Sitting of 6 May 1964

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

  BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
  [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
  Bill read the Third time and passed.

  SAINT PAUL, PORTMAN SQUARE, SAINT MARYLEBONE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Read a Second time and committed.
  MACDUFF HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

    Press Council (Procedure)
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Minister without Portfolio if he will introduce legislation to formalise the procedure of the Press Council, and in particular, to permit individuals to state their defence before a decision is made; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. W. F. Deedes): No, Sir.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Is not the present position unsatisfactory? Has my right hon. Friend looked into the case of Mr. Clement Freud, against whom a complaint was lodged following an article in the Sunday Telegraph? Has my right hon. Friend seen Mr. Freud's letter in the Sunday Telegraph on 22nd March, in which he said that the complaint was adjudicated upon without his knowledge, in his absence, without the possi-
    1256
    bility of representations being made at the hearing and with no right of appeal? While welcoming the extension of the powers of the Press Council, may I ask my right hon. Friend to look at this again with a view to formalising the position, otherwise journalists' professional reputations can be severely harmed by this form of Star Chamber procedure?
    Mr. Deedes: The Press Council has a well-established procedure for receiving complaints and calling for any oral evidence that it requires without legal representation. Generally speaking, the House has approved this form of Press Council—that is to say, a voluntary rather than a statutory council. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, I am willing to forward to the Council any details which he may let me have.
    Mr. M. Foot: Is it not the case that the House has never given any support to a procedure whereby a person against whom a complaint is made shall not be allowed to appear before the Press Council to put his case? The House of Commons would not tolerate that kind of procedure. It never occurred to anyone in this House that such a thing would arise. Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to say that, if there were any repetition of this kind of case, he would think it necessary to consider further legislation or other action?
    Mr. Deedes: The House discussed the general kind of Press Council it thought desirable and this was the general conclusion it reached. If there is a particular case of this kind, I will see that it is brought to the attention of the Council.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend bring this matter to the attention of the very eminent Chairman of the Press Council, because I am sure that the Chairman would be very seized of these matters which are worrying the House?
    Mr. Deedes: Yes. I fully endorse that reference to the Chairman.

    Visiting Scientists
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister without Portfolio what services he provides for foreign scientists visiting Great Britain.
    Mr. Deedes: Services for scientists visiting this country are provided through the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the British Council and the Central Office of Information. They include the arrangement of consultations, tours and courses of study, and the provision of advice and assistance in many ways.
    Mr. Dalyell: If such services are perhaps better provided by other Ministries, is not the right hon. Gentleman's own Ministry rather superfluous?
    Mr. Deedes: It depends really on the type of tour which is considered. It may be that the British Council can be of service for a certain kind of visit, or the Foreign Office or the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. My own functions are not called upon save in the sense of co-ordinating information which may be required.

  RAILWAYS

    Houses
    Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the Railways Board not to sell any more of its railway houses.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): No, Sir. I do not think that this would be appropriate.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Did not the old railway companies buy houses for perfectly good administrative reasons in order to facilitate the movement of personnel when they were promoted from one place to another?
    Mr. Galbraith: It may well have been that the old private companies did this for good administrative reasons, but equally for good administrative reasons the Railways Board now wishes to get rid of some of its houses.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: In some of the cases of proposals for sale, would not the sale have meant grave injustices to individual employees of the railways, and will not a general sale impede the process of promotion?
    Mr. Galbraith: This is a matter which must be left to the commercial and
    1258
    managerial judgment of the Railways Board.
    Sir J. Macleod: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that there is no deliberate running down of the railways in a certain region by selling these properties?
    Mr. Galbraith: Certainly I can, Sir.
    Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Transport what percentage increase has been made by the British Railways Board in the rents charged by the Board for houses in its possession which are let to railway personnel.
    Mr. Galbraith: The British Railways Board tells us that the rents of railway-owned houses, where these are not subject to rent control, are fixed in the light of the levels of rent currently charged for comparable properties in each locality. No figure of the overall percentage increase in such rents over any period is available, and to obtain one would, the Board tells me, entail a disproportionate amount of work.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Does not the Minister agree that real hardship was caused to one of my constituents when his rent was raised by 70 per cent. the other day? Is that not a change in his conditions of employment made by the Railways Board?
    Mr. Galbraith: Tenants of the Railways Board have the same protection as tenants of other landlords. It would be wrong to put the Railways Board into a different position.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Does it not alter the terms of employment when the rent is increased by 70 per cent.?
    Mr. Galbraith: That is an entirely different question from the one on the Order Paper.

    Closed Lines
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the Railways Board not to lift the rails of any branch or main railway line until a comprehensive report about Great Britain's present and future transport needs has been presented to Parliament.
    Mr. Galbraith: No, Sir.
    Mr. Spriggs: Would the hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply, as the Conservative Party had no mandate at the last General Election to carry out this policy? As a comprehensive report has been called for, would it not be wiser to wait until it has been submitted to the House before these lines—very important lines in some instances—are lifted?
    Mr. Galbraith: It may help the hon. Gentleman when I tell him that in six cases where my right hon. Friend has given consent to close the line he has asked the railways to inform him before the track is lifted. I think that is adequate protection.
    Mr. Strauss: Does that mean that the Minister will, if necessary, tell the railways that they must not lift the tracks if they think there is a possibility that in future the line may be needed?
    Mr. Galbraith: I think that we should have to wait and see what the case was. What this does is to prevent the railways from doing it without informing my right hon. Friend, and then my right hon. Friend, in the particular circumstances of the case, could consider what, if anything, was the right thing to do.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would my hon. Friend agree that the Government have always had a mandate to try to make the railways and the whole transport system pay, as is laid down in the Transport Acts, and if it is clearly proved beyond doubt that a branch line does not pay and will never pay, is it not sensible to sell the line?
    Mr. Galbraith: That is what the Railways Board is trying to do.

    Members of Parliament (Information)
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Minister of Transport if he will seek to amend the Transport Act, 1962, in such a way that Members of Parliament can obtain detailed information from the Railways Board for Parliamentary purposes.
    Mr. Galbraith: No, Sir. I have no doubt that the Board already does all that can reasonably be expected of it to provide hon. Members with information they need for Parliamentary purposes.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Railways Board is not
    1260
    giving hon. Members information about finances which they have been asking for? I take it that hon. Members on both sides of the House have tried to obtain the information to which I refer—the overall takings at stations and goods depôts. As hon. Members cannot get this information, would the hon. Member look at this matter again, have a talk with the Chairman of the Railways Board, and report to the House?
    Mr. Galbraith: This is a very difficult question because it runs into the problems of managerial competence. Perhaps I might remind the hon. Member what my right hon. Friend the then Leader of the House said on 31st July last year, that Ministers would consider sympathetically getting information on a national basis about nationalised industries. If it is general figures which the hon. Member wants and he would like to inform me about them, I will certainly do what I can to help, but if they are detailed figures about a particular case, that would be another matter.
    Mr. Spriggs: Does this not make the Chairman of the Railways Board into a virtual dictator in that he is given power by the Minister to refuse to give Members of the House of Commons vital information? Will the hon. Gentleman consider this matter again in the light of the requirements of information that we vitally need, and report to the House?
    Mr. Galbraith: If it is information on a detailed point, I am afraid that I cannot do anything, but if it is information on a general matter, then we can try to help.

    Main-line Stations (Security Wardens)
    Mr. J. Wellsasked the Minister of Transport when security wardens were introduced at main-line railway stations; how many there are; what is the total cost of this corps; and by what sum railway pilferage has been reduced since their introduction.
    Mr. Galbraith: The British Railways Board tells me that it introduced security wardens at the principal main-line stations and parcels depôts in London and Manchester on 1st January, 1961. There are in all 83 wardens currently employed, at a total annual wages cost

    1261
    of £63,000. The Board does not consider it practicable to assess the amounts by which losses by pilferage have been reduced since their introduction.
    Mr. Wells: Would my hon. Friend confirm, however, that this corps has given very valuable service, and although it may not be possible to assess the precise savings that it has effected, will he confirm that the service is very valuable and indicate whether the Board would consider extending it to other main-line stations?
    Mr. Galbraith: I can certainly give an assurance that these security wardens have proved very valuable. They have released the police for other duties for which they are fully trained. As for their future, I will consult with the Railways Board about that.

    Proposed Closures, North of Scotland
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Transport (1) what action he proposes to take as a result of the report made to him following the Transport Users' Consultative Committee's hearing in Inverurie on 10th February, about the withdrawal of certain train services between Aberdeen, Inverurie, Pitmedden, Kinaldie and Kintore:
    (2) what action he proposes to take as a result of the report made to him following the Transport Users' Consultative Committee's hearing in Elgin on 11th February, about the withdrawal of certain train services between Aberdeen, Keith and Elgin.
    Mr. Galbraith: We are studying these reports and all other relevant factors in consultation with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland. I cannot anticipate the outcome.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister realise that it is very improper for him to answer these two Questions together, because the considerations affecting these two districts are quite distinct? Does the hon. Gentleman also realise that the loss and damage which these withdrawals are inflicting on trade, industry, commerce and employment in Aberdeen City and County is greatly enhanced by the secrecy with which these withdrawals
    1262
    are planned and carried out? The hon. Gentleman's Answer is a striking example of that.
    Mr. Galbraith: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong, because there is no secrecy about it, nor have there been, any withdrawals. The Railways Board said that it wished to withdraw certain services, and there has been an inquiry before the Transport Users' Consultative Committee which has reported to my right hon. Friend, and my right hon. Friend, in discussion with other of his right hon. Friends, will shortly be coming to a conclusion on the matter.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Boyden.
    Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. Two Questions were answered together. Would you not allow me to put another supplementary question?
    Mr. Speaker: The supplementary arises out of one answer. We cannot go on with it.

    Proposed Closures, South-West Durham
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Transport (1) in view of the implications of the White Paper on the North-East that an increasing number of people will have to travel to work from South-West Durham to the growth zone to the east, what improvements in public transport he is sponsoring between Middleton-in-Teesdale, Barnard Castle and Newton Aycliffe and Darlington and between Witton Park, Bishop Auckland, Shildon, Darlington and Newton Aycliffe following the British Railways Board's proposals to eliminate all railway passenger services in this area and in view of the report which he has received from the Transport Users' Consultative Committee;
    (2) in view of paragraph 107 of the White Paper on the North-East, stating that the region will have much more to offer the tourist and holidaymaker as modernisation gets under way in communications, what steps he is taking to ensure that the last remaining railway passenger services between Middleton-in-Teesdale, Barnard Castle and Darlington and between Bishop Auckland and Darlington, which serve the two principal tourist attractions of

    1263
    South-West Durham, namely, Teesdale and Weardale, are maintained and improved, in view of the proposed closure of the line and the report on it by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee.
    Mr. Galbraith: When my right hon. Friend considers railway passenger closure proposals he takes into account all relevant factors before he reaches his decision. These include any implications for travel to work or for tourists and holidaymakers.
    One of the major concerns of my right hon. Friend, as he has frequently stated, is to see that adequate alternative services are, where necessary, available when a passenger closure takes place.
    The improvement of rail and other public transport services is primarily a matter for the operators. The Railways Board and the road transport undertakings continually review their services in the light of changing demands.
    Mr. Boyden: Why does the Minister go on pondering this matter? In the case of the Middleton-Barnard Castle-Darlington line, is not he aware that the Transport Users' Consultative Committee said that severe hardship would be caused to a great variety of people, including workpeople and children, if the line was shut? Why does not he give a direction to British Railways to maintain the service? In the case of the second railway—Crook-Bishop Auckland-Darlington—is he aware that the Transport Users' Consultative Committee met, that quite inadequate proposals were made by the bus service, and that at the next meeting the bus proposals were still inadequate? Cannot he make a decision that both lines should be kept open?
    Mr. Galbraith: The trouble is that hon. Members who have an interest in these matters always want their own cases considered first. These matters are far too important for me to give an off-the-cuff decision merely when the report of a consultative committee has been received—and in the case of the Crook line, no report has yet been received from the consultative committee.
    Sir J. MacLeod: Will my hon. Friend give a similar assurance in respect of freight services as has been given, in this Question and previous Questions, on
    1264
    passenger services? Surely there should be no closure of freight services until adequate alternative services are provided.
    Mr. Galbraith: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows very well that the position is quite different. The Railways Board has complete freedom with regard to freight. It is only in respect of passenger closures that the consultative committee procedure is applicable.
    Mr. Boyden: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the first opportunity on the Adjournment.

    Proposed Closure, Blyth and Tyne Line
    Mr. Milneasked the Minister of Transport if he has yet received the report of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee following the hearing at Whitley Bay on Thursday, 19th March in regard to the proposed closure of the Blyth and Tyne line.
    Mr. Galbraith: No, Sir.
    Mr. Milne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the need for a very early and favourable decision on this matter, in view of the number of industrialists seeking to move into the district affected by the proposed closure, and that such a decision will be beneficial to industrial development in the area?
    Mr. Galbraith: I understand that the North-Eastern Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee is well aware of that, but this is not the only case that it has to deal with. Many of these cases are very complicated. However, I am sure that what the hon. Member has said will not be lost on the consultative committee.
    Dame Irene Ward: Having seen the various proposals put forward, and the arguments on which Dr. Seething bases his proposals, will my hon. Friend see that alternative railways are available? Can he give a guarantee that where that argument is used it means that the railways will be available for ever? Otherwise it is quite a false basis on which to put forward such an argument.
    Mr. Galbraith: It would be most unwise for me to undertake that anything would ever be there for ever. I could not give my hon. Friend that undertaking.
    Dame Irene Ward: Then the argument is on a false basis.

  TRANSPORT

    Public Transport, Urban Areas
    Mr. W. T. Rodgersasked the Minister of Transport whether he will appoint a committee of independent experts to study what new financial structure may be required to improve standards of public transport in urban areas, in view of the findings of the Buchanan Committee.
    Mr. Galbraith: No, Sir. We do not think such an inquiry is required at present. We are already considering, in consultation with the transport operators and the local authorities, ho best to improve the standards of public transport in urban areas.
    Mr. Rodgers: As this is by common consent a very complicated problem and as there has been a great deal of discussion lately about pricing policy with regard to private transport, including by the Smeed Committee, does not the hon. Gentleman consider that a committee to look in detail and at length into the question of pricing policy might make recommendations which would be very useful guidance to local authorities in very large urban areas?
    Mr. Galbraith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that this is a complicated matter, but we do not think that an inquiry of the nature which he has suggested is what is really needed. What is much more necessary at the moment is to try to get the operators to provide a more satisfactory service.

    C Licence Holders (Prosecutions)
    Mr. W. T. Rodgersasked the Minister of Transport how many prosecutions were instituted in 1961, 1962 and 1963, respectively, against C licence holders for using their vehicles in a manner other than that permitted under the licensing regulations.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): In the 12 months ending 30th September in each case, the licensing authorities reported 970, 1,228, and 757 prosecutions respectively, for breach of conditions of carriers' C licences.
    Mr. Rodgers: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House what proportion of these prosecutions relates to persistent offenders? Is he satisfied in particular, in view of the drop, as I understand it, in the last of these years, that a sufficient number of prosecutions is being taken against C licence holders who are attempting to provide tramp services with their vehicles contrary to their licences? Could he say also what powers are available to withdraw licences or fail to renew them if the conditions are not properly fulfilled?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I cannot answer the first of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary questions without notice. Whether we have a record as between persistent and repeated offences and first offences, I cannot say, but I will look into the matter. With regard to the last of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary questions, there are adequate powers for the licensing authorities to withdraw the licences of persistent offenders. With regard to enforcement, I do not think too much should be read into variations from one year to another. I do not think there is any particular significance in the drop between 1962 and 1963.
    Mr. Mellish: But these are prosecutions which were discovered by a very inadequate Supply of inspectors. Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what the Department will do to increase the number of inspectors available to apprehend those concerned in what is known to be a very large malpractice at this moment? What is he going to do about it?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I would not entirely agree with the implication in that supplementary question. With regard to the number of inspectors I have little to add to the answers on that subject which I gave not long ago. However, as I indicated then, we hope to

    1267
    improve the methods by which these regulations are enforced rather than merely step up the numbers of inspectors.
    Mr. Rodgers: Would not the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that it is possible that licensing authorities may feel that the fact that the Geddes Committee is sitting exonerates them from some responsibility for enforcing existing licensing regulations, and would he make it clear to them that as long as the law remains, it ought to be enforced?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I do not think there is any question about our doing our utmost to ensure that the law is properly enforced without any prejudice to what may be found or recommended in due course by the Geddes Committee.

    Insurance
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeauxasked the Minister of Transport if he will move to amend Section 203 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, to provide that no person or body of persons carrying on motor vehicle insurance in Great Britain can be considered an authorised insurer under the Act if he or they refuse cover to a person on the grounds that such person is not of British extraction.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: No motorist should have any difficulty in obtaining the minimum statutory insurance cover provided his record as a driver is a reasonable one. If my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have details of any cases he has in mind I would be glad to try to help.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that a constituent of mine has recently been refused cover by the Malvern Insurance Company Ltd., solely for the reason that he is of foreign extraction? As this man fought alongside us during the whole of the last war in the Polish Air Force, and has been a naturalised British subject for more than 10 years, does not my hon. and gallant Friend think that this action of the Malvern Insurance Company Ltd. is most unfair and grossly insulting? If so, will he look into this matter again?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I have seen the correspondence between my hon. and gallant Friend and my hon.
    1268
    Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. We would certainly strongly deprecate any discrimination solely on the ground that the applicant for insurance was not of British origin, but I think that we should wait to see what emerges from the inquiries which we will be glad to make if my hon. and gallant Friend can give us more details in addition to that which he has just given so that we may know to whom the inquiry should be addressed.
    Mr. Tiley: Will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that I have known the Northern Assurance Company Ltd. for many years and have never known it to indulge in practices of this kind? As motor insurance companies have lost many millions of £s over the last few years, it is only right to say that they are trying to make the good risks pay less, and the bad risks pay more, irrespective of race, colour or creed. That is the only commonsense way of dealing with motor insurance.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says, but I would rather go no further until we have had an opportunity of studying the actual details of this case.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) realise that I referred to the Malvern Insurance Company Ltd. and not to the Northern Assurance Company?
    Mr. Tiley: My comments apply to the Malvern as well as to the Northern.

    Airport Buses (Non-smoking Accommodation)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the London Transport Board to provide non-smoking accommodation on buses running between airports and air terminals.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: No, Sir. The only buses which are run by the London Transport Board between an airport and an air terminal are those owned by British European Airways, and the provision of non-smoking accommodation on them is therefore a matter for British European Airways.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that I have tried to put a Question down to the Minister of Aviation because I thought that that was the case, and that I have so far failed? I shall communicate with B.E.A.

    Roundabouts (Signs)
    Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Minister of Transport if he is yet able to estimate what the public response has been to his "Give way to the right" signs at selected roundabouts; and if he will make a statement.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: It is too early yet to draw any firm conclusion from this experiment but preliminary indications are promising.
    Mr. Smith: May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that many motorists are finding these signs a considerable asset at roundabouts, but that when one road tends significantly to be more of a major one than the other, they are ignoring them? Does my hon. and gallant Friend think that it is worth continuing with the experiment at that type of roundabout, and does he envisage in the long run having this as a permanent feature of the road traffic law?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I think that it is too early to answer my hon. Friend's supplementary questions. I think that we must see how the trials which it is planned to carry out at about 76 roundabouts work out. So far, signs have been erected at 41 of them.
    Preliminary observations—and I stress that these are preliminary—indicate that traffic flows are better and that what are called "lock-ups" have been almost eliminated. There is also less need for supervision by the police. On the other hand, there is no marked change in the accident figures, and there is a tendency for the signs to be disregarded once an entry stream has been firmly established.
    Mr. Lipton: Will the Minister say for how long this experiment is going on? Furthermore, does it not create confusion and misunderstanding when a regulation or practice of this kind is applied to some roundabouts and not to others? Where it does not apply, one gets a state of psychological warfare.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I do not know that I would agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. The notices when the "Give way to traffic from the right" rule is in force are very clear. They can be seen as one approaches, and if there is no notice at all, one goes on as before.

    Traffic Schemes, West and East London
    Mr. Danceasked the Minister of Transport what further systems of tidal flow and other experiments in traffic engineering he is considering introducing in the west and east London areas with a view to casing traffic congestion on these approaches to London in advance of the computer-controlled traffic signals coming into operation.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We have announced proposals for further traffic schemes in the west and east London areas to ease traffic congestion. One of these is for a form of tidal flow on Hammersmith Bridge. Many other schemes are under consideration.
    I cannot say how many will come into operation before the start of the experimental computer-controlled signals scheme in west London, which we hope will be in 1966. As from 1st April, 1965, of course, the Greater London Council will be responsible for traffic schemes in London.
    Mr. Dance: Will my hon. and gallant Friend convey to his right hon. Friend our thanks for the experiments that he has made with one-way streets, and so on, but also convey to his right hon. Friend the fact that appalling congestion occurs in the east of London? I refer to the road coming in from Chingford, where there are some ghastly intersections. Can something be done to improve the position?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I appreciate the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I will certainly investigate conditions on the road which he has mentioned. I should explain that one difficulty about tidal flow schemes of the kind that he has in mind is that they require roads with a width of not less than five lanes, and in London there are very few stretches of road as wide as that. Where there

    1271
    are, there are often fairly solid central reservations, and it is impossible for tidal flow schemes to be instituted until they have been removed.

    Fatal Accidents
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Transport whether he will break down the figures, contained in the statement issued by his Department, that some 60 fatal accidents on the roads had occurred during the Easter holiday; and if he will in future authorise such statements to include at least the class of person involved, such as motorist, cyclist, pedestrian and, in the latter category, whether they are young, old or blind.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The provisional figures for fatal casualties which are announced over the holiday periods cannot, at the time, be broken down into categories. Fuller information is given at monthly intervals, and I shall be glad to send my hon. Friend the statement for March when it is published later this month.
    Sir T. Moore: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for that personal undertaking in regard to information being given to me. Does he appreciate, however, that the purpose of my putting down this Question was to enable the public generally to appreciate the dangers on the road and the need to do their best to avoid them?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I appreciate that. That is the reason why figures are issued at daily intervals during public holiday periods. But they give only a very rough indication, which often has to be changed a great deal when more accurate figures are announced later, and we think that it would be misleading to attempt to make the immediate release of information more selective, because we should then be dealing with much smaller numbers.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether a fuller analysis is now being made of each serious accident which occurs, irrespective of the time of year when it occurred—holiday period or not?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: That is another question.
    The Earl of Dalkeithasked the Minister of Transport what was the average number of road accident deaths and the average number of motor vehicles in use in the five-year periods 1930–34 inclusive and 1958–62, respectively.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The average annual number of deaths was 7,042 in the period 1930–34, and 6,615 in the period 1958–62. There was an average of 2·3 million motor vehicles in use in the first period and 8·8 million in the second.
    The Earl of Dalkeith: Does not this show that progress is being made in the right direction and does it not reflect a great deal of credit, not only on motorists but on motor manufacturers, for their safety appliances, also on the medical services, and not least on my hon. and gallant Friend's Department for its road safety campaigns and also for providing a great many better roads?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I agree with my noble Friend, but it is fair to say that a number of factors have been at work. One is the better design of vehicles. It should also be remembered that pedestrian crossings, the 30 miles-an-hour speed limit in built-up areas and driving tests were all introduced in 1934 and 1935 and there was a sharp drop in the number of deaths. In 1952 zebra crossings were introduced and again the number of deaths showed a great drop.
    Mr. Strauss: While a number of organisations and different Governments have contributed to this satisfactory result, will the Parliamentary Secretary say that he will not be complacent about the present rate of road accidents?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I assure the right hon. Member that I shall not be complacent because, unfortunately, recently the trend has reversed and it is now on the upgrade again.

