a number of years, is not particularly significant. It cannot be as an example to others, since nobody can seriously imagine that because we have given up our own nuclear weapons this example is likely to be followed by the Chinese or the French. It cannot be because the Labour Party or the Liberal Party disapprove of the use of nuclear weapons, since both Liberal and Labour Parties
836
are quite prepared to shelter behind the nuclear might of the Americans.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite entitled to put his case, but I think that he should put our case fairly. We join in the nuclear protection of the Western Alliance.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, that seems to be a difference without a distinction. For whatever reason it may be, I do not believe that this policy will find favour with the British people.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I say on this, from my own experience—and I have been in Parliament a long time—that we had to find fault with the policy before the war which led us into war under Neville Chamberlain. His Secretary was the present Prime Minister, and I warned him in another place in 1938 that the Government were leading us into a war insufficiently prepared, that we had never won a major war in history without powerful Allies, and that when we got into the war we should be standing alone. That came to be true. I do not think that noble Lords on the other side have any right to lecture us in this matter at all. What they want to do is to work in a good and great Alliance, for the defence of freedom, and all of our efforts should go on under the direction of that Alliance.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I was just coming to that, if the noble Earl will wait. The British were partners with the Americans and pioneers in nuclear warfare. As a result of a decision taken by the Labour Government in 1945–51, we decided to go for our own nuclear weapons. We have spent money and effort in keeping up with technical advances. I cannot believe that it is either sensible or prudent to throw all this away.
We are, as I have reminded your Lordships, on the verge of a General Election. Amongst other important matters, the people of this country will be asked to decide whether they prefer the defence policy of the Opposition to that of the Government. Over the past few years, we in this House have become used to much criticism of Conservative policy, but on very few, if any, occasions that I can remember and

837
certainly not to-day, have we been favoured with an official explanation of what Labour Party policy is. The time has come when they should tell us, since, after all, they are presenting themselves as an alternative Government. What would they do?
We have, I suppose, some idea of what they will do with our strategic nuclear weapons; but what is their policy on manpower, if they intend to increase our conventional forces, as they frequently say? Do they mean to introduce conscription or selective service? If not, how will they man their Army, as they themselves point out that it is difficult to recruit more volunteers than the kind of figure we now achieve? How can they man a force of the size the noble Earl spoke about earlier this afternoon, when he contemplated having a force of 700,000 men, almost twice as many as we have in our Armed Forces to-day?
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I said nothing of the kind. I was talking about the period when we had that number, and it is the Government opposite who have supported policies which have put us in the position of to-day. I did not say that our policy at the present time is to have a force of that size.
LORD CARRINGTON: Then, my Lords, what is the size of force that noble Lords opposite want? Have we too few men at the moment, or is it right?
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: You have had twelve years in possession of Government administration, with all the facts at your inner disposal all the time. You will have to wait and see what we have to offer when we are in power. It is all very well to laugh. Noble Lords opposite belong to a Party that put us in this position of abolishing the strength we had. They have spent close on £20,000 million over the twelve years, yet we have not got the men we want now, and do not seem to be able to get them.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that the electors of this country will take note of what the noble Earl has just said, and I wonder whether they will think it a very adequate answer.
838
What are noble Lords opposite going to do about bases overseas? Do they really believe in the importance of the retention of Singapore and Aden? Certainly last year both Mr. Paget and Mr. Brown, who are important figures in the Labour Party, placed the emphasis on NATO and spoke of our declining world commitments.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Not again!
LORD CARRINGTON: Noble Lords say, "Not again!" But these are very important things. We have a right to know what the policy of the Labour Party is. I wonder whether Mr. Brown and Mr. Paget still hold these views, after the events of the last few months. Perhaps they have changed their minds; it was certainly lucky that the Labour Party was not at that time in a position to implement their policy. We are entitled to know where the Labour Party stand. Do they see Britain as a Power with world-wide commitments, or do they see us only concentrating in Europe? What are their priorities in strategy, manpower and weapons? All we get is contradictions. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, want bases; Mr. Paget does not.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? He has several times referred to Mr. Paget. The last time he did so I got up and said—because he asked for the comments of noble Lords—that not only did I not agree with Mr. Paget on this matter, but that his views did not represent Labour Party policy.
LORD CARRINGTON: That is all very well; but he happens to be the Shadow War Minister. This is very difficult for some of us to understand. Mr. Wilson, I think, wants a bigger Navy; Mr. Wigg does not want one at all. What is their attitude towards the multilateral force? Our policy is set out in paragraph 11 of the White Paper. Are they, as Mr. Wilson would want to have us believe,
"completely, utterly and unequivocally opposed now and in all circumstances to any suggestion that Germany, West Germany or East Germany, directly or indirectly, should have a finger on the nuclear trigger"?
Is that their policy? If that is so, how do they account for the fact that a few

839
months later, Mr. Gordon Walker said that
"the only way … is for Germany to have an equal part with us in sharing in control of the American weapon, neither of us having the last decision if it should ever come to the firing of the weapon."?
My Lords, the truth of the matter is that the Labour Party is split from top to bottom on Defence. A sizeable part of the Parliamentary Party are antinuclear, unilateral disarmers, and, but for Mr. Gaitskell's brave stand, that might be the official policy to-day. So a compromise has to be arranged: "Keep what we have got, but don't get any more"—and we are left in doubt of the rest of their policy for much the same reasons. There are almost as many Defence policies in the Labour Party as there are Labour Members of Parliament. But in an Election year there must be an appearance of unity. In fact, they
are in doubt and disarray. And this is the Party which puts down a Motion of no confidence in the Government's Defence policy.
Contrast this with the Government policy of maintaining our Alliances, contributing to the Western deterrent, helping to contain Communism throughout the world with our bases and mobile forces, and lastly, but by no means least, protecting our own national interests which are of such strategic and economic importance to us. In a few months' time the electors will judge, and I hope your Lordships will give them a lead to-night in rejecting, and rejecting decisively, the Opposition Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 50.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hobson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Silkin, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lindgren, L.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L. [Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Taylor, L.

Crook, L.

Peddie, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Sainsbury, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lansdowne, M.

Albemarle, E.

Dundee, E.

Lothian, M.

Ampthill, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mabane, L.

Atholl, D.

Falkland, V.

Mills, V.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Bessborough, E.

Fortescue, E.

Newton, L.

Blakenham, V.

Furness, V.

Ormonde, M.

Bossom, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Brecon, L.

Gosford, E.

St. Just, L.

Carrington, L.

Greenway, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Grenfell, L.

Sandford, L.

Conesford, L.

Hailes, L.

Somers, L.

Croft, L.

Hanworth, V.

Spens, L.

Daventry, V.

Hastings, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Denham, L.

Hawke, L.

Suffield, L.

Derwent, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Devonshire, D.

Jellicoe, E.

On Question, Resolution agreed to.

HARBOURS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
  CANDIDATES' DESCRIPTIONS ON BALLOT PAPERS
  CANDIDATES' DESCRIPTIONS ON BALLOT PAPERS