    Drivers (Sleep)
    Mr. Longdenasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that under the existing law a motorist who is overcome by sleep so that he is unable properly to control his vehicle is committing an offence if he pulls in and

    1273
    rests until fully awake; and if he will introduce legislation to ensure that such action is not in future indictable.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: No, Sir. Under the Motorways Traffic Regulations a driver may stop on the verge in certain circumstances, including accident, illness or other emergency, for as long as is necessary in those circumstances. We do not propose to amend the Regulations in this respect. If a driver begins to feel sleepy, this seldom indicates an emergency. He should open a window to let in some fresh air and either go to the next service area or leave the motorway at the next exit.
    Mr. Longden: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for that Answer. Does not the law which he has described apply only to motorways and not to ordinary roads? Can my hon. and gallant Friend think of anything more asinine than a law which penalises a driver if he pulls in because he finds himself unable to go on driving, for whatever the cause?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: That depends entirely on where the driver pulls in and how the car is parked when he stops. But the Regulations about not stopping on the verge, or on the hard shoulder as it is sometimes called, apply to motorways only. I hope that I am not misinforming the House, but I do not think that there is any regulation which prevents a driver from pulling up on to the grass verge on a road which is not a motorway, provided that his vehicle is clear of the roadway.
    Mr. Strauss: Can the Minister confirm that? I think that it will come as a surprise to the whole House if there is, according to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden), a law which makes it an offence for a driver to pull into the verge in conditions where, obviously, in the interests of safety he ought to do so? Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman lock carefully into the matter and, if the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West is justified in what he has said, will he take some action about it? Is he aware that the Question applies to roads generally and not to motorways, and that his Answer seemed to apply to motorways?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The reason I applied it to motorways is that it is the Motorways Traffic Regulations which have been criticised on these grounds, because there is a definite prohibition from pulling on to the verge or the hard shoulder. I will pursue the matter in greater detail as the right hon. Gentleman asks. So far as I know, parking on an ordinary road becomes an offence only if an obstruction is created or if it is dangerous parking. I speak under correction, but I should have thought that a motor car parked completely clear of the roadway would not result in an offence being committed.
    Mr. Gower: Except on a motorway or a clearway, can my hon. and gallant Friend give a single reason why a motorist, travelling on a fairly clear road, should not be able to pull up and, if necessary, go to sleep in daylight? Can there be any objection to that?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I can think of one or two reasons, but I do not think that they would arise from this Question.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the Minister aware that he should be devoting his attention to the question of those drivers of motor vehicles who are overcome by fatigue? Is he aware that there is increasing evidence that many vehicle drivers drive for excessive hours, sometimes as long as 17 hours, and cause danger on the road which results in many accidents? Is he aware that the other night there was a television programme which would have been edifying for the Minister?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We are aware of this problem, but that is a different question.

    Bus Services, London
    Mr. Vaneasked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the London Transport Board to include in the information given at bus stops in London, now mostly limited to the route and the time of the last services, the frequency of the service during rush hours and in the middle of the day.
    Mr. Galbraith: No, Sir. Matters of this kind fall clearly within the London Transport Board's responsibility for management. In fact, I am informed

    1275
    by the Board that it is providing information, including an indication of frequency, at all stops in its central bus operating area where time-tables are not provided, and that it has already done so over most of Central London.
    Mr. Vane: Is my hon. Friend aware that when this is completed it will be very welcome? Is he aware that, with the deterioration of bus services and the great uncertainty which exists, it would be extremely convenient to arrive at a bus stop and know whether a bus was coming within five minutes, or within 25 minutes, which is not unusual at some periods during the day?
    Mr. Mellish: Is the Minister aware that unless priority is given to bus services in central London—which, so far as I know, would mean legislation being enacted—surely such information given at bus stops would be quite irrelevant? How can the buses arrive on time at a given spot when the traffic congestion is such that the vehicles cannot get through?
    Mr. Galbraith: That is an entirely different question.

    Goods Vehicles (Checks)
    Mr. Mappasked the Minister of Transport if he will state the total number of traffic examiners of the licensing authorities, the number of silent checks they have made in respect of goods vehicles over a recent representative period; and what is the proportion of checks to the approximate total goods vehicle journeys over the same period.
    Mr. Galbraith: There are about 140 examiners on enforcement work at any one time. Accurate figures of silent checks are not available but the number of vehicles checked is of the order of 100,000 a year. This gives a ratio of one check per 6,000 vehicle-journeys but the odds that an offender will be caught are for various reasons a good deal shorter than this.
    Mr. Mapp: Does not it occur to the Minister that the extent of enforcement is infinitesimal and that it is quite clear that some further administrative action is necessary in the light of what is now
    1276
    called the "cowboy faction" on the periphery of road transport? Will he consider examining the current log books of operators over a more recent period—because this is the way in which, as those with knowledge are aware, facts may be ascertained on which action can be taken—rather than concentrating on alleged silent checks?
    Mr. Galbraith: I will consider what the hon. Member has said. The number of examiners has kept pace with the increase in the number of vehicles.

    Road Vehicles (Sliding Doors)
    Mr. Mappasked the Minister of Transport what research is being undertaken into the advantages of substituting sliding doors for opening doors on the off side of road vehicles.
    Mr. Galbraith: We have not asked for research work to be done on sliding doors as such. The manufacturers, however, are always looking for developments in bodywork design generally that would improve convenience and safety. Sliding doors are already used for several types of vehicle, when they are specially suitable.
    Mr. Mapp: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of the terrible hazard to cyclists and motor cyclists presented by the opening outwards of doors of road vehicles? This is clearly a desirable improvement. Will the Minister say to his Road Research Laboratory, "This is something which is desirable. Will you sort out the technical details and let the Department know when it can be done"?
    Mr. Galbraith: The trouble is that anything which is an advantage often has a disadvantage. Although the hon. Member has pointed out the advantages, there are disadvantages. If there is an accident the doors are likely to jam and it is then more difficult for passengers to get out of a car than if it has the normal type of doors. It is also very difficult when there are sliding doors to have two doors on the same side of the car, as one has in the normal car. There are difficulties as well as advantages.

    Buses (Propane Gas)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport what research is being carried out on running buses on propane gas; and whether, in the interest of lessened noise and lessened exhaust fumes, he will encourage the use of such gas.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: It is known that in the North-East it is planned to operate a bus on propane gas, but it is too early to say whether or not the use of this type of fuel should be encouraged generally for this purpose.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that we seem to be on the edge of a break-through in the use of propane gas in diesel engines, and that if this were done there would be no diesel fumes, much less noise and in an urban area where buses are run near their bases, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not put on a large tax, they would be economical? Therefore, should not this research be encouraged in urban areas such as London and other big centres?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: On the question of fumes, comparative tests have shown that the proportion of carbon monoxide emitted from an ordinary diesel engine is only a fraction of that emitted from an ordinary petrol or propane engine. This matter requires more study before we could agree with my hon. Friend's conclusions. We are aware that propane gas, so long as it remains tax-free, could offer an economic advantage, but the total quantities of propane gas available should also be considered. These are matters for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Power.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my hon. and gallant Friend agree that no smoke comes out of the diesel engine as it does when a vehicle is using ordinary derv?

    Fog Conditions (Headlights)
    The Earl of Dalkeithasked the Minister of Transport, what further steps he will take to publicise the advisability of using headlights in motor vehicles in conditions of daytime fog.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Advice that headlamps should be used in condi-
    1278
    tion of daylight fog is given in the Highway Code, and by broadcasting and television services whenever the weather report forecasts such conditions. That advice is the subject of a short film made recently for television and will be included in a booklet on motorway driving now being prepared. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents gives the same advice when appropriate.
    The Earl of Dalkeith: Would not my hon. and gallant Friend agree that at present about nine out of ten motorists go on using sidelights in day-time fog and that is useless as the lights are seldom more visible than the vehicle itself?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We agree about that. That is why we are doing our best to publicise the need to use headlights. The propaganda will be stepped up when the fog season again approaches.

  ROADS

    A.635 and A.638 Roads (Improvement)
    Mr. Duffyasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the A.635 and A.638 link major export industries in the West Riding with the A.1; and if he will state his plans for their early improvement.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: A.635 is a classified road for which the local highway authorities are responsible. An improvement scheme costing £330,000, for which we are making grant, is in progress now in Barnsley.
    Westwards from Wakefield A.638 is also a classified road. The local highway authorities plan to improve it throughout and we have offered grant for three schemes in the current programme costing a total of £590,000. Work on one of them—in Wakefield—has begun.
    Between Wakefield and A.1 A.638 is a trunk road. We have no immediate plans for its improvement. It is expected that much of the traffic from the West Riding to A.1 will use the Lancashire-Yorkshire motorway and the extended M.1 when these are completed within the next few years.
    Mr. Duffy: I am grateful for that information, but may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that these schemes

    1279
    deserve higher priorities because the stretches of road to which he referred are so inferior as to constitute a considerable tax on the industrial transport that uses them? Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman further aware that this cost may now be crucial to the export performance of many wool textile firms in the West Riding in view of the increasing competition which they face?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We are aware of the importance of these roads, and we are aware of the importance of getting on as quickly as we can, but there are a large number of competing schemes and we do our best to get them in the right order of priority.

    Evesham (Draft Town Map)
    Sir P. Agnewasked the Minister of Transport when he expects that the discussions now proceeding between his Department and the Worcestershire County Council surveyor as to the route to be followed by the proposed Evesham by-pass will be brought to a conclusion, so that the draft town map of Evesham can be got ready for public inspection.
    Mr. Galbraith: As a result of the discussions with Worcestershire County Council, the county surveyor is now making further investigations into the most suitable line for the by-pass. Until we receive his report I am unable to say when a decision will be made.
    Sir P. Agnew: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is now nearly a year and a half since the draft town map was shown to the borough council, and that continued delay in passing the proposals backwards and forwards between his Ministry and the Worcestershire County Council is causing grave uncertainty to the traders, developers and general citizens of the Borough of Evesham? Will he expedite this matter, and exercise his power of decision so as to get on with the work and relieve the uncertainty?
    Mr. Galbraith: I understand everything that my hon. Friend has said. In my Answer I said that the county surveyor is undertaking further investigations. Until we get the result of these investigations it is impossible to decide what the lines will be. As this will be a
    1280
    very important decision, it is wise to make certain that it is right when we make it.

    A.184 Road (Improvement)
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Minister of Transport when the A.184 road from Sunderland to Newcastle will be improved.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The dualling of the 2½ miles section from Gateshead to Heworth has been completed. Work on the further 1½ miles eastwards to White Mare Pool should start next year. We hope that within the next four or five years work will start on the remaining 1½ miles to the proposed Sunderland by-pass, and also on the by-pass itself, which will be the main distributor for traffic to the Sunderland radial roads.
    Mr. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that the earlier part of his Answer refers to parts of the road that no longer matter, because they are quite good already? Is he further aware, however, that the second part of the road—from White Mare Pool on to Sunderland—is in urgent need of improvement, more particularly because it is alleged to cross a level crossing which in fact is the roughest thing between here and Barwick?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I will bear that point in mind.

    Lancashire and Yorkshire Motorway
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Minister of Transport at what point construction of the first stretch of the Lancashire and Yorkshire motorway will commence; and when this construction will start.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: It is too early to say. It is planned to start major earthworks on a section in the Pennines in the spring of 1966, but progress elsewhere will depend on completion of the statutory processes and availability of funds.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that the roads over the Pennines are inadequate and dangerous, especially in the winter

    1281
    months? Will he do something to make certain that they are made safe? Does he realise that over a period of years this country has spent less of its gross national product on roads than any other country in Europe?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I was not aware of the latter fact and I do not think that I should accept it without further investigation. As I think the hon. Gentleman will know, this motorway is included in the thousand miles planned for completion by the early 1970s. It will be a very costly project—over £50 million—and the money has to be found from available resources. The statutory processes which include fixing the line of junctions, the treatment of side roads and the acquisition of land, must be completed.
    Mr. Wainwright: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that if he reads the publication issued by the Roads Campaign Council he will find that the figures given there indicate that out of about six countries, this country was the lowest in respect of the proportion of the gross national product spent on roads? Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that more money must be spent on roads in order that the dangers may be removed as soon as possible?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I do not wish to be drawn into a debate at Question Time, but my experience is that statistics provided by pressure groups are often capable of more than one interpretation.

    Thorne By-pass Scheme
    Mr. Jegerasked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make a statement on the Thorne by-pass scheme near Doncaster.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: There is little I can add at this stage to he replies given to the hon. Member on 12th February and 8th April. We are considering the design of the scheme and still aim to complete the further statutory processes and to acquire the land so that work can start in a year or two.
    Mr. Jeger: Is the Minister aware that there is a rumour in the district that the line of the by-pass has been agreed and laid down. Why, then, is there further
    1282
    delay in getting on with this very urgent and necessary job?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: An Order under Section 9 of the Highways Act, 1959, would be necessary to enable my right hon. Friend to make alterations to side roads affected by the line of the by-pass. A compulsory purchase order would be needed to acquire the necessary land.
    Mr. Jeger: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when he thinks that the work on this road will actually commence?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The construction work which, incidentally, will include seven bridges, will take about three years. We expect the by-pass to be in use within five years.

    Calder Bridge, Wakefield (Design)
    Mr. Jegerasked the Minister of Transport which design he has chosen for the new Calder Bridge, near Wakefield.
    Mr. Galbraith: No decision has yet been reached.
    Mr. Jeger: Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the situation with regard to this bridge has been complicated by the fact that the West Riding County Council has submitted its own design for the bridge, despite the fact that the county surveyor of the West Riding was on the panel of experts which selected the previous unsuitable bridges and recommended an award of public money for these designs?
    Mr. Galbraith: I do not think that that will affect the decision of my right hon. Friend.

    Keynsham By-pass
    Sir E. Leatherasked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to expedite the construction of the Keynsham by-pass in north Somerset.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: As my hon. Friend knows, we are hoping to let the contract for this scheme shortly.
    Two years are being allowed for completion, w lich I regard as reasonable and in accordance with sound engineering practice.
    Sir E. Leather: I am sorry, but this is most unsatisfactory. Is not my hon. and gallant Friend aware that, if the Minister were sitting anywhere but in the place he occupies, he would be the first to scoff at this ridiculously leisurely programme for something which is urgently needed? Will my hon. and gallant Friend tell him to take the advice given by a more eminent person than myself and take his right hon. finger out?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I have studied the correspondence between my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend on this matter and we think that my hon. Friend under-estimates the difficulties. The scheme will entail the construction of a pedestrian underpass, four bridges, three under and one over, of 150 ft., and an exceptional amount of rock excavation. It will also include the construction of a long embankment which must be left for a considerable time for settlement to take place before the carriageway can be laid.

    Eastern Avenue Extension, Leyton
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Transport in view of local concern in the Borough of Leyton, what revision of plans has taken place in respect of the Eastern Avenue extension through that borough and of other projects originally designed to ease traffic congestion; and what is the approximate timetable of the reconstruction.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Planned improvements, including the Eastern Avenue Extension, will provide effective relief from traffic congestion in Leyton. Traffic management measures are also under consideration.
    Reconstruction of the junction at the "Green Man" is expected to begin this summer and should be completed about a year later. I cannot say when the Eastern Avenue Extension will be started.
    Mr. Sorensen: While thanking the hon. and gallant Member for that reply, may I ask if he appreciates that the congestion, particularly in Leyton, will become steadily greater and more severe as the months go by? Is he aware that uncertainty as to whether there is to be drastic reconstruction in the whole area is causing great concern? Will he give more precise information about when
    1284
    building projects are likely to be fulfilled?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am afraid that I cannot do that. My right hon. Friend will make an announcement as soon as possible on the schemes selected for the 1968–69 extension of the roads programme, but I cannot at this moment say what they will be.

  SHIPPING

    Bristol and Newport (Rochdale Report)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Transport what negotiations have now taken place between his Department and the ports of Bristol and Newport, arising out of the Rochdale Report; and if he will give an assurance that no changes in the function of these two ports will take place until these negotiations are completed.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The Answer to the first part of the Question is "None, Sir"; such discussions would be premature before we receive the views of the National Ports Council on the issues involved.
    On the second part of the Question I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend to a similar Question by him on 18th December.
    Mr. Awbery: May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that for more than a century the port of Bristol has been owned and controlled by the local authority? It is the only municipally-owned port in the country, and the local authority is therefore very much concerned about the future of the port. The suggestion in the Rochdale Committee's Report is that it should merge with Newport. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an assurance that the Advisory Committee to be set up by the Rochdale Committee will fully consult both Bristol and Newport before any definite action is taken on this matter?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I understand—in fact I have no doubt—that the Council is in touch on these matters both with the Port of Bristol Authority and with the British Transport Docks Board, which is the docks authority for Newport. I think that it

    1285
    would be premature to say more until we receive the Report of the Council, but I hope that it will not be too long before we are in a position to make a statement.

    Deck Apprentices (Training)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that a large number of deck apprentices fail to complete their training because of the lack of facilities for promotion; and if he will introduce legislation to provide educational opportunities for them to link the practical side of their training with an academic nautical course.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I understand that there are good opportunities for the promotion of deck officers in the Merchant Navy, and that the wastage during training is not unduly high. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport are discussing with shipowners, the officers' associations and the navigation schools the possibility of providing academic qualifications which would enable deck apprentices to attain a higher standard of education. Legislation would not be necessary.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that I am informed that half the young men who enter this industry as apprentices leave it after four years because there is no system of promotion and because the pay is not good? Can he do something to encourage men to enter this important industry, upon which we depend so much?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: My information differs from that of the hon. Gentleman's. Mine is that the wastage is about 20 per cent., and that most of it occurs during the first two years of apprentices' time. No particular cause stands out, but I suppose that the short answer is seasickness and girls—although the two are not necessarily in order of importance.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the information which he has given to my hon. Friend will be very welcome, because although some shipping companies provide this form of training, there are many ship-
    1286
    owners who do not? While I agree that registration is unnecessary, perhaps, in addition to what the Minister has stated is the intention of the Government, would they consult the Shipping Federation, because there is a great danger that deckhands will be in short supply in future years?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has to say about the advantage of arranging for a higher standard of education. We are in consultation with the various bodies concerned and perhaps I may say that the proposals recently made by the Merchant Navy and Airline Pilots Association have proved a most valuable contribution.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Miss Vickersasked the Lord Privy Seal, in view of the fact that the Secretary of State for Defence now answers Questions which were previously answered on four separate occasions, and that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies and the Secretary of State for Education and Science answer Questions previously answered on two separate occasions, whether he will make arrangements for these Ministers to answer Questions more frequently.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): The order of Questions is reviewed at intervals but I should prefer not to commit myself to any further change until we have a little more experience of the new order, recently introduced. This is in the nature of an experiment with the aim, which I hope will be generally welcome, of ensuring that all Departments are reached for Questions as frequently as possible.
  Miss Vickers: I do not think that it is a very satisfactory Answer, because the Secretary of State for Defence now answers for four different Ministries. For instance, instead of having Questions on a Wednesday to the Admiralty we have to wait for the turn of the Secretary of State for Defence. As the Service Departments, in particular, take a long time to answer letters, we should have an opportunity more often to ask Questions for oral answer.
  Lloyd: In fact it has not worked out so badly, because the Secretary of State for Defence was reached both on Wednesday, 15th April, and on Wednesday, 22nd April, and Questions were answered. The point is to have the Ministries revolve as quickly as possible. I have gone into the matter very carefully, but my mind is not closed to change and I will discuss the matter through the usual channels if a change is generally wanted.
  Mr. W. Hamilton: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman is considering this, will he remember that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who appears only once, answers for at least a dozen Departments.
  Mr. Lloyd: The advantage of the new system is seen from the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland answered Questions on 22nd April and also on 29th April, which is better than under the old system.
  Mr. Rankin: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman is considering this matter will he also consider the position of the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee. He is at Question No. 45 on Mondays, and that happens to be a particularly busy Question day, with the result that he is almost out of reach. I have had a Question for answer by him which has been on the Order Paper for three weeks and which has not yet been reached. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider bringing him down to Question No. 40 so that there is a chance of Members putting Questions to him?
  Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider the position of anyone who has Question No. 45, for I have some sympathy with him.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
Mr. Lipton: In the course of a supplementary question which I asked of the Minister of Health on Monday I referred to "slum conditions" in the Royal Eye Hospital, St. George's Circus, London, S.E.1.
I wish to make it plain that my observation was directed solely to the structure and limitations of the building and that I intended no reflection upon the high standard of hygiene maintained by the staff in adverse conditions.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
  BILL PRESENTED
    OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS
    Bill to strengthen the law for preventing the publication for gain of obscene matter and the publication of things intended for the production of obscene matter, presented by Mr. Brooke; supported by the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Woodhouse, and Miss Mervyn Pike; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 140.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
  Ordered,
  That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

  WELSH AFFAIRS
  Health Services in Wales and Monmouthshire, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [16TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.—[Mr. Martin Redmayne.]

MILITARY EXPENDITURE OVER- SEAS (ESTIMATES COMMIT- TEE'S REPORTS)
3.33 p.m.
Major Sir Frank Markham: I beg to move to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof,
This House takes note of the Tenth Report from the Estimates Committee in the last Session of Parliament and of the Fifth Special Report from the Estimates Committee relating to Military Expenditure Overseas.
I move this Motion very happily in the presence of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), whose father was the progenitor of the Estimates Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to quote from his historic book on his father, Lord Randolph Churchill, in which he quotes his father as saying:
"I should like to turn the House of Commons loose into our public departments on a voyage of discovery. I should like to see every one of our public departments rigorously inquired into by small committees of about seven experienced and practical Members."
That suggestion was eventually followed up and resulted in the formation of the Estimates Committee, of which I have had the honour to be a member for about a dozen years.
Our task over the last two years has been this inquiry into military expenditure overseas. We had no precedents to guide us in such an inquiry. Never before had the Estimates Committee or the Public Accounts Committee been overseas with power to study events on the spot. Although it is true that there had been missions, one might call them, to Malta and Gibraltar, there had been nothing on the scale of the inquiries which we have been carrying out over the last two years. We have had to make our own precedents as we have gone along.
1290
Throughout the whole of our investigation we have had the utmost help not only from the Ministry of Defence, to which I pay a very warm tribute, but also from the Army, the Navy and the Air Force authorities. They were, naturally, a little alarmed at our coming to begin with, and one might almost say that they were rather suspicious of our intentions, but as our inquiries went along we had the most friendy co-operation from them, and if our first Report or, rather, the Tenth Report as it is, has any virtues, many of them will be due to the help and co-operation which we have had from the Service Departments.
Our first great difficulty was to find out what we were supposed to look at. We are spending about £2,000 million on defence each year, and we tried very hard to find what proportion of this sum was spent overseas. We have failed utterly to get an accurate picture. What we have obtained—and hon. Members will find this on page 12 of the Report—is an accurate account of local spending—that is to say, money spent on troops' pay, civilian labour and other things overseas. But there is not a hint as to what has been spent on arms, equipment, machinery, vehicles or spares.
If we practically double the figure which is given on page 12, we come to the conclusion that we must be spending overseas at the moment, in one way or another, for defence purposes, about £500 million a year. In other words, one-tenth of all that is gathered in taxation in this country is spent overseas for defence purposes. This was our field of investigation, and it was an immense task.
We began by a visit to Malta, Cyprus, El Adem, Kenya, Aden and Bahrein. Since then Sub-Committee D, of which I have had the honour of being Chairman, has visited El Adem again. We have also been to Gan, Singapore, Hong Kong and Bengazi. In making this Report, and the next Report, which, I hope, will be available to the House in a couple of months' time, the Committee has had the fascinating experience of visiting our soldiers, sailors and airmen overseas. We saw the bases, but we were not allowed to go to the fighting front. I do not know who was responsible for this decision, or whether it was thought that it was too exciting to allow the possibility of seven

1291
M.P.s of all parties being blown up or machine-gunned all at once. We were not allowed to see front-line conditions in Borneo, or the Yemen, or any other area where there had been trouble.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: They were afraid of having seven by-elections.
Sir F. Markham: It could be that none of us wanted seven by-elections, even in the cause of an Estimates Committee.
This was our scope and these were our powers. What did we find? The first conclusion, with which I know every hon. Member of the Committee will agree wholeheartedly, is that wherever we went we found the troops in extremely good heart, most keen on their job and, by and large, satisfied that the Army and, indeed, Parliament were doing their utmost for their welfare and their comfort.
There were, however, spots on the tapestry of our defence forces, and some of them were rather black. One of the blackest spots owes its origin to the fact that during the last five or six years we have seen a rather dramatic change in the build-up of the Army. Up to five or six years ago when we had National Service the Army was essentially a force of young, unmarried men. Now it is an Army of more senior married men, who expect to have their wives and families with them. This one fact alone means that the cost per man overseas is now 2½ times more than it was in 1958 or 1959.
In addition, there has been an effort to cope with the difficulties created by the shortage of married quarters or hirings for the married Service man. One of the points we make in the Report is that, in spite of the efforts which have been made, the progress is too slow and too costly. It is too slow, because at the moment in Gibraltar alone, which is not mentioned in the Report but some of us were out there only a fortnight ago, we have about 250 Service families living in what I can only describe as verminous squalor. We saw some of these tenements—I think that "tenements" is the word—of at the most two or three undersized rooms, badly lighted, often overrun with cockroaches.
I cannot feel happy about that position. We have seen this again in Tobruk,
1292
where some of our families are living in conditions which are not only squalid and verminous, but are badly below the standard anywhere in this country, or, indeed, anywhere in Europe. These conditions are appalling. One of the difficulties that the House must turn itself to is the provision of adequate married quarters or hirings, or even good private accommodation, for troops who have joined the forces and are serving overseas.
The progress is too slow and too costly. I will give a simple comparison. I take the average council house in this country as representing the standard of housing which should be supplied for the Service man overseas. The average cost of a council house today, I believe, is about £2,800. The average cost of a three-bedroom flat overseas for use by Service men is, according to our statistics, about £6,000. This is a tremendous difference. The difference is more acute when it is realised that the cost of building labour in places like Gibraltar, Malta and other overseas centres is just about half what it is in Britain.
We have gone into this in great detail. Hon. Members will notice from the Report that we have looked at various housing estates and made comments on them. There is much more that we could do. There is very much more that we have seen this year alone that brings us to the conclusion that our building programme overseas is too slow and too costly. I know that some of my colleagues would like to elaborate on this.
I will not say much on this subject, other than that one of the things which is a must in the tropics is air conditioning. It is a must both from the point of view of efficiency and from the point of view of comfort. Yet the Treasury has shown a very stiff attitude towards this, and the latest communications we have had from the Treasury lead us to think that the Treasury is fighting almost a last-ditch battle against air conditioning in any of the domestic quarters for our troops in the tropics or on the edge of the tropics. My personal view is that air conditioning in the tropics is as essential as central heating in England. It is an absolute must. I hope that the Treasury will help the Services to ensure

1293
that the provision of these amenities is made possible for all three Services.
We are not indiscriminately advocating a vast building programme in every area where we have bases, because we have also considered what one might call the security of tenure of the bases. We know that some of our bases will be ours at any rate through our generation and possibly through the next. Here we came firmly to the conclusion that whatever we spend in the way of married quarters, whatever we encourage civilian contractors to do in the way of hirings, we know that the money will not be misspent.
There are other areas where the security of tenure is possibly 12, months, possibly two years—we do not know. Some of these are the subject of very distinct debate between the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office. I will not go further into this at the moment than to say that we would not advocate a vast programme of building married quarters in areas where the security of tenure is less than five years. Here we would advocate a very vigorous programme of temporary buildings.
One of the points we make in the Report is that in regard to temporary buildings the most chaotic conditions have occurred simply through lack of foresight by the various Ministries concerned. It is somebody's job to order the prefabricated buildings. It is somebody else's job to ship them. It is somebody else's job to erect them. In the process not a little damage is done to panels and the cheaper part of the buildings.
One of the recommendations we make is that the firm which makes the temporary buildings should be asked to contract for their transport and final erection. This is the sort of thing which is done in civilian life, and we believe that it would result in far fewer breakages and a far swifter programme.
The next point to which we draw attention—this is very important—is the apparent delay between important Cabinet decisions and the reactions of local contractors. When the Cabinet apparently decided that there were to be great changes in Kenya, according to our estimates it took about 18 months before this decision was brought into the modification of contracts which were already in hand. There is no doubt that, if our
1294
military authorities in Kenya had known earlier of Cabinet decisions, we might have saved a good deal of the expenditure on the tremendous Kahawa base, which has cost over £3 million. All told, I think that on the base and the adjacent lands we have spent about £5 million. We have only just completed it.
Now comes this question: are we to hand over the Kenya Government? It is the delay in Cabinet decisions going down through the chain which we find most disturbing. We hope that in future, whatever the Cabinet is thinking about in the way of changes in military deployment overseas, steps will be taken immediately to modify contracts which might be only just being put in hand by the Miinstry of Works locally, or by the Service Departments.
We also stress the need for improved machinery for financial control. No one can be happy with the financial control at the moment in the Services overseas. Part of the trouble is that men who have won great distinction in the Army, Navy and Air Force by virtue of devotion to their careers have not, in the course of their training and experience, acquired financial acumen. They are often quite at sea on financial matters and we have felt that they have not always had the help they should have had in many respects.
We were impressed with the Command Secretariat of the Army. This is an excellent system and we have suggested that something like it should be extended to the other Services. It has been a pleasure to the Committee to be able to report the success of the flexibility of working parties. These, without exception, have done a very good job indeed. They are saving money and producing efficiency left, right and centre and we have paid a warm tribute to these working parties, their members and the Ministry of Defence.
I must return to the subject of our major conclusion; the lack of good housing and the need for a great housing drive in areas where we have security of tenure. I urge the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury to modify their reading of paragraph 130 of our Report, which states:
"Before starting an expanded programme of building married quarters overseas, the Ministry of Public Building and Works, in

1295
consultation with the Service Departments, should undertake an analysis, base by base, of the relative costs of married quarters, hirings and private accommodation…"
Unfortunately, that paragraph has been used by the Treasury to hold up future programmes for married quarters or hirings. It appears that the Treasury has taken the line that it must not embark on approving any future schemes of accommodation until a full inquiry into the relative costs has been made. For the paragraph to be interpreted in that light is entirely against the meaning of the Committee, the members of which want building and housing programmes to be carried out with the maximum possible speed.
It has been a great personal experience for me to have gone with other members of the Committee to look at our bases overseas. We will be making many other suggestions in our next Report, which, I hope, will be ready next month. It is the duty of the House of Commons to see that we do not finish here, merely as a result of one or two visits by this Committee. The House should exercise constant vigilance over our overseas expenditure.
There should be triennial visits of our bases overseas by members of the Estimates and comparable Committees. These visits should not stop there but should extend to our embassies abroad and wherever the taxpayers' money is spent. This House has a right, through its Estimates and other Committees, to do on-the-spot vigilation. This is one of the ways in which the House can keep control of public spending.
I would like, finally, to express my thanks for the help and assistance the Committee received from the Ministry of Defence and the Service Departments. I wish that I could say the same about the Ministry of Public Building and Works, but, frankly, we found that Ministry to be occasionally in a state of chaos. I am sure that we were not given all the help we wanted from that Ministry owing to the fundamental changes that were taking place. I only hope that that Department sorts itself out rapidly and helps the Se-vices to see that conditions overseas are at least as good as the men and their families expect them to be in England and Germany.
1296
Having said that, I wish once more to express my warmest thanks to the Ministries and my colleagues on the Committee for one of the greatest experiences of my life.
3.55 p.m.
Mr. F. J. Bellenger: I must begin by taking up the remark of the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) about the right of the House to investigate expenditure approved by Parliament anywhere in the world. Constitutionally, hon. Members do not have that right. We cannot take evidence overseas and, as the hon. and gallant Member and his colleagues point out in their Report, it was only through the courtesy or kindness of the Minister of Defence that they were invited to go overseas. If that is the constitutional position—and I am almost certain that it is—surely in these days, when we are spending about £2,000 million on defence, much of it overseas, the House should be in a position thoroughly and properly to investigate what is happening to our forces all over the world.
Consider what would happen in business if an accountant, when presenting his annual report to the shareholders—to say nothing of the inspector of taxes—added a footnote saying that he could not vouch for all the information given in the accounts because he was prohibited from investigating some of the company's books. The days are long since gone when we should suffer the indignity of this obsolescent provision which prevents the House from taking evidence overseas, with clerks and a proper committee formed for the purpose.
The situation should be remedied. How, I do not know; but I suggest that if the Minister of Defence wants to avoid a lot of the criticism that will be coming to him now that he has got the House to approve the experiment of amalgamating the three Services, he should take steps to be as clear as he possibly can—subject to the necessary security precautions, of course—to the House about what he is doing with the money that the House has voted.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham that there are

1297
certain matters connected with the welfare of our troops which should be properly investigated. I recall that there seemed to be far greater liberty for such investigations during the war. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) will remember that we seemed to have more liberty to criticise the way in which our troops were being handled, the conditions under which they were operating and their welfare. But, remembering that we were at war, I have no doubt that things were more than somewhat different.
I was surprised to note in the Report that expert witnesses were asked straightaway to explain their two memoranda which they presented. Apparently, the Sub-Committee as stated in their reports was composed of lay members who did not understand a lot of military jargon. That cannot be said of the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn). He was a member of the Sub-Committee and I am sure that he is fully conversant with Service jargon as a result of his long service in the forces. I appreciate the necessity for the Estimates Committee to form subcommittees and that it is not always possible for members with military experience to be appointed.
Sir Richard Glyn: The right hon. Member is making an important point, but I would remind him that the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham), also has substantial experience of military matters. The whole Sub-Committee wished these terms to be expressed in lay language for the benefit of the readers of the Report, because we felt that it was necessary that the evidence should be intelligible not only to us but to all hon. Members.
Mr. Bellenger: I certainly recognise the service of the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham, although I differentiate to this extent. I believe that I am right in saying that the hon. Member for Dorset, North has had considerable regular military service, whereas the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham, with whom I have served in the House for many years, acquired, as I did, a good deal of knowledge in two world wars. But within the ambit of
1298
the larger question of the £2,000 million which is being spent on defence, we want the experts as far as we can get them.
I speak as a former Secretary of State for War. Although I do not say that I know a good deal about what goes on in the Department now, I learnt a good deal when I was there. This leads up to the case that there are arguments in favour of the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that the House should establish a Defence Expenditure Committee. Obviously, it would be out of order to debate that subject now, but it represents the heart of the matter. If we had a Committee of that sort, constantly sitting, we might have something more than the spot check which is all that the Sub-Committee is able to carry out in investigating overseas expenditure.
What did the Sub-Committee find out? Right from the outset, its members were told that to find the cost of what was happening overseas would require a special exercise to be mounted. Therefore, from the start the Sub-Committee met with an obstacle from its expert witnesses. On reading the Report and the questions that were put to those witnesses, one constantly finds the reiterated remark that a witness did not know and, therefore, was urged to go back to the Department and ascertain the information. The Committee examined only a certain number of overseas stations, and not the whole lot, but we are told in the Report that the cost of doing what was done was fairly substantial.
My first point to the Minister of Defence in that respect is that he must look at the costing system within his Department. He is now the Minister responsible for all three Services. We have varying electronic or other costing or pay arrangements in the three Services. I saw one machine for the Army, and it is a very good one. At that time, it was net fully occupied and I put Questions in the House to find out whether that system, which was used by the Royal Army Pay Corps, could not be adopted or utilised by the other two Services. I was told that the other Services would introduce specialised systems of their own.

1299
It should be remembered that when I visited the Royal Army Pay Corps establishment at somewhere like Worthy Down, that machine was dealing with the census figures for the Registrar-General. In other words, the Army machine was sub-contracting for a civil Department. I mention that only as an illustration. Possibly, since those days, progress has been made in this direction. I urge the Minister, however, in his own interest, to see that he has the latest methods for dealing with pay accounts and for costing, because as the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham admitted, the existing costing is not adequate for the House of Commons, which has to deal with vast sums of money in defence.
Sir Eric Errington: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although there is not a comprehensive system, there is an establishment of staff inspectors who watch carefully certain aspects of expenditure and of establishment?
Mr. Bellenger: I cannot say that I am aware of that. I have to admit that there is quite a lot of which I am not aware. I am not a member of the Estimates Committee.
I have the opportunity of speaking only occasionally when the former Service Ministries or the Ministry of Defence have brought their Estimates to the House. I continually complain that it is impossible for hon. Members to do their duty thoroughly, because they are not given access to information. I do not mean simply information of the nature that was sought by the Sub-Committee. There are certain other matters connected with defence in which, unless one thoroughly understands them or is given information concerning them, one cannot tell whether an overseas base or garrison is being efficiently run, whether it should be run at all or whether the Minister should not be urged to close it down. We know from reading the Report that bases were started in both Cyprus and in Kenya, where millions of pounds of public money were spent, but that later, because of a change of policy by the Government, those bases became either obsolescent or useless.
That brings me to the point, which, I believe, is mentioned in the Report of
1300
the Sub-Committee, that there should be greater co-operation between the Service Departments and the Foreign Office, where policy really is formulated, about our overseas forces or the necessity at all for keeping some forces overseas. I have been a member of the Defence Committee of the Cabinet and, therefore, I have an idea of how the machine works. I have a suspicion that Ministers are too much overworked to be able to foresee clearly what will happen in a certain part of the world, such as, for example, Kenya, while immense sums of money are being spent upon preparing large depôts.
Look at the money that was spent in Kenya or East Africa because it was thought by the military authority that we should have to get out of the Suez Canal area of the Middle East, where we had immense stores of weapons, and, therefore, a reserve depôt was necessary. As it turned out, a large amount of stores was left in the Middle East because they could not physically be moved. Then, our reserve base in Kenya was eventually scrapped. Indeed, we seem all the time to be in the process of being gradually pushed out of our prepared positions, because, perhaps rightly, the Government have decided that we can no longer maintain these colonial positions and we must give independence to the countries in which they are located.
Therefore, my point in that respect is that there should be better co-operation between the military Departments, who, presumably, make the strategic decisions, and the Foreign Office, particularly concerning policy.
Mr. E. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Estimates Committee, which is designed to undertake the task of conducting inspections and reporting, does not have any say in the matter of policy? Are we entitled to discuss policy which directs our forces to Aden to Cyprus or to other bases? I am not so sure that we are. I should be delighted to discuss policy, but are we discussing policy or merely the Report of the Estimates Committee?
Mr. Bellenger: Obviously, we cannot discuss policy in its wide aspects, but, surely, one can refer to policy when, time and again, the Report speaks of

1301
the inability of the Sub-Committee to decide, for example, whether permanent married quarters were advisable or whether we should use hirings—that is, whether we should have permanent residences for the troops or whether we should go in for temporary accommodation by hiring. That is why I mention the matter of policy, because these matters which the Sub-Committee have raised impinge upon it.
These spot checks are useful to a limited extent, but the House should not be under any illusion: we are not discussing whether the money has been wisely spent. All we can do is touch the fringe and point to certain deficiencies, which it is useful for us to discuss, but which are only a small part of the whole.
For instance, in paragraph 41 the Committee comments on the difference between Service Air traffic control and air traffic control by the International Aeradio Ltd., which is a public company whose shares are owned by the world's principal airlines and one of whose largest shareholders is B.O.A.C. It is obvious that the Sub-Committee came to the conclusion that in that part of the world the military authorities might utilise the civilian system of air traffic control which is used satisfactorily by civilian organisations. This is done by certain Service transport from time to time.
However, this is not really a matter of policy and the whole tenor of my remarks is directed to showing that we want to survey the subject more widely. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) will agree with me that until we have an expert Committee of the House, with access to some of the strategic implications of our forces overseas, these Committees which go overseas to investigate expenditure will not be able to do their job properly. Of course, a certain amount of information would be denied to such a Committee and certainly could not be published.
Mr. Harold Davies: Has my right hon. Friend read the Report and the memorandum presented to the Committee by International Aeradio Ltd.? Will he tell me what any expert Committee could get in breadth of knowledge which is not given in this memo-
1302
randum? This organisation is used in Tripoli by the United States for all its operations—I am not arguing whether that should be the case with our forces—and in case of emergency or war its personnel would be taken over. The Report says that if we had used this organisation, we would have saved £82,000. No expert Committee could have found out more.
Mr. Bellenger: I do not disagree. Strange to relate, I have read the Report and have even waded through the questions and answers and I am generally conversant with the situation. The evidence given by the civil company endorses what I am saying. The only question which arises is what happens if war occurs. Many things would then happen. Hon. Members will know that in the last war many of the Services were kept going by civilian experts.
Moreover, if there is any doubt about whether a civilian organisation can do the job properly, even in war, what are we doing about the transport of troops? The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues deny B.O.A.C. the opportunity to tender for trooping contracts and those contracts go to civilian organisations. Presumably, if war came, those civilian organisations would immediately be turned over to the transportation of troops and would do their job.
I should like to see B.O.A.C. as well as the private organisations tendering for these contracts, but I am bound to say, from my limited experience of travelling with some of these organisations, that they do their job very well. At any rate, they are getting practical experience.
The Report is full of what might be called Committee points. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham himself found it difficult to give a wide survey of the situation in a debate like this. I was startled to find that one expert witness was asked how many married men were serving in the Army and said that he had no precise figures. During the war, the War Office knew how many married men there were in the Army in which there were more than 3 million troops. I believe that there was a Hollerith machine which kept the punched cards going, and the marital status of every serving soldier

1303
was known. Why should there not be precise figures now? In those days, marriage allowances were paid, but even today the married man has to have something extra to his ordinary pay because of his marital status. If this evidence is true, I am shocked that the Service does not have such precise figures.
Paragraph 11 of the Report says:
"Although no precise figures are readily available, it is accepted that the proportion of married men in the Forces has increased considerably in recent years."
I have some industrial and commercial experience and I should have thought that most big companies knew how many of their personnel—officially, at any rate—were married.
What I am trying to say is that the Sub-Committee has done its work very well and that travelling overseas, especially sometimes in Service conditions, must have been arduous—I know something about Service conditions overseas. Nevertheless, it has presented only a sketch of what is happening to our Forces. The right hon. Gentleman is now in charge of the three Services. I had many apprehensions and doubts about approving that policy and the right hon. Gentleman knows that so had many senior serving officers. However, the right hon. Gentleman has got the amalgamation of the three Services. We do not know how it will turn out, but it is clear that he has to do considerable homework. Whether he will permit a Defence Committee of the House of Commons to assist him, I do not know.
I was recently reading a book, "The Spectrum of Strategy", by Air Vice-Marshal Kingston-McCloughry, who is an acknowleged expert on these matters and who has written several books on defence problems after leaving the Service. On page 44 he says:
"It is in this sphere that the work of a Cold War Committee"—
this is, a specialised Committee which we have been discussing—
"could be so fruitful.
"In a similar way military chiefs or Services concern themselves too largely with their respective Services to the detriment of an overall genuine military policy or strategy."
The Secretary of State has the opportunity now to go ahead a little further with the organising of the Services.
1304
When I speak of a Defence Committee, I hope that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the House—nor my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, who has a Motion on the Order Paper—will think that I have a bee in my bonnet on the subject. The House of Commons has to keep thoroughly up to date if it is to do its work, and in the course of our investigations we may come across deficiencies or inefficiencies. We may use those as a stick with which to beat the Government, but my attitude has always been that in defence it is not so much that big stick we want as an alteration in Government policy, in some respects, so as to deal with what is uppermost—the defence of our country against any possible aggressor.
I have vivid recollections of two world wars. The Expeditionary Force that went overseas in the First World War—and I was a member of it—had its defects, but it was a fine, well-balanced and well-equipped force. It was able to do its job on the left of the line in holding up the German armies—helped, it is true, by a very large French force. We were nowhere near so well prepared in the Second World War.
The First World War came after the investigations of the Esher Committee after the Boer War. That Committee made various suggestions, one of which was that there should be a Financial Secretary at the War Office. I was appointed to that position in 1945, and I had a very good Deputy Under-Secretary. We had to deal with certain very difficult matters—notably, the way the troops were juggling with Reichsmarks in Germany. That caused a good deal of perturbation in this House, and gave me a good deal of trouble. That alteration in the War Office resulted from a recommendation made by the Esher Committee, and I believe that it was partly as the result of another of that Committee's recommendations that we had that first-class Expeditionary Force in 1914. I only wish that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) were able to take part in our debates today; he would know, because he is on record has having called attention to many of those defects.
I believe that the time is ripe for another such committee of prominent people, not necessarily all military

1305
people but all having sufficient knowledge of their subject to go into the question of, as it were, the administration of the Services. Some of their suggestions might result in a cut in defence costs—I do not know. But I do know that, if the tendency we have seen in the last few years for defence costs to increase continues, a time will come when Government may be in jeopardy in introducing their defence Estimates, despite the co-operation that has been maintained between the two sides of the House since the last war.
I do not want the Secretary of State to think that I am pinpricking the Sub-Committee or criticising him personally. He has in him the ability to make this amalgamated defence force something worth while. God forbid that we should ever have to try it out, but do not let us ever have to think that if a big war broke out we might find ourselves wanting. In 1939, we had time until America and Russia were brought in and turned the tables; we shall not have that time on the next occasion. Indeed, we may not have that war—the nuclear war—that so many experts think would come about.
We may have a different kind of war. No country in the world, and I include Russia, would willingly press the button to start such a war. It is up to us as a House of Commons to see that the conventional forces can do their jobs, that those in them get the best possible conditions we can provide, and that, even if we cannot sleep soundly in our beds, we can at least feel that we have defence forces which, probably in alliance with our friends, can defend us against all likely aggression, wherever it may come from.
4.27 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): It may be convenient if I intervene in the debate at this stage. First, I want to say how much I value the Report of the Estimates Committee. It helps me considerably in my problems. It is centred on the very subjects that are uppermost in our minds today in the Ministry of Defence, and nothing could be more helpful to us than to have the views of hon. Members from both sides who have been looking at some of these matters for themselves. Any facilities that I
1306
can give to the Estimates Committee, or to its Sub-Committees, I shall certainly give, and I shall elaborate on that aspect presently.
I welcome also the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) and the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), who, I think, expressed general sentiments about our forces that are shared by everyone in the House. Reports of this kind are bound, to some extent, to say what is wrong—why have a Report at all unless one can put one's finger on one or two things that were wrong? But I particularly valued the fact that in paragraph 129 the Committee emphasised that there was a lot that was right as well. It does not even require the Report to show that quite a lot is right; the members of the three Services have in recent months demonstrated that quite a lot is right with our forces.
I should like, first, to deal with accommodation, because that takes up quite a big part of the Report, and then I want to say something about the wider issues of military administration, with which a good deal of the Report is also concerned. These men are volunteers—let us never forget that. They come along, with all their family problems and the rest, and say that they are prepared to serve in the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, and it would be the general wish of the House, as it has seemed to me to be the sentiment of the speeches we have so far heard, that we should see to it that these men have decent conditions and amenities, and are properly looked after.
Security of tenure is an important consideration, but I ask the House to be a little careful how we deal with it. Let hon. Members name a base to me which somebody is not threatening at this moment. I do not mean that I regard it as insecure, but there is someone threatening almost every base in which there are British forces at present, and if the fact that someone is threatening a base is to be taken as a reason for clamping down on all construction in it our forces overseas will have a miserable time. We should, therefore, use the security of tenure point a little carefully, though I recognise that this is an important factor in our considerations.

1307
Soldiers, sailors and airmen, of course, get married, like other men, and raise families, and when they do that the way in which their wives and children are treated is something very relevant to our problems in the military sphere. I know that the House would wish me to say that the news of the death last night, after an illness of some weeks, of Sir James Grigg is something which we record with regret, and that we pay our tribute to a great public servant. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Among the many things that he did was to pay a great deal of attention and to devote a great part of his life to the particular problems which we are discussing now. Among other things, he produced the Grigg Report of the Advisory Committee on Recruiting, paragraph 143 of which says:
"Perhaps the most important single factor influencing men who stay in the Services is the quality of the living accommodation, and in the case of the married man its availability."
That remains just as true today as it was then.
We have about 172,000 men in the Army, and approaching half of them are overseas. Frankly, there is a limit to the length of time that it is reasonable to ask a man to stay overseas unaccompanied by his family. In the Army and the Royal Air Force that limit is generally taken to be about 12 months. In the Navy it generally tends to be a little longer, about 18 months. I fully endorse the view expressed in the Fifth Special Report that this question of married accommodation is one of the most difficult problems of administration at an overseas base.
When we have the wives we must have the married quarters. We have the children and we have the extra hospital accommodation and the schools. Some of the accommodation is temporary, but a lot of it is on a permanent basis. A great deal of permanent or quasi-permanent building has to go on and, therefore, one looks at what one's policy must be. I accept that policy in administration and in finance are pretty closely mixed together.
To take Aden as an example, there, in effect, we have limited the number of families to 3,780, which is a little
1308
over half the married entitlement. The effect of that is that the bulk of the fighting troops in Aden are today unaccompanied. 45 Royal Marine Commando, about whom we have all been reading with some pride at the way in which they are conducting themselves in these difficult operations, are unaccompanied. They are living there in single accommodation. This means that if we put troops overseas unaccompanied we must honour the obligation within about 12 months of bringing them home and letting them join their families. They must know the plan, and it must be an honoured plan so that at the end of the tour they really do go home.
The results of this policy in Aden have effected considerable savings. We do not have to build so much hospital accommodation and there is a limit to the expansion of schools and the rest, but the corollary must be that, first, we press on with the provision of married quarters at home. We cannot throw their wives out when we send them abroad. Secondly, and equally important, we must have reasonable amenities for the single men when they are abroad. By reasonable amenities, I agree, we should mean air conditioning, reasonable provision in the way of clubs and swimming pools, and so on. We must make life tolerable for a man in these circumstances, particularly if we are sending him abroad without his wife and family. This is the pattern adopted in Aden. It will vary between one theatre and another because the conditions vary, but in general the principle must be the same.
We must recognise that the provision of family accommodation is costly. The balance between how many families and how many unaccompanied is a matter of policy and will vary in each case. Once the decision has been taken, the provision of the houses is the responsibility of the Ministry of Public Building and Works. I believe that that is the right decision because that Department has enormous experience of building generally and has great resources and overhead organisation.
I am sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham was disappointed in the evidence that he had from the Ministry. It was taking over

1309
this vast new task almost at the time when the Estimates Committee was completing its Report, and it is sometimes difficult to give a complete account of what is going on just at the moment when one is taking over a new job. However, we are fully conscious of the problems set out in the Committee's first recommendation and, as I have said, in principle, we accept them.
The decision whether to hire or to build permanently is not easy. One cannot do it just on the basis of cost. It is a question of how far away one can have the men and how far one meets full operational requirements if the men are 5 miles or 10 miles away. There is also the question of safety, as in Cyprus. If one can hire, is it right to hire outside the sovereign base? There may be questions of conditions as in Tobruk. What are the problems if one goes as far from El Adem as Tobruk? It is a complex of a great number of different factors.
Mr. Shinwell: It is not entirely a matter of cost accounts, but a matter of cost. I am surprised that the Estimates Committee did not make inquiries about the total cost that would be entailed in providing all the married accommodation required. The right hon. Gentleman might apply his mind to that. Has he any information about the estimated cost of providing married quarters?
Mr. Thorneycroft: A great part of the Estimates Committee's Report is concentrated on this point. The deduction it makes is that which I made, that one of the greatest costs in overseas bases is just this factor that one has to take it base by base. Conditions vary in different bases, but I have mentioned how we are tackling it in Aden and the conclusions that we have reached in that case.
I turn to wider aspects of military administration, because a great deal of the Report is concerned with it. The Committee refers to the problem of stores and of costing arrangements between the various Departments, the employment of civilians, and so on. The recommendations in the Report are really more illustrative than comprehensive of the problems which the Committee met. I think that the Committee sets it out rather well
1310
in paragraph 128. This is the nub of the matter, and I should like to read the passage:
"The criticism which constantly recurs in the Report is that of shortcomings in co-operation between the three Services. In Your Committee's opinion the results of the inquiry so far support the Government's decision to integrate the headquarters organisations of the Service Departments. They hope that this decision will act as a spur to further integration at military bases overseas."
This is the point to which the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw was directing attention.
As I say, paragraphs 62 to 80, which are really the main paragraphs on this theme, do not lead to specific recommendations, but they represent a very powerful argument, to my mind, in favour of the decision which the House took to have a single integrated unified Ministry of Defence because with it we are provided with the opportunity at least to improve matters in various directions.
In the discussions which led to this unified Ministry of Defence, there was, as the House well knows, a school of thought, which persisted for quite a long time, that all administration ought to be left in three single Service Departments and that the centre, as it were, should concern itself only with policy. I never shared this view. I have always regarded policy and administration as being closely interlocked. It is right that we should decentralise, of course, and a greet deal of administration must always be decentralised to various parts of the Ministry of Defence dealing with single-Service issues, but the final responsibility must be fairly and squarely on the Secretary of State of the day. It must be within his province to identify problems, to ask for certain areas to be studied, to take certain pieces of machinery and see that they are integrated centrally. This must be the responsibility of the man at the top of the Ministry for the time being.
The House will realise that this is a big problem. There are 25,000 men on the staff of the Ministry of Defence. They are organised on a single-Service basis at present. I am talking now four weeks after integration has taken place. There are some hallowed Service traditions and customs there. The Services are engaged in actual hostilities in quite a number of parts of the world. This is

1311
the background against which we are carrying out reorganisation, and I can tell the House that the great asset which I have here is that there is widespread awareness in the Services of the need to press forward with this reorganisation and undertake some of the integration.
I wish now to give my reflections on the problems raised by the Committee. The first reflection is that this is all a very large-scale matter. What we are dealing with is comparable in size to the largest business in this country. When one has something as big as that, it is necessary to have proper machinery to identify the problems, to say what are the stages at which one will tackle those problems and what the priorities should be. No one can say that he wants to start integrating just anywhere he likes. One has to identify the places where it is worth while trying to bring things closer together and from which real improvements are likely to flow.
This is achieved in the Ministry on the civil side, as the House will remember from our debates, by the Second Permanent Under-Secretary, who is in charge of the Defence Secretariat, and on the military side by the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Personnel and Logistics). These two men, one on the civil side and one on the military side, work jointly and permanently very closely together, and their job is to study the very questions which are dealt with centrally in this Report.
The way our mind is working is this. First, it is clear that there is great scope for rationalisation in the supply systems of the three services. We are taking steps to seize the opportunities. We are studying the supply arrangements themselves. There is a variety of stores of common use, if I may so put it, for instance, motor transport, clothing, and petrol, oil and lubricants. We are considering the advisability of arrangements for the central purchasing, storage and distribution of items of this character. When I say "central", I do not necessarily mean that one must set up a new piece of machinery, which would only add to the numbers. Very often, it may be very much better to take the major user and make that user responsible for the lot. It may be the Army in one case; it may be the Air Force in another.
1312
One can take one user and make that user responsible over the whole field for the same store which is really of common use.
Second, we are trying to overcome the impediments to standardisation of this kind. Inevitably, there are many impediments if one has had three systems growing up side by side, each doing things a little differently. The method of indenting for stores is different. The name of the same store may be different. In each of the three Services, probably, a hammer is called something different. The cataloguing is different. The whole systems are different.
I assure the House that it is quite a big administrative task to find a way of bringing these things together. We are trying to introduce, or accelerate the introduction of, common systems of stores cataloguing, based, if we can upon the N.A.T.O. cataloguing system since, clearly, there is advantage in doing it on an international basis, particularly if one intends to set up a new method. We are resolute in the drive that we are making for standardisation, and also in the use of computers in stores management, because very great advances can be made with these as a tool of management.
We are also considering the possibilities of greater pooling on the repair side. We are doing some pilot studies on this. Of course, it is no good imagining that one can do it right across the field. Motor transport is the first priority which occurs to the mind, and we are considering whether we could centralise or rationalise the repair arrangements in motor transport for all the defence Services. In this, I am hoping that we shall be able to associate expert advice from outside industry with our own advisers in improving the efficiency with which this work is done. We may in the future proceed also to aircraft, small craft and the rest; but this is another part of the job.
A field mentioned by the Committee to which we attach very high priority is the administration of Service land. There is an enormous amount of property owned now by the Ministry of Defence. It is really a vast estate. I am now able to announce that there is to be a

1313
single centralised administration for land. This will come under the Army Department and under the authority and administration of the Minister of Defence for the Army. It will cover all land owned by the Ministry of Defence. In my judgment, this arrangement will be of considerable advantage. Incidentally, it is an example of what I meant by across-the-board responsibility.
The House will remember that, in our earlier debates, I said not only that the Ministers of Defence would have particular and great responsibilities for the administration of individual Services, but, also, that we should increasingly find some of them taking across-the-board responsibility. This is an example of one sort of across-the-board responsibility.
The Estimates Committee also mentioned signals. On a lot of these matters it did not come down to specific recommendations, but I do not think that that matters. What matters is that it deals with the problem here, and it is the underlying problem that matters. Otherwise, I agree with the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw that one gets down to Committee points. The Estimates Committee mentioned the need to deal with signals. If one goes to an overseas base one finds in one corner, an R.A.F. signals station, in another the Navy's and in another the Army's. One cannot imagine that one will solve all these problems quickly, or that necessarily one ought to come down to one, because very often it may be as well to have more than one signal station in a particular base.
But we have centralised signals in the Ministry of Defence. We have centralised them in such a way that there is only one signals organisation in the Ministry of Defence through which outward and inward signals pass. They have been centralised not only for the purpose of being the centre of a worldwide network of communications, but for policy decisions as well. In those circumstances, I think that we really are on the way to the building up of that centralised worldwide network, on a single basis or an all Services basis, of communications which the Committee quite rightly had in mind.
I could go on over a wide range of these things. I will mention one more—education and training. There are enormous opportunities here, because
1314
with the advance of technology and the introduction of a Regular Army and with the background of Reports like the Robbins and Newsom Reports, and with the revolution that is taking place in technical training in this country, it is quite obvious that the Services must have a new look at all their training arrangements. In this they are being helped by the Estimates Committee. Evidence is being given before the Estimates Committee this afternoon on this subject, so in this, as in the matters that we have been discussing earlier, there can be the closest link between the Ministry of Defence and the work of the Estimates Committee in these fields.
These are all quite considerable exercises. They are being pressed forward with energy and enthusiasm. I do not pretend that we can solve all these problems quickly. They are enormous and they involve an immense amount of work and study; but we are well aware of them. I think that we have got out some of the top priorities, at any rate, and are tackling some of the ones which I think the whole House would wish us to tackle as a first priority.
Reorganisation started, of course, overseas. It was rather late at the centre. The commands overseas were centralised a little before the Ministry of Defence and the Service Ministries and there was a time when reorganisation in those commands was actually being held up, in my view, because we had not been reorganised at the centre. Now that we are reorganising at the centre it is possible to make some further advances in the overseas bases.
I attach the very greatest importance to the responsibility of a commander-in-chief overseas. I regard his responsibilities, like mine, as covering administration as well as policy and consider it to be his duty to intervene where he thinks proper—anywhere in the administration within his base—and to realise that he is dealing now in London with an integrated Ministry in which we are altogether trying to solve these problems upon a defence basis.
I do not want to detain the House too long, but there are a few more matters that I want to mention. There is the question of finance. My hon. and gallant Friend for Buckingham was

1315
absolutely right. The questions of programmes, budgetting and finance are absolutely central to all these problems. I am not talking about accounting development. Accounting is done by four separate accounting officers of the three Services and the Ministry of Defence in the centre. I think that that is quite right. I am talking about the forward planning and estimating.
Up to now it has all been done on the basis of the subheads of single Service votes dealing with pay, research and development, production and the rest. It has been an enormous exercise. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham was quite right when he said that he asked how much this would cost and he found the greatest difficulty in getting an answer. This is really basically due to what I regard as an outdated system of forward estimating. What is wanted is to be able to estimate not simply what a base costs, but what a rôle costs, what a weapons system costs, and in the future to be able to take a forward look at what these things really will cost. This is what we are trying to do now in the Ministry of Defence.
We have reorganised the Ministry, as the House knows, with a Deputy Secretary in charge of programmes and budgets. We are appointing staff for the purpose of trying to estimate what these total rôles and tasks really involve. We may have to use some extra staff to do it, but I ask the House not to be too pedantic as to whether we have a few more or less. It is worth anything to get this right, because it is an essential tool of management and unless we can forecast what the various strategic rôles cost, and what weapons systems will mean in the future, it is not possible to make decisions with the full knowledge which I think the Government require and to which the House of Commons is properly entitled.
These are the arrangements that we have made. The House will see that we are decentralising and that it is not just a matter of a few men at the top. Thousands of decisions are being taken every day in every part of the Ministry of Defence. It would be quite impossible, and the system would break down, if we tried to take all the adminis-
1316
trative decisions at the centre. The vast bulk of them, in terms of number, is taken in various parts of the Ministry, often on a single Service basis.
But we have adopted the right machinery to identify individual opportunities of centralisation and rationalisation. We are pressing on with this. We have the machinery there. The pilot schemes are being instituted and in some cases, like lands organisation, we are already establishing the central organisation that is required. Indeed, as we go forward the House can help—this is a matter for the House—in the way it addresses its mind to these problems.
I hope that in next year's White Paper it will be possible to do it on a different basis altogether from what we have had before and to try to do it on a basis of tasks and rôles, and the rest, so that we can really have a look at it, with perhaps a chapter on procurement, a chapter on the rôle in South-East Asia and another on the rôle in Europe. It would be even more valuable if the House of Commons would like to debate it on that basis rather than just to have the same old debates on the Service Estimates.
I welcome this Report, because I think that it is a most valuable one for any Government to have. I hope that we shall have more like it. The more we have the easier it will be to have a debate and address our minds to some of the great problems of defence and military administration. I am grateful to the House for giving us this opportunity.
Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: In connection with the immensely important announcement which my right hon. Friend has made about the unification of the lands branches of the three Services, which the whole House will welcome, can he tell us when he thinks that may come about, and whether he has considered the possibility of issuing a White Paper dealing with the administrative arrangements which will necessarily follow?
Mr. Thorneycroft: I will consider the latter point. It might be quite useful to have a short White Paper. I should be happy to do that. As to the timing, the decision is now made and the necessary dispositions will start forthwith. I do

1317
not say that we can reorganise the whole thing in a few weeks, but we should be able to do it over the coming months. It will not take a very great deal of time.
5 0 p.m.
Mr. Denis Healey: It is the Gospel which says that there is more joy in Heaven over one sinner who repenteth than over 99 who have not gone astray. That is true of the Government, even if it is a deathbed repentance. The proposals which the Secretary of State has been laying before the House have been put by us to the Government in defence debate after defence debate for the last few years. We are at least extremely grateful that the right hon. Gentleman is thinking of reorganising the whole basis of Service budgeting along the lines that we have so often suggested.
I am not sure that it was a convenient time for the Secretary of State to intervene. It might have been more useful if he could have commented on many of the points likely to be made in the debate. I think that he also failed in his responsibility to the House in that he did not answer sufficiently the many specific and very important complaints about Service practice which are revealed in the Select Committee's Report, many of which were taken up by the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham).
The Secretary of State said one thing which would serve as a basis for the whole of our discussion, namely, that economics are now at the heart of Britain's defence policy. We face soaring costs in every field of defence—pay and allowances, married quarters for the men and women in the Forces, and in both conventional and atomic weapons. This year the defence budget went up three times more than the gross national product. If we are to take seriously the prediction of defence expenditure over the next four years published by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in January, the increase for three of the four years has already gone without there being any major expenditure on the five or six major weapons projects to which the Government are, in principle, committed.
I think that hon. Members on both sides must agree that defence is bound
1318
to remain a very expensive business for Great Britain. For that reason, it is more vital than ever that we should get value for money, that we should not spend money on anything which is not absolutely essential and that we should ensure that any money which is spent is spent without waste. The long list of cancelled aircraft and missile projects which we have often discussed is clear enough evidence that the first of these conditions is not being fulfilled. The debate which we had last week on the Ferranti affair was one illustration of the failure to get value for money even in a project which was desirable if not essential.
It seems to me that the Select Committee has unearthed a number of additional examples of waste and defective financial control, and it deserves the House's thanks for its work in so doing. I think that hon. Members on both sides welcome the new procedure which allows the House to discuss Select Committee reports as of right in Government time. I only wish, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) said, that there was some provision by which the House could follow up the issues raised in the reports and check whether action promised by Ministries has, in fact, been taken. I will return to that point later.
It is not sufficient to accept a promise by a Ministry to put something right when we have so many examples from reports of the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on Estimates, one of which is referred to in this Select Committee's Report, of action promised by Departments which is never taken.
Sir Godfrey Nicholson: I do not think the hon. Member is aware that the Estimates Committee often has a follow-up like that. A year or so afterwards, it gets in touch with the Departments concerned and says, "What has been done about this?". The machinery is there.
Mr. Healey: I agree that the machinery is there, but I do not feel that the House is able to make full use of it. There is one example in the Report which we are discussing of a promise which was made by the Department in 1958 to consider amalgamating the lands branches in Cyprus, but no

1319
action had been taken on it when the Select Committee looked at the situation again four years later. Frankly, an accidental inquiry into the problem by the Committee four years later is not sufficient. It would be better if we had a more regularly accepted machinery by which these problems were kept under more continuous review. I am sure that the hon. Member would agree with me.
Sir G. Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman can always ask a Question.
Mr. Healey: I agree, but we cannot always get a Question answered, as the hon. Gentleman and many of us know all too well.
When this Report was published, public attention was concentrated on the more striking cases of individual waste, to none of which, I am sorry to say, the Secretary of State referred this afternoon. Notably, we had the case of Fort Tarshyne, the 5-bedroom residence of the rear-admiral in Aden, which cost £46,150, excluding the site value, £6,600 of which went on furniture alone, although it is possible for the same Service organisation to put up two to three bedroom flats for serving officers in Aden at a price of £6,100. No one who has read the Select Committee's Report will feel satisfied with the explanations given for this extravagance by the Admiralty and the other personnel concerned. It is difficult to think of a more striking example of an 18th century aristocratic folly. It seems to me extraordinarily extravagant to have produced this no doubt attractive and exciting building in Aden, where there are so many more urgent calls on Government expenditure.
There is the case to which the Secretary of State again failed to refer of the building of 59 married quarters at St. Patrick's, Malta, at a cost of £350,000 double the amount paid for similar and, according to the Committee, more attractive quarters built on the neighbouring island of Cyprus. Incidentally, most of this money was spent when it had already been decided to run down the Forces in Malta.
Another case of waste concerns the Gilgil School in Kenya and the building of the Templer Barracks in Kenya at a
1320
cost of £3½ million, which, I understand, have now been handed over to the Kenya Government. I cannot help wondering, as other hon. Members in similar previous debates have wondered, whether it would be possible for the Department of Defence to employ more qualified accountants to work in the branches of the Services concerned with financial control. I understand that during a recent court-martial it was revealed that there was only one qualified accountant in the East Africa Command, and he just happened to be there because he was a non-commissioned officer on National Service.
What I think is more disturbing is the evidence in the Select Committee's Report that central control of defence expenditure is seriously deficient in many respects. The Secretary of State may be right—we all hope that he is—in believing that some of the new arrangements which he has announced this afternoon will give more effective central control. Perhaps I can be allowed to quote a rather discouraging paragraph in the Select Committee's Report. In paragraph 72, the Select Committee, in talking of the amalgamation of works services under the Ministry of Public Building and Works, makes this point:
"Nonetheless, they"—
that is the Committee—
"are concerned lest the transfer of responsibility should result merely in an increase in the number of higher posts held, with little corresponding increase in economy or efficiency."
The Secretary of State would be the first to admit that changes of organisation at the top, particularly when they involve the appointment of additional personnel to cover a job, cannot be relied upon to produce the sort of economies to which he has referred.
There are various respects in which I feel that the existing arrangements are revealed to be seriously deficient by the Sub-Committee's Report. In the first place, as is pointed out again and again, the Ministry has not been reacting fast enough to political decisions about the future of bases. I am not now raising the question of whether the Government as a whole should have recognised earlier than 1962 the inevitability of giving independence to Kenya. What is disturbing is that when a decision had

1321
already been taken by the Cabinet on a transfer of power in Kenya or on running down the base in Malta expenditure on Service installations continued for some time at very serious loss to the taxpayer.
For example, paragraph 81 of the Report—this is an unconfirmed report, neither confirmed nor denied by the War Office—says that £93,000 was spent in Kenya in architects' fees for works never carried out. In paragraph 82 it is stated that one Army workshop building was dismantled, re-erected and dismantled again within a period of three years. Paragraph 83 of the Report reveals that in the case of a guided missile depot built in Malta, £18,000 was spent on producing test facilities for naval missiles although a decision had already been taken not to test naval missiles in Malta.
Again, according to the Committee, £194,000 was spent on a naval air station in Malta, and of that £27,500 was spent on a control tower and air school which it had already been decided were not going to be used in the programme for the rundown of the Forces in Malta. It seems to me that there is clearly a case here for very much more rigorous application right through the Services of Cabinet decisions of this nature.
The second serious failure revealed in the Committee's Report, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and, indeed, which I think he admitted through the whole length of his speech, is the failure of co-operation between the Services, a failure which it seems to me was not inherent in the separate organisation of the Services at that time. Essentially the failure must be laid at the door of the Minister in London, because, according to the Committee, we had very good inter-Service co-operation in Cyprus but very bad inter-Service co-operation in Malta. There was nothing inherent in the organisation of the Forces at that time which would have prevented the Services in Malta co-operating as well as in Cyprus, and if there was a failure of Service cooperation the fault lies with the Minister in Britain.
What is most disturbing, because it throws a light on what we can expect from the new organisation, is the failure of inter-Service co-operation even in
1322
areas where combined headquarters had already been set up. If we are to expect a great improvement in inter-Service co-operation through the new Central Organisation of Defence in London, one would have expected that the establishment of combined headquarters in Aden and Singapore would have led to the sort of economies to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. In fact, however, the Sub-Committee continually refers to very serious defects in inter-Service co-operation in areas like Aden and Bahrain where combined headquarters had already been working for two years along precisely the sort of lines along which the new central organisation is intended to work in London.
This seems to me to be a discouraging precedent and bears out the point which I made earlier, that in themselves changes at the top cannot be relied upon to produce the sort of economies which I am sure we are all hoping for. I would like to probe a little more deeply into one issue raised in the Report, and to which the Secretary of State referred in his speech, and that is the whole question of Lands and Works Services. Many of us suspect—and we do not blame the Government for this—that works services were originally taken away from the separate Services and given to the Ministry of Public Building and Works in order to teach the Services a lesson. Because they could not agree with one another on integrating the work services on a Service basis the whole thing was taken away from them and put under a civil Ministry, the Ministry of Public Building and Works.
We have the evidence of the Report, to which the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham referred, and which I thought the Secretary of State confirmed in what he said, that this transfer of works services to civilian responsibility led to a substantial period of dislocation. No one would question that it took the Ministry quite a time to cope with this entirely novel type of problem with which it was asked to deal.
We would all welcome very heartily the decision of the Minister to amalgamate the lands departments of the various Services. If one is to take at all seriously what the right hon. Gentleman's Department said on the proposal

1323
in 1958, I must say that it would have been helpful and encouraging to the House if the Minister had been able to show how his Department then was wrong, because I quote now from the Observation of the Ministers in the Fourth Report of the Select Committee on Estimates for 1958–59 when it was asked to give its views on an amalgamation of these services. Paragraph 4 on page 5 of the Report states:
"It is difficult to see how integration could lead to worthwhile staff economies."—
I hope that the Minister will listen to this, because I hope that he took it into account when he took his decision. As I was saying, the paragraph states:
"It is difficult to see how integration could lead to worthwhile staff economies. Of itself, it could not reduce the amount of work to be done. It is more likely to increase the amount of correspondence and consultation, because matters which can now be settled within each Service Department would have to be referred outside to the central organisation. The central organisation would have to manage a total estate on behalf of the three Services of vast proportions and complexity; it would be more unweildy than the present system, and would be the wrong kind of organisation for a type of work where a close day-to-day association with departmental staffs is necessary for efficient administration. It would involve either the creation of strong liaison staffs in the individual Service Departments, or arrangement for secondment on an extensive scale. In neither case would economies result."
I know that the Secretary of State will not mind my pulling his leg over that, but I think it should be a lesson to all not to accept too readily arguments from Civil Service Departments which are asked to consider these matters. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman, even, as I said earlier, on his political deathbed, is finding courage to stand up to conservatism at least in the Departments.
The one suggestion that I would make is that now that we are to have a central lands department for the three Services, is there not a good deal to be said for transferring the works services back to the Ministry of Defence? It seems to me that the works services now done by the civilian Ministry are easily separable from the rest of their operations and that the major case for putting this under a civilian Ministry was the ingrained separatism of the Services some years ago. Now that the Minister,
1324
through the new access of liberal courage which he has found in himself, has amalgamated the Services and created a central organisation, there is surely a strong case for putting the works services back into the Ministry of Defence where they can co-operate far more closely, intimately, and continuously with the military Services which they exist to serve than they can in a civilian Department responsible, after all, to a Minister who is not otherwise concerned with defence at all. I would like to put that suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, although I would not expect any final reply on it today.
What I think is most serious in the Report is the reference to the continual inability of the Ministry to produce the facts and figures which would enable economic decisions to be taken. This is something which the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham spoke about and which recurs again and again in the Report. I take two examples of this failure, one important and the second all-important. First, there is the question of married quarters.
As the Secretary of State said, the right treatment of the married serviceman is the key to the morale of the Army, Navy and Air Force. It is also the key to the size of the Army, because the biggest single deterrent against volunteering for the Army is the fear of the potential recruit that his wife and family will not be properly looked after or, if he is a bachelor, that his future wife and family will suffer penalties which a civilian family does not undergo.
No one will deny that to take the right decision on this is a very difficult matter. Moreover, as the right hon. Gentleman made clear, what is the right decision in Aden may not be the right decision in Hong Kong; what is right for the Royal Air Force may not be right for the Army. Indeed, one can say, because individuals differ on this, that what is right for some men in the same Service is not right for others.
But what we have not had so far—and after all this was a major recommendation of the Sub-Committee—is a careful inter-Service analysis of the relative costs of married quarters, hirings and private accommodation. We all agree that this is not an easy problem

1325
and, moreover, that the situation will be different as between one base and another. But, if we are to take a rational economic decision, it should be possible to get a good deal further than the Ministry had when the Sub-Committee was investigating its operations.
A far more important aspect, on which the Secretary of State only touched in his interesting speech, is that of the virtues of short, unaccompanied tours of duty overseas compared with those of longer accompanied tours. I accept that one cannot take the rigorous economic view that no base whose future is uncertain should have money spent on it. That would mean that we would have no Army for service overseas at all. But clearly we do not want to repeat the mistake we made in Kenya, where we spent £5½ million on a base which was given up before it was ready to be used.
Again, it should not be beyond the wit of man in 1964 to analyse more carefully than has so far been done the cost and impact on recruiting—because this is the key to the problem—of short, unaccompanied tours as against longer accompanied tours. Many of us who have travelled to the Far East and have spent a night or two at Gan have found that certainly in that R.A.F. base the short, unaccompanied 12 month tour works very well. Morale is extremely high, although, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, it collapses if a man is kept a week beyond the 12 months. It is essential obviously to be able to fulfil our obligations to a man who is serving a specified period without his family.
But it seems to me—even more after reading the Report again, since I raised this question in the defence debate—that the provision of married quarters is the key to the size and efficiency of the Regular Army, and I still deeply regret that the request by the War Department for a considerable increase in the allotment for married quarters over the increase given in the White Paper was rejected.
Now I turn to the second and all-important issue, to which the Secretary of State referred very encouragingly at the end of his speech. It really was a shocking thing that, when the Sub-Committee made its researches, it was
1326
impossible for anyone in the Ministry of Defence to tell it the cost of an overseas base without a special accounting exercise. Even more deplorable was the excuse given for this failure. I think I should read that excuse, because it throws some light on the extraordinary muddle into which our defence policy has fallen in recent years. Paragraph 25 said that the reason given to the Sub-Committee for this failure to be able to give the cost of a base was
"…that the overall cost of a base is not of any particular interest; it is known broadly whether a particular station is a very costly commitment or a comparatively inexpensive one, but a base, it was claimed, is maintained for the operation of forces, and their redeployment is undertaken for strategic reasons and not on financial grounds".
Really! This argument shows that the Ministry then was living in the 18th century and had no understanding either of the political rôle of our Forces in the second half of the 20th century or of the relevance of the cost of our Forces to the national economy as a whole. I want to give a few general reflections on this problem, because it is the core of the situation touched on in the Report.
None of our overseas bases today is necessary to Britain for her national survival. The national survival of this country depends on quite another factor—the so-called balance of terror between the Soviet bloc and the West in which the British bases in Aden and Singapore play little or no part. The justification for our overseas bases is the protection of interests and a fulfilment of obligations to allies or to the United Nations or—and I say this quite seriously—to humanity, for we have an interest, quite apart from our juridical obligations, in the peace and stability of the world.
That is the justification of our overseas bases. Therefore we must try, however difficult it is, to form some estimate of the cost of maintaining a military capacity in one particular theatre overseas so that we can relate that to the losses we might suffer if we relied solely on diplomacy to protect our interests or to fulfil our obligations.
No one who has thought seriously about this problem will deny that it is appallingly difficult and complicated, but it is our duty to the taxpayer, to the country and to the survival of our

1327
people to try to think rationally about the problem and, in so far as it is possible to quantify its elements. This is what the Ministry, at the time when the Sub-Committee examined it, refused in principle to try to do, because it thought that it was not relevant.
That attitude throws a blinding and frightening light on the background of thought in which the present muddle and confusion in our defence policy has developed. If we are to look at this seriously, one problem concerns which of the various types of military capacity overseas is cheapest and likely to be politically most effective. Will it be fixed bases on land in foreign countries, or Colonies? Will it be seaborne forces floating somewhere in the ocean near the theatres where they may be used? Will it be airborne forces, perhaps ferried from the United Kingdom or Australia?
It is high time that this sort of study was undertaken because, if we are to plan our defence policy ten years ahead—and no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that this is essential because of the eight-year development period for new weapons systems—it is absolutely necessary now to try to think out these problems in this rational way.
Personally, I believe that the Prime Minister may be right, in saying, as he has said so often recently, that we are moving into a period when our national survival is guaranteed by the balance of nuclear power between the Western Alliance and the Soviet bloc and that global nuclear war between the two alliances is very unlikely. If this is so, the main rôle of our Forces, as far as our survival is concerned, is to make a relevant contribution to the alliance—that is to say, to make the sort of military contribution towards the Western alliance which the Western alliance needs. I should be out of order if I went over the arguments about the relevance of the deterrent, but obviously this is the major issue which arises in taking this decision.
The second rôle of our Forces is to protect our interests overseas and to fulfil our international obligations. How we protect our interests overseas and what we spend on them is a matter not
1328
just of political and military judgment but also of economic judgment, and it is this element in the argument which has been grossly deficient in the planning of defence policy over the last ten years or so. What we need is a stringent analysis of the military cost of various types of force deployed in various types of ways and in various parts of the world in relation to the political and economic return from that expenditure.
The Estimates Committee's Report has shown that the Government have not only failed to achieve this examination but could not achieve it even if they wanted to do so, because there does not exist in the Ministry of Defence the type of financial and budgetary organisation and of planning organisation which is capable of making this sort of inquiry. To use the present structure of our defence accounting to get value for money in the atomic age is as impossible as to shoot down missiles with a bow and arrow. It simply cannot be done. The type of economic analysis which I think the Minister would like to see cannot be done with the present structure of Service budgeting and accounting. I very much hope that what the Secretary of State told us this afternoon indicates that at last he recognises the point and that at last the necessary changes are under way. But I must confess to a certain doubt whether he, at any rate in this Administration, can achieve it.
5.33 p.m.
Sir Richard Glyn: I listened with great interest to the important observations of the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) when he commented on the difficulties which had arisen owing to the rules which prevented the Estimates Committee from taking evidence overseas. I stress—because one or two hon. Members have used words which implied the contrary—that the regulations concerned prevent the Estimates Committee only from taking evidence overseas in a formal sense. Owing to the kindness and help of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we were enabled to travel freely overseas, to see what we wished and to question whom we wished, but not, because of the regulations, to take formal evidence.
We prepared considerable notes about our investigations overseas. We investi-

1329
gated very thoroughly overseas and we received, and are grateful for, a great deal of written information from various people and organisations overseas. But these could be no part of our report, because they were not evidence taken in the technical sense by the Estimates Committee. Moreover, some parts were of a secret nature and in any case could not have been included in a report which was to be published. The hon. Member said that spot checks were not enough, and I agree, but I do not accept that what we did, spread over months overseas, was in the nature of a spot check. We stayed an appreciable time in each place which we visited and we satisfied ourselves that we had seen what we required to see on each of the points in which we were taking an interest.
The Estimates Committee's procedure is based as a rule on a previous Estimates Committee's Report on the same Ministry and it is usually only when a new Ministry comes into being that the Estimates Committee starts de novo, and then, in any case, the Committee has some information to go on from some previous Report of the Estimates Committee or some other information. We were breaking new ground and, in that sense, we were pioneers. I have no doubt that when, as I very greatly hope, some further sub-committee of the Estimates Committee goes abroad, it will be able to work on our foundations, if I may so describe them, and to follow on where we left off. It will be very much easier for our successors once the ground has been broken in this way. Had we been able to publish the documents and information which we received overseas, our Report would have been twice the size and would perhaps then have gone further towards satisfying the right hon. Gentleman, but for reasons which I have given this could not be done.
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend about the question of married quarters. This has been referred to by every speaker and is, perhaps, one of the most important features of the present situation in all the Services. We have a far higher proportion of married Service men in every Service than used to be the case. The tendency to marry younger is a feature of our time and may possibly be an
1330
indication of the prosperity of the present generation. This is causing great difficulties not only overseas but, as my right hon. Friend said, also in this country. The question of proper accommodation for Service families unquestionably will have a very important effect on recruiting. Something must be done about it. Wherever our Service men are stationed, this question must be investigated.
It is generally agreed that each base overseas has a different problem. In some cases, as for example, in Bahrain, it is a problem of the availability of land where we want it. Hon. Members may be interested in the cost of land in the right areas of Bahrain; £33,000 an acre was quoted for the only plot on sale when we were there, and this is rather high even by British urban standards.
Whichever base one visits there is a different problem, but in my view the problem should be approached in the same way by each of the three Services. I would not say that one particular Service was always fortunate but we found in different bases that one or another of the Services seemed to be rather better off not only in barrack accommodation—a separate and also an important problem—but in both hiring and married quarters. In some cases we found that the entitlement seemed to be regarded differently between the Services. I have seen places—I will not go into detail—where practically the whole of one Service had quarters with fans and high ceilings and another Service had barrack quarters without fans and high ceilings.
After one had been in a base for 48 hours one could tell which Service owned the rooms which one inspected by looking at the amenities. That is not right. But I feel sure that now that we have these matters centralised it will be put right. It was quite noticeable in Cyprus that where barracks were used first by one Service and then by another, one Service would regard as a normal allocation for the accommodation considerably more men than the other Service could possibly squeeze in. This matter should be looked at.
Once this has been overcome we have to look at other major questions, because a growing part of our expenditure on

1331
our bases is on what in N.A.T.O. is fashionably called the infrastructure. Something has been said about tenure in different bases. What I have very much in mind is that some of the buildings that we have seen are transplantable, but the great majority are not. As we are spending large sums of money on providing married quarters, I think that in some places it would be advisable to put up buildings which are capable of being moved. Here it is important to realise that the difference is not between construction in bricks, mortar and stone, and prefabricated construction, but the difference between transplantable and not-transplantable buildings, because even some prefabricated buildings cannot be moved.
In Bahrain we saw bungalows which had been transplanted from Ceylon. They were of an excellent standard, and were better than many of the married quarters in this country. I do not know what they would cost to produce now. They had been provided some years ago, but something of that kind should be seriously considered when we remember the great cost of providing quarters—rising in some cases to £8,000 per quarter for officers. I have no doubt that a transplantable bungalow of that type could be produced, transported, and erected on our bases for less than that sum, and in any case the advantage of being able to move the bungalow would greatly increase its value to the taxpayer, especially when there is any question of tenure.
The hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) raised an important point when he spoke about the possibility of transferring the works services back to the Ministry of Defence. If these had not in the immediate past been moved to the Ministry of Public Building and Works, I think that that suggestion would have had merit, but, having seen a little of what is going on at the present time inside that Ministry, I know that it is having a little trouble in digesting the great deal of business which has been placed on its plate. The idea of moving works services back to the Ministry of Defence almost before they have been fully received by the Ministry of Public Building and Works would put everything back for a long time, and
1332
I think that it would be a counsel of despair.
The hon. Gentleman then referred to short unaccompanied tours. This is an important and valuable point, and one which must be fully considered. The difficulty is that one can invite troops to accept a short unaccompanied tour of one year in four, perhaps, but not more than that. I know that in some areas, for example in El Adem, the waiting period for a proper quarter is nearly 12 months, and it is argued that people might as well be unaccompanied for 12 months and then come home. The difficulty—and this applies both to the Army and to the Royal Air Force when there is a good deal going on—is that the unfortunate unit concerned might well have to be away for two years out of four. I do not think that that would be acceptable. An unaccompanied tour of one year out of four is one thing. To be away for every other year is quite different, and again we have the problem of the families who are left behind in this country and are sometimes in difficulties when their husbands are spirited away on duty.
That brings me back to what my right hon. Friend said about married quarters in this country. In our anxiety to provide them overseas, we must not overlook the problem at this end. This again underlines the advantage of having a transplantable building which, in the event of a base being evacuated, could be brought back here where it would be very useful.
I think that the cost of the infrastructure of overseas bases is of great importance. By my calculation, it has risen 55 per cent. in the last five years, and is rising faster than the other costs. That is why we must look very closely at whether it is right to spend substantial sums of money on building permanent buildings, be they prefabricated or conventional, which are planned to last for 30 to 50 years at bases where we might not need them for so long. Witnesses for the Ministry of Public Building and Works said—and I welcome it—that the further development of married quarters will be one of the first tasks of the Ministry. I only say that when the Ministry puts up a building it should do so with a view to the length of time that we are reasonably certain to want to use it.

1333
There is a point affecting bases which has not been referred to in this debate, and which is not given great prominence, though I think that it deserves it. Our bases are of the greatest possible value economically, and indeed to some extent socially, to the inhabitants of the areas in which they are sited. During our journeys we found that the British tax payer is very often not only the largest employer for a big area around the bases, but also provides a big injection of hard currency into areas which often sadly need it.
At some bases this factor has been used by adroit commanders, by local arrangements with contractors of various kinds, to provide additional accommodation. For example, in Cyprus a substantial number of Greek Cypriots have been persuaded to build blocks of flats expressly for letting as hirings to British Service families. This arrangement is of great advantage to both sides. The Greek Cypriots receive far higher rents than they would from their compatriots. On the other hand, it saves the British taxpayer capital and the flats form a useful link between British Service families and the local inhabitants.
Something of this is also going on in other bases which are not the subject of the Report, and I think that it should be encouraged in these days when all too many people in other parts of the world, including some of our allies, look curiously at our bases and talk about colonialism. A great deal of the money spent on these bases goes into the pockets of the local inhabitants. This fact should be made more widely known than it is at the present. The fact that these bases are a great asset to the areas in which they are sited, is sometimes overlooked by people who, with the best motives, but without full knowledge, see fit to criticise our occupation of them.
The sooner that we get the married quarters problem into perspective by building more of them, the better. The shorter the time that people have to wait in private accommodation, at great expense, and often under unfortunate conditions, the better it will be for everybody concerned.
I greatly hope that such amenities as air conditioning will be assessed on a base principle, and not on a Service
1334
principle. In areas where air conditioning is necessary, it should be provided for everybody, and not just for one Service to the exclusion of the others.
My friends in the Navy are always in a little difficulty here. The majority of their people are ashore only for a few days at a time. After that they go off happily to their ships, which, in turn, are not often air conditioned either. We visited a "hot ship" in the Far East, and we found it very hot. In my opinion, if a station is entitled to air conditioning all the Services in that station should be entitled to it. It should be borne in mind that many naval personnel, of all ranks, live permanently ashore, doing work in the dockyards and things of that kind. The fact that some naval personnel are merely birds of passage should not prevent their fellows from enjoying amenities which are available to the other Services. The whole question should be assessed on the need for air conditioning in the base, and not on the need for it for any one Service in the base.
One point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, East rather struck me. He referred quite rightly to the difficulty in arriving at the cost of a base. The answer that we were given suggested that this was not very important because the redeployment of forces is undertaken mainly for strategic reasons. In his comment on that the hon. Member rightly referred to these bases as being obligations to our allies, or to the United Nations. He went on to stress the necessity for costing them to see whether we should stay in them. I do not think that he meant to imply that in his view we should set a price on keeping our treaty obligations or fulfilling our obligations to our allies, and should say, "Up to this amount we will keep our treaty obligations and support our allies, but if the cost rises to that amount we will let them go hang."
Mr. Healey: I am glad to be able to clear up this matter, because if the hon. Member misunderstood me other hon. Members may have done so, too. He must know that the nature of our juridical obligation differs from case to case, and the amount that we spend militarily on backing up our treaty obligations also differs from case to case. We spend infinitely less on our CENTO commitment

1335
than on our N.A.T.O. commitment although, juridically, the difference between the treaties is not great. In other cases, it is up to us to decide how to implement our obligations—for example, in the Gulf. I suggest that the amount that we commit to the fulfilment of these treaty obligations should depend to some extent on the importance to us of the issue at stake. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would disagree with that.
Sir Richard Glyn: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the issue at stake is a matter of principle—the question is whether we carry out our treaty obligations and support our allies, or tear those treaties up and desert our allies. That is the question. Whether or not money comes into this must be a matter for the hon. Gentleman. I cannot see that it does.
5.53 p.m.
Mr. E. Shinwell: Apart from some derogatory references to Government policy in the military sphere and the suspicions voiced about the ability of the Secretary of State for Defence to undertake his somewhat formidable task of conducting the policy of the Ministry of Defence and its administration, this has been a largely non-partisan discussion. It is all the more welcome for that. Nevertheless, it appears to me that in all the circumstances it has been somewhat outmoded.
This may appear to be a digression, but it has a bearing on what I shall say later. Yesterday, a reference was made to changes in the accommodation of the House, and to the building of a new section which is to be Gothic in character. The procedure of this debate has also been largely Gothic in character. It is the kind of debate that we might have had many years ago. It is quite irrelevant to the present situation.
Let me furnish an example. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham), who spoke on behalf of the Estimates Committee, indicated that he and his colleagues had made a journey almost round the world. I make no complaint about that, although at the end of the day we might have asked whether their journey was
1336
really necessary. Many of their discoveries must have been well known to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been accustomed to take part in defence debates and who have made some study of this important subject.
Let us take as an example what appeared to be the pièce de résistance of the Report, namely, the need for more suitable married quarters overseas. This topic has engaged the attention of successive Secretaries of State for War, Secretaries of State for Air, and Ministers of Defence for many years. It may be recalled—I say "may", because hon. Members have the capacity to forget what has happened in the past if it suits their purpose; especially hon. Members of the Government—that in 1950 the Government of the day, which was a Labour Government—I make that clear in case that is forgotten—introduced a huge housing loans scheme for military purposes and gave an impetus to the construction of married quarters both at home and overseas. This is a most formidable problem, as hon. Members have indicated, and as the Committee itself says in its Report.
The Secretary of State for Defence listened to what was said and commented on it, but he gave no indication of what was going to happen. He glossed over the question whether there were going to be more married quarters, and whether they were going to be improved in quality, because he had nothing constructive to say. Not a single word did he utter on that aspect of the Report and the request made in it for additional housing for married personnel. Not a word did he say which indicated that the Government intended to embark on the implementation of the Committee's proposals in the immediate or even the foreseeable future.
Instead he gave us a philosophical—almost an academic—dissertation on the new arrangements at the reconstructed Ministry of Defence, and how he envisaged his task. Again, everything that he said was very vague and nebulous. He never got down to brass tacks. That is precisely what we should be doing in this debate.
I want to pose a question to the members of the Estimates Committee

1337
who, within the limitations imposed upon them by the Government and the Treasury, did an excellent job. They carried out investigations abroad and made certain discoveries, which are referred to in the Report. My question is, now that the Committee has reported, particularly on the subject of housing for married personnel—I will come to other matters if there is time—what is to be done about it? Is that a fair question? Of course it is. Indeed, it is the only question, and it requires an answer.
When dealing in a perfunctory and cursory vein with this aspect of the Report the right hon. Gentleman remarked that the number of Service personnel abroad was about half of the total number, and he indicated that there were a certain number of married quarters in Aden, in Cyprus and elsewhere. I interjected to suggest that we should not bother about cost accounting—although it is important—and that the cost was what mattered. There is no indication from the Committee of what the cost is likely to be. There could not be. The Committee had not the information. Neither can the Department furnish details to enable us to come to a conclusion about this.
Let us suppose that we had no overseas bases. Suppose we abandoned the bases at Aden, Cyprus, El Adem and Hong Kong—particularly Hong Kong—and brought all the Service personnel home. We should, of course, have to accommodate them. We should have to provide married quarters and that would cost a great deal of money—perhaps not as much as it would cost overseas, but a great deal of money would still be required. So let us not suppose that by providing quarters overseas for a certain proportion of our personnel we are increasing enormously—I use that word advisedly—the cost of the provision of housing for married personnel. A great deal requires to be done in the United Kingdom in respect of married quarters for Service personnel. Who would deny that?
I do not know whether there has ever been a Select Committee on Estimates which has inquired into the problem in the United Kingdom. By the way—this is almost a digression also—there has been a great deal of talk about waste
1338
in the Services. On the subject of waste, perhaps a Select Committee might be appointed—the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) is an authority on this subject and occupies a responsible position in this context—to probe and investigate into the number of storehouses in the possession of the Army, the Air Force and the Admiralty, the amount of land at their disposal and the amount of equipment left over from the last war.
Sir G. Nicholson: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that all these questions have been inquired into in recent years by Estimates Committees and that the Reports are available. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that all that an Estimates Committee can do is provide ammunition for hon. Members to use in debates, and they can ask questions. We have inquired into all the questions and the facts are there.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) himself remarked that he thought that what he was saying might be a digression. I think that it is, and that we must get back to the Report.
Mr. Shinwell: But, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, very great respect, there has been a great deal of discussion about the waste involved. Indeed it is contained in the Report of the Committee.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. We cannot discuss what other committees are to inquire into.
Mr. Shinwell: My suggestion was that there might be a committee to undertake that task, but the hon. Member for Farnham has pointed out that these investigations have already taken place. My question is, what has happened about it? It is very little indeed. That is our problem. That is why I say that our procedure this afternoon—I admit that it is the customary procedure—is outmoded. When the Select Committee has a Report it ought to be presented first to the House and then referred to a committee which would examine and probe and question Ministers in order to ascertain what was to be done. In other words, the task should be completed.

1339
If the hon. Member for Farnham is content merely to ask questions—to which he gets unsatisfactory and sometimes very silly answers—let him be so content. I propose to remain discontented. I have had a long experience as a Member of this House—perhaps longer than anyone present at this time. I never found it possible to obtain all the information one desired to obtain merely by asking questions. I have myself been a Minister and so I know the kind of answers which are given. If the job is to be done, let us do it satisfactorily. What I say is by no means intended to be offensive to the Select Committee, far from it. As I have said, the Committee has done this job satisfactorily under very severe limitations. We have to complete the job.
I come now to the question of what should be done. I wish to put it as plainly to hon. Members as I can. We must increase our defence expenditure because of the need for more housing for married personnel, and provide more amenities, as has been rightly demanded by the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn). I know about these things. I tried to do a great deal myself in this direction when I had the opportunity. Some of the things I was able to carry out, others were impossible for financial and other reasons. Our expenditure is already nearly £2,000 million, and I venture to prophesy that no matter what Government come to power in October or November of this year the next Defence Estimates will not show any reduction, for obvious reasons. First, there is the legacy from the old Government which is bad enough, and, secondly, there are all the obligations that trouble us and which have been referred to.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr. Healey) that when we accept obligations we have to carry them out. We have a remarkable capacity—at any rate we have displayed a remarkable capacity since the end of the last war—for undertaking all kinds of obligations which we are quite unable satisfactorily to fulfil; or at any rate, if we are able to do so, it is only at great cost and by imposing a heavy burden on the taxpayers of this country.
1340
No one would deny that. We have accepted obligations in respect of mandated territories, and handouts from the United Nations and the old League of Nations—protectorates and all the rest of it in Asia, Africa and elsewhere. We are ready to take on anything without regard to the consequences. That is why we have bases everywhere.
Will anyone tell me why we need to remain in Hong Kong? The Chinese People's Republic, if it suited their purpose—which it does not for economic and other reasons—could drive us out. Those with less power and military strength than the Chinese could drive us out of other places. We face a terrific task. When reference is made to the prowess of our soldiers, airmen and sailors I wholeheartedly agree with every word. I emphasise what has been said. They do a fine job. Look at what is happening in the Yemen. They are doing a terrific job. They deserve every tribute which can be given to them.
Sir Richard Glyn: On a minor point, but one of some importance, our troops are not engaged in the Yemen; they are engaged in Aden. It makes a difference.
Mr. Shinwell: I accept the correction by the hon. Member, who has more knowledge of this subject than I have, but I meant that area. Do not let us be too partisan on a minor point.
Of course these men deserve our tribute, but there are the obligations to consider, more accommodation and more amenities, more of this and that. Some hon. Members from time to time complain that our Forces have not adequate equipment. I have heard demands from this side of the House for better equipment for our Forces and allegations about inadequacy of equipment. I do not know; I do not make charges of that kind because I do not know. I have to have the facts before me before I make comments. But this will all cost more. Either we have increased costs or we have to abandon some of the bases and to depart from some of the obligations we have taken on. That is not a matter that we can decide. It can be decided only in the context of our foreign policy and the context of our alliances with the United States, the Western Alliance

1341
and Europe, and now in Aden and elsewhere.
We remain in Cyprus for strategic reasons, although it never occurred to me when I was associated with the War Office and the Ministry of Defence that there was a strategic value there. I never heard a general or an air vice-marshal who said that it was for strategic reasons. We have to pay through the nose for it, with all the trouble we are having at present and the weakness displayed by the United Nations. I repeat as plainly as I can that either we abandon our bases and fail to fulfil our obligations or there will be an increase in defence expenditure. Otherwise we shall not provide the accommodation for married personnel which the Committee desires.
I agree with the Committee. Short tours might be a remedy, but that does not work out very well. If men are sent to a remote part thousands of miles away and have to be trained and become accustomed to the area in which they are likely to be operating, clearly we cannot have a shuttle service all the time.
I say only one further word, and I say it particularly to the Secretary of State for Defence. He has taken on a very big job. He spoke about centralisation. I was a little amused when he spoke about centralisation in respect of the repair and maintenance of mechanically-propelled vehicles. In 1929, which is a long time ago, I was Financial Secertary to the War Office. I was asked to undertake the task of conducting an investigation into the cost of repair and maintenance of mechanically-propelled vehicles. I was asked to do that by the late George Milne, then Chief of the Imperial General Staff. I am sorry but I do not remember the number of the Command Paper, but it must be in the archives. If the Secretary of State looks it up he will find the conclusions arrived at.
I discovered what he has now discovered but it was a long time ago. It was that we failed to get a man at the head of the Royal Army Service Corps to agree with a man at the head of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps. In one depot we would find any amount of accommodation, while another was chock-a-block with vehicles. If we suggested to the man in charge of the depôt
1342
which was chock-a-block with vehicles that some should be transferred to the other depôt, he would say, "No, what we want is expansion" and he would produce with enthusiasm blueprints for expansion.
The right hon. Gentleman still has a very big job. We have been discussing it for many years, just as we have been discussing standardisation, yet we are as far away from standardisation in respect of equipment and services as they were many years ago. I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in the interests of our economy, not that I wish him well politically. I would not go so far as that, but I hope that he does the job so long as he is there in order that our economy shall be properly fashioned and that we can reduce our expenditure and produce something adequate and efficient.
In the next few months we shall be watching that. We shall do so as long as we are allowed to remain here, and that depends on the Prime Minister. Whoever becomes Secretary of State for Defence we shall do the same in the interests of economy and efficiency. I repeat what I have said more than once, but I cannot help being repetitive. When the Select Committee comes before the House with a Report of this kind—a very valuable Report, as is admitted—we have to concern ourselves with what is to be done about its implementation. The implementation does not depend on hon. Members on this side or that side of the House but on the Government.
6.16 p.m.
Captain John Litchfield: I shall refer a little later to some of the points which the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) described as the "brass tacks" of this Report, but I want to go back to some of the things to which the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) referred—particularly his suggestion, which I know is favoured by some of his hon. Friends, that this House should set up expert specialist committees to deal with some of these matters of defence.
This subject has been discussed before in this House. I know there is more than one view about it. It is an attractive idea in theory, but I am not sure that it would work out quite so well

1343
in practice. I should have considerable doubts about it. I am not sure, for instance, whether it would offend in its working against the principle of Ministerial responsibility to which we all attach great importance. From a more practical aspect I think that it might be found difficult for those hon. Members—not a great number—who take a particular interest in these affairs to attend both upstairs and downstairs to debate these matters.
Mr. Bellenger: I take the point that the hon. and gallant Member has made, but he must remember that it does not seem to affect Ministers in the United States of America, in Germany and other democratic countries in which they have that system.
Captain Litchfield: I quite agree, but the right hon. Member knows as well as I do that the Ministers in the United States are not Members of Congress, nor are they elected representatives. In a sense, they are a staff of the Executive.
However that may be, there is a point which might be mentioned in passing about the Estimates Committee which my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) will not mind my mentioning. I have already discussed it with him. I sometimes wonder whether in the Estimates Committee we make the best possible use of individual experience of the members of the Committee. I can only give my own experience since I have been a member of the Estimates Committee. My subcommittee has investigated the cotton industry, Downing Street, the Board of Trade development districts, and the Department of Technical Co-operation. These investigations which have been at times of fascinating interest have been for me of the highest educational value, but I have sometimes wondered what experience of my own I have been able to contribute to some of these inquiries. In the Estimates Committee in these rather technical investigations we might perhaps be a little more selective.
Sir E. Errington: Does not my hon. and gallant Friend think that there is considerable value in having non-technical people considering technical
1344
evidence that has come before them? Is not that the basis on which we operate?
Captain Litchfield: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on that point. What I am saying is that it seems rather a pity if when individual members of the Estimates Committee happen to possess some experience which might conceivably be of some value, that experience is not always used.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence referred to integration both in the commands and in the new Ministry. I very much agree with everything that he said about it. I know that everything possible is being done and that the points brought out in the Report will be most carefully attended to by him. But some of the things that the right hon. Members for Bassetlaw and Easington said go a good deal beyond what one might call integration in the sense of integration within the Ministry. The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw suggested that there should be closer contact between the Defence Department and the Foreign Office. I am sure we all agree very much with that, but there has been very close contact indeed at the staff level and higher up, at the Defence Committee level, for a very long time, and I do not think there is anything to criticise there.
What we are a little worried about in looking at the past and perhaps also at the future is the viability of the bases abroad and the rather costly reappraisals which have had to be made in the past and which have resulted in some of the bases having to be discarded almost before they were in use. That is not a defence decision. I very much doubt whether it is a Foreign Office decision. It is a very high political decision. It springs from policy statements as important as the "Wind of Change" speech and many other great decisions of that kind in which perhaps our whole national policy has altered course a little. So I do not feel that there is any criticism here as far as defence is concerned. I do not think that closer contacts would make much difference there.
The hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) stated that there is no military base overseas which is vital to the

1345
United Kingdom's survival. That may be true in a strict sense, but I thought that he treated rather lightly the question of the United Kingdom's interests, responsibilities and investments in some parts of the world. I am sure that he would be very sorry indeed to see us lose our position—and when I say "our position", I do not mean the allied position. I refer to the United Kingdom's interests and investments in, for example, Malaysia. If we are not to lose these interests, if our influence there is not to be eclipsed and if our power to protect those interests is not to be destroyed, we must have forces and a base somewhere in the area from which to operate.
I do not want to drag any partisan thoughts into the discussion. As the right hon. Member for Easington said, it has been on a very high and impartial level. However, when the right hon. Gentleman thinks about bases and the possibility that we may have to change our ideas again one day, he should not forget that there is a very important base in the Indian Ocean at Simonstown, and not loosely throw out comments—which I do not think he himself does—which might make our position there and our ability to use that base in the future more difficult than it already is. The base may become more important to us one day.
The hon. Member for Leeds, East had some interesting things to say on the question of accompanied and unaccompanied service overseas. It is an extraordinarily difficult problem to be sure about, but I feel that we cannot think very sensibly about it unless we are in a position to know what the financial implications would be of totally abandoning the existing policy of accompanied service overseas and going in for an unaccompanied service policy. I am not saying that it would be a good thing—I do not know; we have not the information to judge—but it would be an interesting investigation to see on a long view—not an immediate view—whether or not it would be more economical or less to do away with accompanied service altogether eventually, at any rate as far as operational units are concerned.
I agree with the hon. Member that the whole question of families is of first-
1346
class importance to morale in the Services. We all accept that the most tender spot in any Service man is the well-being of his family. I do not think we could run unaccompanied service on anything much longer than a 12 months' basis. We have had an example in the last weekend of one of the problems which can arise in accompanied service. We have had the King's Own Scottish Borderers, who have recently returned from two years' accompanied service in Aden, sent off again to fulfil an absolute requirement out there at a few hours' notice.
I entirely applaud and support my right hon. Friend's decision to send reinforcements to Aden. It is absolutely essential at the present time. I will not go into the question of whether it might be kinder to take troops from Germany or not. But in this instance we have had a very serious disruption of family life. We must feel great sympathy for the families whose lives have suddenly, at a few hours' notice, been disrupted. I would, in passing, say that I hope that my right hon. Friend will look very carefully into the welfare of the families which have been left at Shorncliffe. I listened to a short statement in the B.B.C. news bulletin at 8 a.m. on Monday which implied that considerable difficulty was arising for the wives and children who had been left at such very short notice. I hope that the Government will step in to look after their interests and that no financial considerations will stand in the way of their getting a very fair deal. After all, their men have been called to go to a most unpleasant part of the world at this time of the year and will take part in some very tough operations. We owe it to them to look after their families left in this country.
I should like for a moment to say something about the whole question of overseas bases, which must be one of the most costly investments this country has even indulged in overseas—necessary but costly. As my right hon. Friend said, almost everywhere in the world these bases are under pressure, and in three cases—certainly in two cases—they are under direct military pressure.
I do not think it is very fair to commit our Forces to military operations in

1347
defence of these bases with one hand tied behind their back. In my opinion, our present military posture in Borneo—I am not so sure about Aden, but I suspect there, too—simply cannot be maintained indefinitely with safety or dignity, unless, after going through all the political motions which may be necessary to clear our yardarm with the United Nations and our allies, we give authority for our Forces to strike back at the sources of aggression.
The very last thing that anyone in his right mind inside or outside the House—in this country, at any rate—would want to do would be to get involved in an avoidable war or in avoidable military operations, large or small. But we are already involved in war, or at any rate highly warlike operations, in Borneo and in Aden, and in something which, if it is not war, is certainly not peace, in Cyprus. Our resources, as I am certain my right hon. Friend would be the first to agree, are becoming stretched. We are committing our Forces, or so it seems to me, in operations under such limiting conditions from the military point of view that their task is made, if not impossible, at least very difficult. There will not be any end to it, unless we adopt a more active rôle.
If we are to maintain these bases under direct military pressure, we must get a little more tough with our opponents. My right hon. Friend himself would probably welcome that. I realise that it is a very great responsibility to commit troops to offensive military operations, but I do not see how we can go on in this purely defensive posture very much longer.
I want to return to what the right hon. Member for Easington referred to as the "brass tacks" of the Report. It is an admirable Report. I was not a member of the sub-committee which wrote it, so I can take no credit for it. It is clear, instructive and frank, but there are one or two disturbing disclosures in it. I shall not labour them. Those of us who have read the Report know what I am referring to.
I do not think that paragraphs 107–111, on the subject of air conditioning in Aden, make very good reading. They are enlightening paragraphs. The ways of Whitehall, where central heating is
1348
switched on and off according to the calendar and irrespective of the weather, have been transplanted overseas into the South Arabian peninsula and elsewhere. A more sensible attitude should be taken to this problem. A little more discretion should be allowed to more junior people to decide whether they require air conditioning. I invite the attention of the House particularly to the evidence of the oil companies, which, after all, have been in business out in these unpleasantly hot parts of the world for a very long time. They state definitely that they have found that more extended use of air conditioning is beneficial to efficiency.
It was stated in evidence by the representative of one or other of the Services that the Services must consider the interests of the taxpayer. That is true, but that is a pretty good one after what has been spent in some other ways! The Services surely ought not to consider the interests of the taxpayer at the expense of the welfare, health and efficiency of our men. After all, the oil companies have an even stricter body to be responsible to—their shareholders.
Then there is the question of the reception arrangements in Cyprus. I have heard some references to this on the naval side outside the House. Members of Parliament who visit the Services are sometimes recipients of a good deal of drip from time to time if there is any going. We are all, perhaps, rather gullible to anyone with a chip on his shoulder.
However, the Report on the subject of the reception arrangements in Cyprus must be accepted. It is a serious statement. I hope that my right hon. Friends concerned with this aspect will give personal attention to it. I am surprised that this matter is not referred to in the Departmental observations on the Tenth Report. It is a most serious allegation. It is forthrightly written, and it merits attention.
There are one or two other references to weaknesses on the welfare side. It is rather difficult here in London to judge what weight to give to them, but I do not doubt that there have been some failures. There are strong and serious allegations contained in the Report which I hope my hon. Friend will ensure are cleared up.

1349
I am glad that my right hon. Friend welcomes and accepts the Report. I have served in Government Departments in White hall and I know the resistances which arise on the professional and the Civil Service side whenever there are any Parliamentary searchlights playing around on their fields of responsibility. I congratulate him, as I think we all do, on his decision to carry out a thorough reorganisation of the costing system, which, when it is brought about, as I hope it will be as soon as possible, will be of the greatest possible assistance to all Members who are interested in these things. It will help us in forming our judgments. It may prevent too hasty judgments, and it will give the House something firm on which to base our thought. In the long run I believe it will also lead to substantial economies.
6.38 p.m.
Mr. Robert Edwards: I should very much like to follow the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Captain Litchfield), but I am afraid that if I did so we should be entering into high controversy on strategy, which was the very issue that the members of the Estimates Committee tried very much to avoid. The hon. and gallant Gentleman completely misunderstood the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). My hon. Friend was dealing with an issue not based on policy but on economics, as to whether we can justify the maintenance of very expensive bases in different parts of the world in view of the country's economics.
Can we justify spending £125 million, presumably protecting tin and rubber in Malaysia, when our military expenditure is more than the totality of all our trade in the whole area? Can we justify an expenditure of £l25 million on a military base in Aden when we have to put that cost to the taxpayer on the price of Middle Eastern oil? These were the practical issues my hon. Friend was raising.
Our world-wide commitments and our desire, like other democratic countries, to help to keep the peace of the world and maintain law and order, along with keeping our promises to the United Nations, form only a part of the story. The other part is whether this nation can maintain a system of defence which developed with the British Empire when
1350
the British Empire has been transformed into the Commonwealth. I am afraid that many people who should know better still believe that we can maintain this great world-wide structure, although my hon. Friends and I keep telling them that to do so is bleeding the nation white.
I will not dwell on that aspect because I wish to concentrate on the contents of the Report. I enjoyed being a member of the Sub-Committee and very much respect our Chairman, the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham), who was an extremely energetic and wise Chairman. We were fortunate in having the active co-operation of the Ministry of Defence and the services of two able officers of that Ministry, who travelled with us. We were exceptionally fortunate in having with us two Clerks of the House. They worked unremittingly, often into the early hours, to produce daily reports so that the facts we gathered could be transmitted to our minutes immediately we returned to Parliament.
The Sub-Committee was made up of hon. Members of both sides of the House. Two of my hon. Friends who were on the Committee and I are known to be provocative, nosey and to have strong views about defence. I am not saying that such views were expressed in our work in the Committee. We all accepted the fact that our business was to collect information, it being the business of the, Government and Opposition to discuss these matters of policy, in a positive way or otherwise, in Parliament.
Reference has been made to the composition of the Sub-Committee. It is worth remembering that members of the Estimates Committee are often bogged down for months when dealing with issues like roads, bridges and agriculture. Such subjects often bore us to death. We were, therefore, exceptionally fortunate that a subject so full of life and human interest was allocated to us and that we were able to study it in various parts of the world. Whereas members of the Estimates Committee work, say, two or three hours a week when investigating a subject, we worked six hours and more a day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East referred to the necessity for a reform

1351
in the whole procedure of collecting information for Parliament and the taxpayer on the subject of massive Government expenditure overseas. It is not enough for Committees of this House to be fed with information by the Ministries, particularly when criticism is often bound to be levelled at those Ministries. As my hon. Friend suggested, it is like biting the hand that feeds one. It is obviously right that when hon. Members examine huge Government expenditure abroad they should have clerical assistance to do their work effectively. We had to take notes and transfer them in our Committee proceedings upstairs. We had to put the information together from our notes so that the evidence we received abroad could be put on the record. This is not an efficient way of collecting information and this is obviously a suitable subject for the Select Committee to consider, particularly since it is at present considering the question of procedure.
It should be remembered that our Sub-Committee was inquiring into the expenditure of one-quarter of the total defence budget of this country. We were dealing with a mountain of wealth—expenditure amounting to £500 million, or one-sixteenth of the total Government expenditure of the nation. That being so, it should not be left to this haphazard, inefficient way of collecting information. We were compelled to use the existing methods because the War Lords—I call them "War Lords" and hon. Members will see the way my mind is working—I mean, of course, the Law Officers of the Crown, suggested that inquiries should be made in this country and in the House and not overseas. I do not know whether that matter has been debated or even reported, although it should be inquired into.
Not all the members of the Sub-Committee were military men, although three of our colleagues were experienced Service men, having been regular officers. It should be remembered that we were not considering strategy but accountability, finance, social, human and building problems Common problems like these can be considered by all hon. Members, remembering that we acquire a general knowledge and understanding of these affairs through our day-to-day activities in our constituencies. I do not
1352
feel that members of the Sub-Committee were not competent to carry out the task allocated to them.
It is important that military expenditure right through the chain should be examined. It is appalling, for example, to consider that although the Cabinet decided to cancel the building of an underground plant, that decision did not reach the builders or the local people until 18 months after it was made, during which time £300,000 of the taxpayers' money had been thrown down the drain. Think of what could have been done with that money for, say, the provision of Service accommodation.
Consider, also, the admiral's house. About £46,000 was spent on building a round house, a four-bedroomed one. I understand that £6,000 was spent on furniture alone. The house was built around a cannon because, I understand, a way could not be devised of getting the cannon down a hill. Incidentally, about a century ago a group of British sailors lugged that very cannon up that very hill. However, all our modern methods of lifting machinery did not enable us to get the cannon down the hill. As a result, the house was built around the cannon.
Captain Litchfield: Can the hon. Member say—I am not sure of my facts from the Report—whether it would have been possible to build a suitable house for the admiral more cheaply at a place that had not already got foundations such as this gun site provided for the house? And does he not agree that the apparently very high cost of the furniture was due to the fact that as the foundations of the house had to be round, and the house was round, the furniture had to be rounded?
Mr. Edwards: It sounds worse than ever. This was an expenditure of £46,000 on a four-bedroomed house, and that is a great deal of money by any standards or in any part of the world.
Then we had the appalling situation in Kenya where, during the last five years before independence, we spent £5½ million—over £1 million a year—on a beautiful garden estate for the Forces at Gilgil. We built a school and a N.A.A.F.I. at a cost of £100,000. The school had a beautiful ornate wall. Who passed the plans, I do not know, but

1353
in that wall were holes just big enough for a child to put its head in. The headmaster told me that the wall was a constant source of trouble because children were shoving their heads in all the time. It was not surely a family man who designed that wall, but the design was passed here in London. Then the whole estate was to be handed over to the Kenya Government without any kind of compensation being paid.
The question of security of tenure is important, but the Minister of Defence refused to deal with it. Libya is a typical case. We spent literally hundreds of millions of pounds there, and a good deal of it in the last few years, though everybody knew two years ago that our tenure would be very short. We have to take into consideration the whole sweep of Arab nationalism right through North Africa and the Middle East, and it is stupid to plan as though we are to stay in those countries for another 30 years. With this massive expenditure, the whole question of how long we will stay in a base should be considered.
With just one or two outstanding exceptions, wherever we travelled we found British bases in the turmoil of industrial disputes. Many of those disputes should never have taken place. They sprang up from simple trade union issues that could have been settled on the spot, but the man on the spot had not the power to settle them. Simple issues had not been settled after 18 months of meetings—and all because the man on the spot had to wait for instructions from Whitehall. In this modern world, this remote control just will not do. We cannot organise collective bargaining right across the world from the Admiralty, the Defence Ministry or the Royal Air Force in London. We have officers on the spot who are skilled in these labour problems, and we must give them powers to take some initiative and some power to make decisions.
A dispute at a British base very soon becomes a political matter. It turns the population sour. The people become anti-British and there develops a political question when really what is at stake is ½d. an hour in wages, a change in a shift rate or an extra statutory holiday on full pay based on the religion of the country. Those are
1354
simple issues that the man on the spot could settle, yet we get a whole dockyard closed down, or a whole base in turmoil, with pickets, with political con-fleet and with people working up a great anti-British fervour.
I hope that our Report and this debate will result in great savings to the taxpayers. Above all, I hope that there will be some change in the whole system of collective bargaining of the kind I have mentioned.
6.56 p.m.
Mr. Norman Pannell: I join with the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) in his tribute to the Chairman of our Committee. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) was a stern taskmaster—or, perhaps, a genial slave driver. He was always a wise counsellor and friend, and set a high standard of hard work that we tried to emulate. I, too, am grateful for the services rendered by the Clerks of the Committee and the officials of the Ministry.
I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) refer to these bases as this country's contribution to peace and security. It is a very expensive contribution. My hon. and gallant Friend has said that, excluding weapons, stores and supplies, the total cost is £334 million a year. What is not so generally recognised is that this is a contribution not only to the peace of the world but to the economies of the countries where the bases are. We are sometimes criticised for not paying enough of our national income to the under-developed countries, but our bases are largely situated in such countries and a very great deal of the money is spent for the benefit of their economy. There is no question of that.
Reference has been made to the insecurity of bases and it is a matter of great regret that, if they are, as they should be, regarded as bases for the furtherance of peace and stability, they do not get more support from our friends in the United Nations and from our friends and allies in the world in general; and that, when those bases are threatened, we are not supported more effectively by our friends in rebutting and combating those threats. In these

1355
overseas commitments, we bear a voluntary burden incomparably greater than that of any country other than the United States of America.
The Committee recognised in its Report the difficulty of insecurity of tenure and its criticisms were restrained accordingly. However, one or two criticisms remained. Whilst recognising that plans might easily be frustrated by events for which the British Government were not responsible, there were still criticisms about officers' quarters being built at great expense in Malta, and about certain expenditure in Kenya.
I should like to touch on one or two matters which I do not think have been specifically referred to by other hon. Members so far. One of these is the building projects that we saw. Much of the buildings was prefabricated. I thought that it was a very expensive type of prefabrication and perhaps not altogether suited to the conditions. I recognise that prefabrication is necessary if one is constructing a base quickly. There was an element of that with regard to El Adem and Cyprus, but there is less excuse for repeating the experiment when things have settled down and the same sense of urgency does not prevail.
It was disconcerting to find a prefabricated building in Cyprus which had been inflated in cost by the rigid conditions insisted upon in the building. It was required to be free from attack by termites, when termites do not exist in Cyprus. It was to be proof against gales, which are unknown in Cyprus. The answer was that these prefabricated buildings are essentially chosen because they have to be transferred if we have the misfortune of having to abandon a base. We found from inquiries, however, that it would cost as much to transport and rebuild them elsewhere as to obtain entirely new buildings from the United Kingdom. That argument therefore falls to the ground.
Have we paid attention to the possibility of building with local labour and local materials, or with imported materials and local labour? I have had experience of this in tropical Africa where it was the custom to import cement to make breeze blocks and to build with local labour on the spot.
1356
The buildings were very good. Tobruk is a few miles from El Adem. It is not a shanty town, though it may be a shabby town. The buildings are constructed of solid materials and if those can be built, as obviously they were, by local labour with imported materials, surely that can be done wherever buildings are erected for our Forces.
The need to provide air conditioning has been emphasised in the debate. In the matter of more accommodation for married quarters I depart from speakers on the question of air conditioning only on one point. I endured many years in the most trying tropical conditions without air conditioning, but I am the first to recognise that it is a great aid to efficiency, though not universally. One does not need it in every living room. One needs it in the bedroom and in the office where one works, but with that slight modification I accept that there should be an extension of air conditioning in the interests of efficiency.
All building, however, is very expensive, and if we are to embark on building, whether by importing prefabricated buildings or by building locally, the bill for married quarters, if the accommodation is to be adequate, will be colossal. This is why I support those hon. Members who have recommended that some study should be made of the possibility of unaccompanied tours. I know that it has been suggested that the tour might be one of only 12 months. I think that we can go further than that, especially in the area in which we were interested. It is not the Far East but the Mediterranean. Could there not be more frequent leaves if men leave their families at home?
The arithmetic of all this is rather startling. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said that roughly half our men are abroad, which means about 85,000. Pay and allowances for personnel amounted to £218 million, which is £2,500 per head. On the same reckoning, overseas works, including buildings and presumably married quarters, cost about £450 per head. Overseas movements, it is true not all connected with troops and their dependants going to and from this country, accounted for £300 per head. This gives a total of £3,250 per head per annum for every man sent overseas.

1357
This is why it is so important that we should study this question of unaccompanied tours. It is a little incongruous to go to some of these places and find a sort of Butlin's holiday camp with swimming pools, cinemas and clubs. It is not that I think that we should give the troops anything less. It is essential that we should give them these, but my argument is that the need for supplying them might be diminished. Fewer people should take their families out so that the need for these expensive amenities might be removed. I hope that this matter will not be allowed to drop. Even the question of offering a bonus to a man at the end of his tour, or at the end of his period of service, if he is unaccompanied might be considered.
The question of building married quarters in this country in that event becomes even more urgent. I thoroughly applaud efforts to provide those quarters here. It may be said to be a deterrent to recruiting to leave the families behind, though strangely enough naval men have the company of their families to a far less degree than do members of the other two Services and yet recruiting to the Navy is much easier. This makes one wonder whether all the implications of the problem have been fully considered.
Mr. R. T. Paget: Could the hon. Member help me on one point? I am surprised that the Estimates Committee said nothing about it. The hon. Member talked about the equipment of camps. It seemed to me to give an unwarranted sense of continuity when I saw that two churches, at a cost I should have thought of about £100,000, were being built at the Commonwealth Brigade Camp in Malaya. Has the hon. Member any opinions about that?
Mr. Pannell: I did not see that camp, but there was a striking example of a church in Kenya which I think received criticism from the Committee. The same has applied to certain expenditure on schools, which however might have greater utilitarian value than an expensive church building.
As for civilian employment, the question arose in Cyprus whether we were taking full advantage of the opportunities that were present. A comparison
1358
was made between the Royal Air Force and the Army. The Royal Air Force had a Service personnel of 7,400 and a civilian personnel of 2,300. The Army had 4,300 Service men and 6,000 civilians. In other words, the proportion of civilians was 25 per cent. in the Royal Air Force and 60 per cent. in the Army. The answer we were given was that there were difficulties in finding qualified men, that the conditions were rather different in the R.A.F. and that there was the question of security. There has been and there is a continuing opportunity to test whether security has been endangered in these rather turbulent days in Cyprus. If, as a result, the argument that security is an important point is disposed of, the Secretary of State for Defence, acting for the Royal Air Force, might be able to rethink the problem of employing civilians in that Service.
I enjoyed the perhaps undeserved privilege of being a member of the Committee. I hope that we have produced a Report of value which will result in some service to the taxpayer.
7.10 p.m.
Mr. Dick Taverne: I was not a member of the Committee and I am in no position to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) in some of the detailed points which he raised, although I listened to his speech with the greatest interest. I wish to return to a point raised in a number of speeches, namely, the question of costing. I was particularly glad that the Secretary of State said that this whole matter was to be reviewed and that in future it would become possible to base a rational defence policy on knowing what we spent and knowing whether it was worth spending the sums involved. I thought that on this issue the Report of the Committee was, if anything, rather mild. After saying that it could not give the expense attributable to a particular base because it was said that, after all, bases were maintained for the operation of our forces and that redeployment was undertaken for strategic reasons, not on financial grounds, the Committee said:
"Your Committee do not altogether accept this argument. While strategic considerations must be paramount, the Defence Budget as a whole is limited, and its size is determined not

1359
only by the needs of the armed Services but also by what the national economy can afford".
I think that that was putting it very mildly indeed.
I wish to look at the matter in a slightly different way and examine our defence expenditure with particular reference to the relevance which particular bases have to our balance of payments. How far can we, or should we, break down the costs in order to determine how far bases are an avoidable drain on our balance of payments which, of course, affects the country's welfare as a whole?
I take the example of the Middle East an area in regard to which, perhaps, there is particular need at this time for a dispassionate appraisal, now that certain high emotions have been raised. It is very difficult to arrive at any estimate of what our commitment in the Middle East costs us. Looking at the total picture of costs and the balance of payments, one finds in the 1963 White Paper on the National Income and Balance of Payments that the total of military expenditure having relevance to the balance of payments was £247 million. It is a debit item of £247 million in total. This has not been broken down into sterling and non-sterling to give an indication of what the commitments in the Far East and Middle East might be. However, in the 1961 figures there was a breakdown of the total of £227 million lost on the balance of payments for foreign commitments, and about £137 million was sterling and about £90 million was non-sterling. One can probably deduce from this that the approximate figure of sterling payments out of the £247 million debit in 1963 was about £150 million.
From the 10th Report one finds that the total figures are rather larger. In 1962–63, the total was £334 million and for 1963–64 it was about £20 million more. If one applies this to the current situation, it is reasonable to assume that the balance of payments deficit attributable to military expenditure overseas is something like £170 million.
When we try to go further to see how far we can attribute any part of this to the bases at, say, Aden and the Middle East, we find that we do not
1360
know. We have no rational basis for judging the effect of the Middle East base in what it gains and what it costs us. The appalling fact is that not only do we not know how much money we spend but, on the other side of the equation, we do not know what we spend it for.
It is sometimes suggested that the purpose of the bases in the Middle East is part of the general strategy against Communism. But, of course, the presence of military forces in that part of the world is more likely to lead to the Arabs turning more closely to the Soviet bloc rather than to the prevention of the spread of Communism. It has been suggested—I do not want to go into detail, and I have discussed this on another occasion in the defence debate—that the Middle East base is a vital staging post. For the Far East, there is an alternative route, the west-about route via Canada.
The other main reason for the presence of our Forces in the Middle East is, of course, oil. Here we find that not only do we not know how much money we spend to protect our oil interests but we do not know the other side of the equation we do not know how much money is brought in by our oil. Here is material for precisely the sort of exercise which I hope that our foreign policy planners and our defence planners will undertake.
From the 1963 White Paper, one derives no assistance at all. The only item referable to income from oil in the balance of payments is the item entitled "Other" under the subhead "Interest, Profits and Dividends". This is not exactly helpful. The total is £324 million, but we have no idea how it is to be broken up. A study of this was done in 1960, with some valuable result, and this suggests that out of the figure of £330 million at that time listed under "Other", about £144 million was, perhaps, attributable to oil revenues. But this "Other" item appears also on the debit side of the account, and one has also to look at the movement of capital.
If one refers again to the 1963 White Paper, one finds that there is a loss of about £97 million on capital account currency investment overseas which includes oil company investment and insurance company investment. So we have

1361
no idea at all what the gain is to our balance of payments from the oil interest which we are supposed to be protecting by our military expenditure in the Middle East. We cannot do either side of the sum, and there is no rational basis for arriving at a realistic assessment of what the expenditure is really worth. It is also said that the presence of our Forces in the area is a very important factor because of the effect there might be on our general economic position if, say, the sterling balances of the Middle East countries were withdrawn. However, this also is a quite unsatisfactory point. We know from the last Bank of England Bulletin, for December, 1963, that the sterling balances of the Middle East countries, that is, the Gulf States, Jordan and Libya, amount to £423 million. In an article in the Financial Times today the estimate for Kuwait is about £300 million.
Is this part of the justification for the presence of our Forces in the Middle East? If it is, it is a rather expensive item, about £50 million to preserve a deposit of about £300 million. Quite apart from anything else, it is extremely doubtful whether, in fact, the withdrawal of military protection would lead to the withdrawal of sterling balances which not only get a high rate of interest and can be easily withdrawn but are banked in a country where there is a tradition of non-political banking as opposed to other possible places for the deposit of money where the situation might be rather different.
In trying to make a realistic appraisal of the expenditure we find that we do not know what is actually spent and we do not know what the receipts are, either. The whole thing is entirely surrounded by myth. It is part of the conventional wisdom of our day to say that our Middle East commitments are essential for the purpose of safeguarding British interests in oil, but we do not know how much we spend and or how much we gain. Nor, for that matter, is sufficient attention devoted to the connection between the sums we spend and the receipts we get. We do not consider sufficiently the question whether or not these receipts would cease to come to us if the expenditure were cut down.
Several questions arise here. Undoubtedly, the presence of our Forces in
1362
these bases is to some extent a positive danger. They are an irritant. It is not likely that the oil producing companies would cease to supply oil, but, on the other hand, it is rather less unlikely that, at a period of general excitement in the Middle East, countries through which the oil pipelines passed might interfere with the oil supplies, as happened at the time of Suez. Second, it is rather doubtful whether, in view of the cost structure of the oil industry and its marketing arrangements, it would pay any of the countries concerned to cut off oil supplies to this country or expropriate the oil companies, having regard to the difficulty of marketing the oil and the doubt about whether they would, in fact, gain anything at all in the way of revenue.
I see the, hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) in his place. I read the article that he wrote in the Daily Mail today, and I agree to a large extent with what he wrote. If one looks at the military protection supposed to be given and the results it is supposed to produce, what do we find? In Iraq, when we had troops there, the oil flowed, and when we ceased to have Forces there the oil continued to flow. When Nuri-Es-Said was in charge the oil flowed and so did it when Kassim was in charge, and with the present régime. The whole connection between military expenditure and the flow of oil and the receipts from oil which we are supposed to be safeguarding has not been proved.
I hope that the next Government will look very hard at these facts and do some concrete economic sums. At the moment, the position is that the economists say: "So far as our balance of payments are concerned our military expenditure is a pain in the neck; the military expenditure is something which is a grave embarrassment, but, of course, strategic considerations may make it necessary." Often when we approach military men and ask what they think about our presence in the Middle East, they say: "It may be an awkward position for us to be in the Middle East and it raises all sorts of awkward commitments, which we do not necessarily like, but it is necessary for economic interests to safeguard the oil."
We have the economists using bogus strategic arguments and the strategists using bogus economic arguments. This

1363
may not be entirely so, but the position has never been fully studied or fully gone into. My own hunch is that if this inquiry is made we may well find that we spend far more than we can afford aiming to protect benefits which have been vastly exaggerated, and that we are seeking to do it by means ill-designed to achieve that end.
7.22 p.m.
Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I thought that when the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) was speaking that, although the voice was the voice of Lincoln, the words were the words of Lancaster. The article which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) has in the Daily Mail today has been re-echoed by the hon. Member, and I would only say that I am sorry to see my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster associating himself with an attitude of mind which is all too typical of the party opposite but which used not to be typical of our party on this side of the House.
I approach this Report of the Select Committee with one absolute certainty in my mind, that we are spending not too much but too little on the defence of this country. Wherever one goes, one knows perfectly well that the Forces having to do the job have not everything they want, and they never will get it as long as we limit our expenditure to 7 per cent. of the gross national product. If the defence of this country is not worth ensuring for 10 per cent. of its gross national product, I do not know what it is worth. That is my preconceived approach to this Report.
It is very easy for hon. Members, whether members of the Select Committee on Estimates or of any other committee, to spend a few days in an area and to come away with certain obvious ideas which perhaps have been put into their minds by certain people who feel strongly on this, that or the other. In doing this, with the best will in the world and the highest motives, they come back with an impression which cannot possibly be as accurate as it must be if we are to make sense of all these matters.
Every time I have been posted overseas, I reckon that it takes at least three months before one begins to get some
1364
grip on the situation locally. However desirable it is that we should encourage hon. Members to visit abroad, I think that they are very brave men indeed who, when they come back after a visit of a few days, feel really qualified to speak in much detail on what they have seen and heard. Whilst I in no way wish to derogate from the importance of the Select Committee on Estimates and the Sub-Committees it appoints, I have always been suspicious of Reports from the Committee for this reason. When the Reports come after tours abroad, I am even more suspicious, because it is essential to get into the atmosphere of these base areas or zones where we are deeply committed before one can start adjudicating on the rights and wrongs of the policies being pursued there.
I would say straight away that I agree with something that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) once said when he asked, "What do we think the Armed Forces are for?" What I am quite certain they are not for is as a means of conveying the British Welfare State about the world. Their purpose is to play their part in defending the world and in deterring war. That is their object. Now and again that can be a very uncomfortable exercise for those most deeply involved in it. Whilst I am all for ensuring the utmost comfort for the maximum number of people, I am not prepared to support in any way something which, when expenditure is limited, results in expenditure being placed on the nonessentials at the expense of the essentials.
There are a great many things in this Report which have a bearing on this. In saying that, I do not wish in any way to underestimate the importance of married quarters to the success of our recruiting programme. I would far prefer to see this Sub-Committee spending all its time with B.A.O.R., in Cyprus or in Aden than have it scampering round several places. It would be far better for us to make a study first of B.A.O.R. in detail.
I am absolutely convinced that we have not exhausted all the possibilities of getting B.A.O.R. on to a one-year tour basis. I know that the Americans tried it at one time and had to give it up. I think that perhaps the reason they did so was because of the enor-

1365
mous distances involved. This problem I do not think arises here. I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that until we have solved the B.A.O.R. problem and got the answer to it right, none of the rest will be possible of the best solution.
As long as we have the heavy commitment in B.A.O.R. and the vast expenditure we are indulging in on married quarters there, on the assumption that we are not going to have a one-year tour only, it will be all the more difficult to do for the other areas what we would like to do in providing married quarters and other amenities. I made this suggestion tentatively in a debate on the Estimates last year. This might be something which we should look at again, despite the United States experience, because circumstances are different for the United States forces in Europe from what they are for our own. I believe that this is the dominant problem that affects the whole of British Army policy and that all that this Committee has reported upon is not possible of solution in the way that we would all hope until we have solved that problem.
So far as service in Arab countries is concerned—I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster is not here because I want to come back to the article that he wrote in today's Daily Mail—we have to recognise that one thing that we did which has never been forgiven and never will be forgiven by any Arab country was to move out of the mandate of Palestine and allow the State of Israel to be established. Whatever the rights of that, it would be difficult to argue it today. I have always had sympathy with the Arabs in this attitude. I cannot see how we can ever hope for a solution of our difficulties with Egypt and the Yemen until that issue has been cleared up. So long as those millions of Arab refugees remain, so long will there never be a solution of the problem confronting us in Aden because of the Yemen and Egypt. If the Government want to solve this problem, they should take a new initiative in the United Nations to get something done about Arab refugees. Until that happens, the position in Aden will worsen.
I have not been to Aden myself. I have read a good deal about it, and
1366
I have talked to a good many people who have served there. I know that the conditions are about as unpleasant as one could find. There are not many areas which are less attractive for British people to live in. If we regard this as a vital area, as I hope we do, we must make the lives of our troops there as comfortable as possible, subject to the exigencies of service which are inevitable when there are maraudings across frontiers.
I regard Aden as vital for a reason which, apparently, has not occurred to either the hon. Member for Lincoln or my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster. It is not oil which makes Aden important. If only hon. Members would do what I have repeatedly begged them to do in debates on the Service Estimates, namely, to look at globes instead of maps, they would see why. It is our polar position in the world which makes it essential that we have various strong points along the lines of communication about the world. We are in a unique position on the surface of the globe. It is for this reason that we must have what I call a triadic policy of the Army, Navy and Air Force. I believe Aden to be a vital point in these lines of communication. It is not, therefore, only oil about which I am concerned.
It is for this reason that we must ensure that we do not allow the position in Aden to get so bad that eventually we have to give it up. We must stay there for the foreseeable future. The sooner that is made absolutely clear to the world the better. I am very glad to see what has been said by the military commanders on the spot. Much as one regrets the apparent misunderstandings which have arisen over recent incidents, wt at the military commanders have said about our intentions to deal with the situation is absolutely right and highly admirable.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right to bring about centralisation of the control of the land occupied by the Armed Forces. I take his decision to mean that all the airfields and port and harbour installations—everything which comes within the purview of the Ministry of Defence—will be dealt with centrally in the one Department presided over by

1367
the Minister of Defence for the Army. I commend that. I am sure that it is right. If that is the purpose of setting up this new federal department, I am sure that it is most important that this should happen. I sympathise with my right hon. Friend, because I feel that he will have one or two kicks against this before long.
The hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) completely missed the point when he suggested that because of this decision the Ministry of Public Building and Works should be again divided so that the Ministry of Defence takes over the defence building. To my mind, the combination of the two makes it all the more important that there should be one Department in the Ministry of Defence dealing with this. Having made great play at my right hon. Friend's expense about what had happened in, I think, 1956, the hon. Member completely overlooked the significance of the change which had taken place in combining Ministry building with Service building. It was a perfectly proper decision which my right hon. Friend took, and I congratulate him on it.
On costings, it is proper that my right hon. Friend should ensure that his Department does not overspend and that what it spends is spent as well as possible. Having been at the Treasury, he will naturally have that instinct in him. I hope that no one, as a result of this Report, will get the impression that the Armed Forces are being given too much money. Let us be clear that the responsibility of the Armed Forces to keep the peace in the world today is so great—and they are fulfilling a rôle which only this country can fulfil—that we are probably spending millions of pounds too few each year to enable them to carry out their task. However desirable all these other things may be, it is sometimes worth while thinking about what would happen if the Armed Forces were not able to preserve the peace. While I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) and his Sub-Committee on the great assiduity that they have shown in their exercise, I hope that they will understand why I am a little suspicious of some of the conclusions which they have drawn.
7.35 p.m.
Mr. Harold Davies: It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), whose sincerity this House does not doubt. However, he has completely missed the purpose of an Estimates Committee. I would be out of order if I were to follow what he said. We were seven very different types of people on the Estimates Committee. There were three Conservatives and three Socialists. Two of us would be considered, in loose language, to be Left-wingers. There was, however, one thing which we tried to do—to carry out our function as the watchdog of the House of Commons, to consider military and other expenditure and to keep clear of Government policy and pet theories. As I have said many times, I have pet theories on the Far East, but I propose to keep away from them. Therefore, let us be clear about the purpose of an Estimates Committee. I know that it is elementary, but I think that it should be on the record.
I am grateful to the Government for having instituted the system whereby the findings of Estimates Committees may be debated in Government time, thereby according to an Estimates Committee, whatever it may have been examining, its proper place and dignity within the gamut of our constitutional procedure.
Standing Order No. 80 states:
"There shall be a select committee, to be designated the Estimates Committee, to examine such of the estimates presented to this House as may seem fit to the committee and report how, if at all, the policy implied in those estimates may be carried out more economically and, if the Committee think fit, to consider the principal variations between the estimates and those relating to the previous financial year".
That is the operative part of the Standing Order. It is absolutely wrong to think that we said that too much was spent on the Armed Forces. We did not say that.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I did not say that the Estimates Committee did say that.
Mr. Davies: That was the implication of the hon. Member's speech. No one wants to criticise military expenditure

1369
more than we do, but let us get the record straight.
Whatever sum of money the Government have decided to expend, the only function of the Estimates Committee is to see that, after it has been approved by the House of Commons, it is spent wisely. Whenever I see some of our troops playing brag with a dirty pack of cards in a N.A.A.F.I. canteen, I resent it as much as I did during the war. I want our forces to have the best. One has only to study Caesar's campaigns against the Celts, when the Roman soldiers were grumbling that they did not have in Bicknor, Bristol and Caerlon all that they wanted, to realise that no military people in history have ever had from their Government all that they wanted. Let us spike the debate down to the purpose of the Estimates Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) wishes to add to Standing Order No. 80 to set up a Select Committee of 15 with the special privilege of examining military expenditure. That is completely different from the purpose of the Estimates Committee. It is all right if the Secretary of State, in his wisdom, decides to call on 15 experts in the House to go overseas, accompanied by other experts to advise them, to study strategic, logistic and other problems, but that is not the rightful function of the Estimates Committee.
With all due respect to you, Mr. Speaker—and I am making no criticism of your Rulings or those of anyone else in the Chair—I consider that 50 per cent. of today's debate has been out of order. At this juncture, it is the Estimate Committee's job to watch the spending of the taxpayer's money.
When we are asked about bringing in experts, I say, "Let us beware of experts." For example, I have taken an interest in atomic energy for years. I was putting down Questions about it twenty years ago, as were other hon. Members. Who among us would have questioned its progress in face of such enthusiastic articles in the scientific Press, in the Financial Times, in the Manchester Guardian, as it was then, and in other authoritative journals, about the wonderful discoveries of such things as Zeta? People made speeches about the great changes
1370
already under way and how sea water would be turned into gold. We were told we would have the Midas touch. Wonderful articles were written by people who were not themselves experts but who were advised by experts.
Some experts ooze with expertise and completely lack common sense and wisdom. One needs the balance of the layman, who quite rightly takes the advice of the expert and respects it, but who, because he does not live within the periphery of one specialised range of knowledge, is able to mesh the experts into life and living. What we on the Estimates Committee try to do is to mesh the experts into the needs of the House and the country.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely asked how, on a short visit, we could get to know about a country. We were not there to do that. In any case, most of us had been there before. We were not there to study the local diet or the religious customs of the Adenese, the Maltese or the Malaysians. We were there to look at British expenditure by and for British people on behalf of the British Government, which is a thing we were qualified to judge. No doubt the hon. Member himself would have pronounced judgment on these things, and, indeed, we would have valued his help. I want it put on record that I do not think that this debate has been used to the advantage that could have been gained in discussion on the Estimates Committee and its purpose.
One hon. Member has already referred to costing. As we point out in the Report, we were told that there is no method of costing of bases. I am not blaming the system of accountancy. Nor do I blame the Government entirely. This is a very difficult and complex matter. But it is a fact that we cannot arrive at the cost of a base anywhere in the world. There are, however, modern computer methods and modern accountancy systems, and it is essential to use these. Even a Labour Government could not judge the cost of bases without such methods. I hope I have put that point fairly enough.
I believe that such methods are necessary for the future, becauses no analysis of the country's economy in relation to the military machine will be

1371
worth anything otherwise. We need valid answers to such questions as how much we can spend on welfare, health, pensions and other things. But how can we make a really valid judgment if we do not know the costs of what are regarded as essential bases overseas?
Aneurin Bevan resigned over this issue, and the dynamic personality now sitting opposite to me—the Secretary of State himself—a few years ago stood up in this House and talked about the relativity of military expenditure to the economy. I am not making a crack at him. I am merely stating the facts of our expenditure. Consequently, we must put our house in order. If the military people and the Defence Department say that they cannot find out the costs of bases, we must nevertheless order them to find out so that we can study the costs—allowing for a reasonable margin of error—in this House.
There is another misunderstanding among some hon. Members. I have had a number of letters about married quarters, and the Secretary of State was kind enough to consider them. The suggestion has been made that we could give a grant to a man to go overseas for a short time unaccompanied. I have suggested £500 or £600 as this incentive. This money could be put in a bank to be used by the man towards buying a house when he finished his service with the Forces. Of course, such a scheme would have to be voluntary. Would it work?
I do not know whether it would. I have discussed it with troops in many parts of the world. Some of the younger ones have said they would not have it at any price. It has not been mentioned today, but on page 149 of the Report of the Estimates Committee we said—discussing personnel maintenance rates in Malta—
"The current policy of all three Services is that wherever possible the married officer or man posted for service overseas should be accompanied by his wife and family. Great importance was attached by the Grigg Committee (Cmnd. 545) to the development of this policy on grounds of recruiting and morale but other considerations are, of course, involved."
Later we go on:
"The question of the current restriction on the recruitment of married men is not directly linked with the problems of accom-
1372
panied service overseas. As the Secretary of State for War explained in the House on 14th March, 1963, recruiting for the Army is now entering a new phase. In the final build-up emphasis is being placed on getting the right men, and getting them into the right Arms and Corps. The recent restrictions on recruiting, and a revised selection procedure, have been devised to meet the needs of this new phase. So far as married men are concerned they are now accepted only if:—

(a)they have certain specified qualifications, or trade skills;

(b)they are ex-Service men; or

(c)they can claim a relation, past or present, in the corps or regiment of their choice."

That implies, whether the House likes it or not, that the cost of married quarters overseas has influenced our recruitment policy. This is a factor the House should bear in mind.
To sum up, we were grateful to the Ministry of Defence for putting all the facilities at our disposal, but the House should realise that it is in command and should demand its own right to go overseas. We ourselves had to send for another clerk. It was not a matter of working six hours a day. Sometimes we worked 14 hours a day in the heat. Therefore, our clerks were overworked. No typists were sent there for us. We had to beg from the Ministry of Defence, and the Services, with pleasure, gave us typists and so on.
Never again—we were pioneers in this—should an Estimates Committee go overseas representing this Mother of Parliaments and yet dependent on the charity or even the courtesy of Ministers of Defence or other Ministries in doing so. It should go as of right. It should have stenographers—I do not like the word—and clerks, so that we do not depend on the people we may have to criticise or the people who may be helping us.
I believe that we broke fresh ice. For the first time we have looked into military expenditure overseas as the House of Commons has never before quite looked into it. Whatever the destiny of our political lives may be after the General Election, I hope that this tradition will be maintained and the procedure improved and that new methods of checks and surveys of military expenditure will be evolved, not for the good of one party but for the good of the British taxpayer.
7.52 p.m.
Captain Walter Elliot: I am not a members of the Estimates Committee. I hope that the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) will not think I am out of order in anything I say, but I think that during the debate we have been lucky in being allowed to discuss to a certain extent policy, which seems to be absolutely right, since it is policy which basically is responsible for expenditure.
First, I support most strongly my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) in his statement that our Forces and bases in various areas of the world are not there to protect only our commercial interests. It may be important that they should be there for that purpose, but that is by no means the most important purpose. I was most alarmed to hear the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the Opposition's Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, remark that none of our overseas bases are necessary for the security of this country. I may not have got his exact words, but that was the meaning of them.
Mr. Harold Davies: The words were "for the survival of this country". That has a different connotation.
Captain Elliot: I am prepared to accept the word "survival"; it makes little difference; but I thought the hon. Gentleman said "security". His words reminded me very much of the words spoken before the last war about Czechoslovakia, a country far away about which we knew little. I should have thought that by now most people in this country, and certainly most hon. Members, would take the view that the defence, the security or survival of this country is not assured only from this country. On the contrary, the defence or survival of this country and of the Western world is secured by the presence of our forces in segments or areas dotted all round the world. I hope that when the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) winds up the debate for the Opposition he will say something about that and state whether he agrees with that or not.
I want to reiterate something that one or two other hon. Members have said. I must confess—I have said this previously—that I have found somewhat
1374
irksome the fact that as the bases which we build in overseas countries are completed, or just before or just after they are completed, they are absorbed, through political developments, by the countries in which they are built. My right hon. Friend asked us to go carefully on the question of security of tenure because if we examined the security of our overseas bases too closely we might come to the conclusion that none was secure. I do not think that we should necessarily come to that conclusion, but if we did, we certainly ought to take it into account. Without going into it at length, I should like to commend for his consideration the provision of mobile bases. They need strong, secure areas from which they can emerge, but mobile bases could provide everything that is necessary, as they did in the last war, for the operations that we have in mind in many areas of the world where we have responsibilities.
There have been quotations from the very excellent Report of some items of expenditure which might have been saved if we had considered political developments. There was the housing in Malta, the primary school and the shop at Gilgil in Kenya, and, above all, the Templar Barracks. I seem to have recollections of a base at MacKinnon Road in Kenya which was being developed not long ago, and it always struck me that it would have very little use in the future, but that is not mentioned.
Perhaps these things are past, but there is one place at which it might be possible to save money, and that is mentioned in paragraph 15 of the Report. I refer to El Adem and the accommodation for families. I would be the last to say that one should economise on housing for the families of Servicemen overseas. I do not know whether El Adem has changed very much since I knew it during the war—I very much doubt whether it has—and whether the addition of some married quarters would improve it greatly—I doubt it.
However, recently there have been rumblings in Libya throwing doubt on the security of our tenure there. I do not know what they amount to, but we have done without accommodation there for a good many years, and it

1375
appears now, according to the Committee, that 101 married quarters are being built there at a cost of about £700,000. I do not know when these will be completed, but I hope that consideration that will be given to whether they will be completed in time or not. I should have thought that if that was an unaccompanied station, it would have been easy, with modern air communications, to give leave to the men and fly them home as a temporary measure if in due course the base was to be given up.
The other point, which was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely, is the question of amenities such as housing, and weighing these against the operational facilities that are necessary. My hon. Friend did not quote the case mentioned in the Report and I should like to do so. The Report draws attention to the current years works estimate for Cyprus which includes £1,245,000 for married quarters, and the completion of a new hospital costing nearly £1 million. I have no doubt that they are extremely important, but a figure of only £311,000 is quoted for airfield works and it is suggested that the operational facilities at the airfield are less than could be desired. This is very important, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will pay attention to it. It is no good building up amenities if the troops have not the wherewithal with which to fight.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing into effect the single administration for land. This will be an enormous achievement if it works, and if my right hon. Friend can do that he will be able to do practically anything in getting common services between the three arms. I have in mind medical services, the procurement of common stores, provisions, and so on, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will pursue that line to the bitter end.
I go much further than my right hon. Friend does, in that I believe that we should have one Service, but there are many common services which at present could be administered by one authority. I hope that my right hon. Friend will press forward with that, because I think that it will have good effects on the three Services as a whole quite apart from the immediate economies.
8.2 p.m.
Mr. R. T. Paget: This is a relatively new procedure, and I feel that if we are to make it work properly we must play fair by the other Sub-Committees. That means giving the Home Office the best part of two hours, and therefore I shall cut my speech short by saying nothing more.
8.3 p.m.
Sir Godfrey Nicholson: I am sure that the House appreciates the generosity of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), but regrets that it will prevent us from hearing another of his eloquent speeches.
I have very little to say beyond a few words in my capacity as Chairman of the Estimates Committee. I thank the House for a very good debate. It has, I hope, justified the existence of the Estimates Committee.
Various themes have run through the debate. I propose to deal with only one for about two minutes. I am referring to the remarks, some well informed, some ill informed, about the functions of the Estimates Committee. It has not been pointed out clearly, except by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), that this was a pioneer exercise in that for constitutional reasons, which cannot be surmounted, the Estimates Committee cannot go abroad as the Estimates Committee. We could not have a Committee which represented the House in miniature at the mercy of an external Government, nor could it send for people and papers if it was abroad. That is categorical, and I cannot see how one can get round that.
The Minister of Defence was good enough to invite members of the Sub-Committee to come as individuals to collect all the information that they could. In this way back benchers can familiarise themselves with Government expenditure abroad, whether it is defence expenditure or any other. I hope that one moral of this Report and this debate is that this practice should be greatly extended.
I hope that hon. Members will not go too far in pressing for the setting up of an expert Select Committee which will cross-examine Ministers and examine Departments, permanent defence committees, or whatever they are, because

1377
the Estimates Committee, in so far as it achieves success does so for one reason, and one reason only, namely, that its affairs are conducted in an all-party spirit. The day when party politics rears its ugly head in a Select Committee will be the day when that Committee is finished and done for, and the system begins to meet its doom.
It is my proud boast that since I have been Chairman of the Estimates Committee—not because of it, but coincidentally—there has not been a division of opinion in that Committee. I guarantee that if an outside visitor, or a man from Mars, watched the proceedings of the Committee he would not have the faintest idea to which parties the various Members belonged. This Sub-Committee, with at least two ebullient and colourful Members on it, acted in complete harmony. Any Select Committee of the House, which must consist of Members of all parties, can be useful only if it retains that all-party, or non-party, spirit.
I do not wish to keep the House from the next subject for debate, and I hope that my hon. Friend will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Sir F. Markham: I can more than take a hint, especially when it comes from the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson), and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

HOME OFFICE (ESTIMATES COMMITTEE'S REPORTS)
8.7 p.m.
Sir Eric Errington: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"this House takes note of the Eleventh Report from the Estimates Committee in the last Session of Parliament and of the Second Special Report from the Estimates Committee relating to the Home Office".
I should like to thank those who have made possible this second discussion following the Report of the Estimates Committee. This is the Eleventh Report of the Estimates Committee, and it deals with the Home Office.
1378
There have been two debates on this matter. The first was on 27th November last year, on the Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. During that debate the Joint Under-Secretary of State, and the Home Secretary himself at col. 346 promised that there would be a review dealing with the whole question of immigration—not just the particular points to which the Report called the attention of the Home Office. So far nothing has eventuated. What is the position with regard to that review? What conclusions have been reached? When was the review started? There seems to be some doubt about whether it was started early this year, or early in the Session. That means that already 12 months have elapsed without any result being produced.
I am particularly concerned about this, because there was not a word to the Sub-Committee investigating these matters that there was to be a review of any kind. It was promised that the results of the review would be available very shortly. Four or five months have elapsed since the Home Secretary undertook to report the results of that review to the House.
One of the most valuable things about these debates is that one can follow up these matters, so that one does not feel that their investigation produces no result at all. This is particularly true of the Home Office. I do not want to be more contentious than is necessary, but in my opinion the whole attitude of the Home Office in regard to this Eleventh Report amounted to a brush-off of the Committee, which had gone into these matters as carefully as it was able to do.
The other matter debated, which was raised in an Adjournment debate on 2nd December, concerned the publication of Civil Defence Handbook No. 10. The Government spokesman on that occasion—I believe it was the Joint Under-Secretary—said that the document was a training manual. If it was a training manual it is an extraordinary thing that on page 4 it said quite clearly:
"This booklet tells you what you could do to protect yourself, your family and your home."
It was suggested that the Home Office should have produced a handbook which would have been more acceptable. What the Estimates Committee had to do, and what it rightly did, was to call attention

1379
to what it considered to be a waste of money. Those are the two matters which have been before the House previously, following on this Report.
The next matter to which I must call attention is Recommendation (12), which deals with the development of the criminal law, and refers specifically to the Fugitive Offenders Act. In 1962, following the then crisis in Cyprus, it was thought that the Act should be amended. After two years had passed it was not unreasonable to ask what was being done about it. It was then said that the matter was one for consultation, and that consultation took a certain amount of time. But it is not unreasonable to ask what has been done about that Recommendation, which related to a question that was particularly exemplified by the case of Chief Enahoro.
A year had elapsed between the Cyprus incident and the case of Chief Enahoro and now, when almost another year has passed, we ought to know what the situation is. I am sorry to be so categorical, but I do not want to spend more time than is necessary in making my speech.
Recommendation (12), to which I have already referred, asks that immediate steps should be taken to reorganise the division of responsibilities between the Home Office, the Treasury and the Lord Chancellor's Office. The observation made in regard to that Recommendation was that two further Reports of the Criminal Law Revision Committee have been dealt with. The somewhat woolly statement goes on to say:
"There is close co-operation between the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department on all matters of common concern: a recent example is the appointment of a working party of representatives of these and of other interested Departments to review the effectiveness of the present system for the provision of court accommodation in England and Wales."
Then there is a further reference, after which the statement goes on:
"The Secretary of State and the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor, will, however, take a suitable opportunity of examining any further points of detail in relation to which there may be doubt as to the precise division of responsibility between Departments."
That is not satisfactory. Even Sir Charles Cunningham, in evidence, indicated that there was no logical reason for this distinction, which was a difficult
1380
one to make, and he said that it was to a great extent an historical one which did not always lead to a line of demarcation which could be defended as strictly logical on every ground, but which worked reasonably well. It is not using one's imagination too much to visualise a nice cosy chat about the situation.
In criminal courts the Lord Chancellor is responsible for the administration and the appointment of officers, while the Home Secretary deals with procedure. On the other hand, in the magistrates' courts the Home Secretary deals with administration and the appointment of officers, while the Lord Chancellor deals with procedure. One can imagine a very nice friendly arrangement being arrived at, which would make it very puzzling to know whose really was the responsibility for these matters, which are of grave importance and which require careful consideration.
I am convinced that this historical difficulty ought to be cleared up. There should be a complete overhaul, and some arrangement should be made as a result of which there would be a clear division of responsibility, and no investigation would be required. This does not mean that we should have some body which turns out laws and runs things entirely separately, over and above the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department, but the existing responsibility should be made quite clear, so that there is no need for these discussions.
Next, I want to refer to the question of the general department, which has been described as the residuary legatee—which is a very polite way of referring to what is coloquially called a "rag-bag" of all the things that nobody else has. This is Recommendation (18):
"…to review the whole structure and organisation of the General Department with a view not only to improving its organisation, but also to ascertaining whether any of its duties might not more appropriately be performed by other Government Departments."
The observation was a rather terse one—"This is being done."
I should like to know what is being done about this matter. What has happened as the result of the review? Is the Home Secretary really satisfied that a happy combination of racial discrimination and explosives is the most desirable way of running our affairs?

1381
I hope that I shall be forgiven for my anxiety not to speak for too long, because I know other hon. Members wish to speak. I may, therefore, have covered some matters rather scrappily. I come finally to Recommendation (13) which relates to grants to the Metropolitan Police. Originally someone could not resolve the situation in respect of what ought to be paid to the Metropolitan Police, and said, "We will pay £100,000 a year." That has gone up to £500,000. We suggested an immediate inquiry for
"a more appropriate system of payment to the Metropolitan Police for their special services."
I submit that that is the right way to treat this matter which is essentially one for the Estimates Committee. A sum of £500,000 is being paid, and that may be the right or the wrong amount. But no one can know more about it. It has been agreed by the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police that this is what they will do:
"The Secretary of State is satisfied that the circumstances in which the Metropolitan Police are required to undertake special services are unique, and that the principle of an additional Exchequer grant to the Metropolitan Police Fund on that account should be maintained. There however, great difficulties in making any precise assessment or allocation of the specific costs from year to year of particular services in this field. The Secretary of State and the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury therefore agreed, after careful examination, that the grant should continue from 1961–62 to be paid on a flat rate basis, but at a level revalued to take account, among other things, of the change in money values; and they do not consider that a further inquiry would reveal a more appropriate system of payment in this case."
That seems to me an intolerable answer to give to the Estimates Committee. After all, there must be responsibilities for Estimates and the agreement is apparently passed on what is known as a careful examination, but there is no indication of what was the careful examination. There is no indication of how the £100,000 has gone up to £500,000. The only answer is that it seems to be the figure agreed between the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police authorities. Since the original arrangement was made the block grant system has come into being and surely some consideration should be given to dividing up the amount so that one may know what the Exchequer is paying for.
1382
I am sorry that we are critical of the manner in which this matter has been dealt with. But these are things which we examine carefully in order to be helpful and to improve administration. I do not often quote from The Times. but it stated that the Estimates Committee is the eyes and ears of the public whose interests the Departments are maintained to serve. There is nothing exactly parallel to the Home Office, and that we realise; but to promise reviews and not to produce them and report to the House means that the Estimates Committee is justified in raising these matters at every opportunity until something is done and is seen to have been done.
8.28 p.m.
Mr. John Rankin: My first duty is to pay tribute to the Chairman of Sub-Committee C. He carried out his duties during long sittings with fidelity and assiduity which recommended itself to every member of the Committee. No sub-committee could have had a more competent chairman or a better guide than the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington). I am certain that every member of the Sub-Committee will agree with what I have said when tomorrow, I hope, they read it in HANSARD.
I support the hon. Member very firmly in all that he said. He felt, and I also think, that the Home Office has treated this whole matter with the sort of light touch that we associate with Puck and not with the sober mien of a Home Secretary. I should not perhaps be over-strong in my language, but we feel that the work we put into this task has been ill-judged by the Home Office, or perhaps I should say by the Home Secretary, and has not received the treatment which our labours deserved.
It may be merely a coincidence, but it is also apposite, that we were concerned with the safety of our fellow citizens in the event of war and were meeting in the trail of a fellow sub-committee which had been dealing with the military aspect of this problem. In a way, the two were complementary, but the contrasting treatment meted out to them was distinctive. The earlier subcommittee was dealing with a Treasury expenditure of about £2,000 million. Its job was to consider what I may crudely describe as the destruction of human life

1383
while ours was to consider trying to save human life. We, from the same source, get £23 million per year. That, I gather, is the Home Office expenditure as detailed in one of the memoranda that came to us—2½d. per person per week—to make sure that some of the citizens of this country may survive in the event of nuclear attack.
In dealing with the particular part which I propose to present to the House I should first try to present the overall picture as I see it. Civil defence, with which I intend particularly to deal, is faced with the possibility in the event of war of nuclear attack. In order to provide the setting it is worth while to point out that according to authorities I have consulted one bomb would destroy completely everything within an area of 3,140 square miles. That is a circle with a radius of 100 miles. Those who are familiar with ∏r2 will be able to correct or verify that.
Twenty-eight bombs would wipe out Great Britain completely, as the area of the British Isles is 88,000 sq. miles. Twenty-eight bombs would wipe us completely off the map. There would be no need to worry about civil defence. The Home Office memoranda points out that a nuclear attack would destroy millions of people, yet millions would survive. It is the millions who would survive in whom we must be interested and in whom the Sub-Committee was interested, but the extent of the nuclear attack and its weight were not in any way examined by the Home Office. I therefore point out that 28 bombs of existing power would entirely wipe out this country.
As we know, that power will go on increasing and the number of bombs necessary will become less. To contrast that position with the situation which exists in the nation towards which our missiles are pointed, we should remember that the Soviet Union has an area of 8½ million sq. miles. To destroy the Soviet Union completely would require 2,700 bombs. Therefore, in the event of a nuclear attack, the chance of survival depends more on the size of the country than any precautions such as those outlined to us by the Home Office can possibly offer. I do not suppose for a minute that we have 2,700 bombs in this country, but if I were to speculate
1384
on that much further I would be taken into avenues wider than I am entitled to enter.
I am dealing particularly with civil defence but I should have been very happy to have covered a wider area. However, other hon. Members want to speak and our time is limited. I regret that limitation very much, because I am certain that the Chairman of my Sub-Committee will agree that to deal with civil defence requires as much time as does the problem of military training and military attack.
I want to deal particularly with recommendation (15), which has been criticised by the right hon. Gentleman. The related paragraph says that sub-Committee C heard a good deal of evidence from the Home Office. It was very competent evidence, and as it came from very highly and, I assume, accurately, informed witnesses, we took careful note of it. We spent a good deal of time dealing with the various aspects of civil defence. After considering all that had been said, we state:
"Your Committee do not feel that this pamphlet"
that is, the pamphlet issued by the right hon. Gentleman which deals with protective measures
"achieves any useful purpose. They recognise that any judgment of its merits must be largely subjective and a matter of personal opinion, but in their view the information contained in the pamphlet is of such a general and simple character that it will be of little value to members of the civil defence corps, who must already be well aware of the contents. Although primarily intended as a training publication, it is written in the form of advice to the householder, to whom, however, it is not readily available."
There is only one Stationery Office in Scotland, and that is in Edinburgh. I was assured in the Sub-Committee that the pamphlet could be had of any bookseller, but no bookseller I asked knew anything of it. It may be that information spreads slowly from the Home Office—let us hope that the torchbearer will not arrive in Edinburgh too late.
The Report goes on:
"Your Committee do not feel that many householders will purchase the pamphlet from the Stationery Office, nor do they feel that those who do will be convinced of the effectiveness of the measures proposed therein. In the opinion of Your Committee the average householder who reads what to do in the event of imminent nuclear attack, and is told, if driving a vehicle, that he should 'Park off the

1385
road if possible; otherwise alongside the kerb', will not form the impression that the civil defence measures taken by the Government are of any value whatever.
Your Committee are anxious that the public should be aware of the steps that are being taken to protect them, and they feel that this pamphlet creates entirely the wrong impression. They therefore recommend that Civil Defence Handbook No. 10 should be withdrawn."
That is strong language, but it was forced from us as a result of the evidence presented to us by people who were eminently qualified to talk on the subject. I realise that the Home Secretary has perhaps been a little peeved, shall I say, at the strength of our language. He states in the Second Special Report that he
"decided to issue this handbook as a training publication for the civil defence, police and fire services, with the object of indicating to members of those services the sort of advice which, in the present state of our knowledge and resources, would need to be given in a period of alert to the general public about the precautions they should take. As the handbook will have to be revised from time to time in the light of changing circumstances, the Secretary of State considers that it would have been wasteful to issue it to every household now".
The Secretary of State says that it would be wasteful on his part to issue the handbook to every household now because it will be revised from time to time, but he does not recognise that it will be equally wasteful for householders to spend 9d. every time he decides to revise the handbook. People will think that way. It is a reason why in our view the pamphlet should have been distributed free.
The right hon. Gentleman defends himself by saying that it has been placed on sale and so is available to anyone who wants it. It may have been placed on sale, but it is not readily available, so far as I have been able to discover. The right hon. Gentleman tells us:
"Over half a million copies have already been distributed or sold."
How many have been distributed? How many have been sold?
Judged by its proper purpose as a training manual, there has been hardly any criticism of it by those who use it. In reply to questions, the Sub-Committee was told that the training period was sometimes a day and on the average three days, from which it does not seem
1386
that much time was presented to students to start criticising the pamphlet. The right hon. Gentleman goes on to say that
"he intends to keep its contents under review in the light of new developments and techniques aid in future editions to introduce any necessary revisions."
All that portends a continuing outgoing of these methods of civil defence. It all adds up to support for the Committee's contention that the pamphlet, because of its vital nature, ought to be distributed free to those whom it is trying to help in the case of a nuclear attack. We are told in all the arguments presented by the right hon. Gentleman in reply to us that it is a technical pamphlet, but in answer to our Question No. 1701 we are told that the handbook
"was not intended to be a technical handbook at all, but…a fairly clear indication to the householder of what he could do to help himself in an emergency."
There is a contradiction within the Home Office and this is bound to lead to confusion in the public mind. The sub-Committee deplored this.
I appreciate that time is marching on and that there may be anxiety in some quarters because only one and a quarter hours remains for the debate. We have been criticised because, we were told, we have presented only one example of the sort of ridicule that had befallen the pamphlet. It is full of them. We are told, for instance, that water is more essential to life than food. That is a truism, but air is more essential than either. One can live for three weeks without food and three days without water, but one can live for only three minutes without air.
Despite this, nothing is said about what one should do about air contamination by radiation, which cannot be seen, felt, heard or smelt. How can one prevent it entering the lungs and choking one when one thinks that the air being breathed is clear? People are merely told, because water is more essential than food, to fill a bath with clear, fresh water. I wonder if the Home Secretary has ever visited Govan, which I have the privilege to represent. Baths? They are in scarce supply. Whole tenements often have only what is called the "jawbox"—yet the Home Secretary wants each family to fill a bath with water. They do not have baths to fill.

1387
Then we come to the question of sanitation, and we are told:
"You could not rely on being able to use your W.C. There might not be enough water to flush it, or the sewerage system might be damaged."
What to do? People are told:
"Keep the things listed below in the fallout room or within easy reach outside the door: Large receptacles with covers and with improvised seats for use as urinals, and for excreta. Ashes, dry earth, or disinfectant, toilet paper, clean newspapers, brown paper or strong paper bags (to wrap up food remains and empty tins), dust bin with well fitting lid for pets. Keep a box of earth or ashes."
The Home Secretary does not seem to be aware that to many of my constituents it is not a question of having a fall-out room but a fall-in room because in some of the tenements and buildings in which they live the walls are more likely to fall out. In any case, the sort of fall-out the right hon. Gentleman has in mind is not the sort of fall-out my constituents think of. When one has a room and kitchen and a family of six or seven there is no question of having a fall-out room.
As to keeping a box for pets, we should be frank and admit that the best thing to do with pets is to get rid of them. There will be enough to worry about, looking after human beings, without worrying about pets, particularly in the kind of tenements that exist in Glasgow.
Another example given is that during this protective period a husband, if wearing long boots, must take them off before coming into the house and his wife should present him with a pair of shoes. In fact, often when the wife comes towards her husband with a pair of shoes it is not to give him the shoes in this way but to use them in another way. This may make people laugh. While no one denies the need for advice of this type, I do not think it should have been presented fictionally but should have been given in written form. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will give us a more serious reply to the work which Sub-Committee C has put into the question of civil defence—a more serious reply than has so far been given either in his own special report or in the little pamphlet which the Sub-Committee condemned.
8.50 p.m.
Miss Alice Bacon: We are all indebted to the Estimates Committee for this Report. Quite apart from its recommendations, it is useful because it gives an excellent account of the scope of the Home Office. It contains valuable memoranda and evidence, together with the Report and conclusions.
The Home Office is a vast Department with diverse functions. Over the years some of its functions have been hived off and others have been added, but even so, there is a formidable and varied list. Some—prisons, the Children's Department and so on—are very important functions and others—such as the protection of birds—are of minor importance. As we are told in the Report, it is one of the oldest Departments of State, but the Report also says that in the 20th century the Home Office is trying to do its work with the methods of the 19th century. That is the essence of the Committee's Report.
Some of the criticisms in the Report are very severe. I heard an hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite say "Nonsense", and if it were the Home Secretary exploding in that way, I suggest that that is the way in which he has treated the Committee's Report from the very beginning. We are not alone in thinking that, for the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) quoted from The Times, and I could quote from The Times and other newspapers which felt that the Home Secretary's reply to this Report showed a good deal of contempt for the Committee's work.
Some of the criticisms are severe. On the Immigration and Nationality Department the Committee said that this Department needed
"a drastic overhaul."
It recommended that the Home Office and the Treasury should
"carry out an extensive reorganisation of the Immigration and Nationality Department."
On approved schools the Committee said that
"a full inquiry should be carried out into the whole of the approved school system."
I will return to that in a moment. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) about the criticism of the civil

1389
defence pamphlet. On the General Department the Committee said that a joint committee of the Home Office and the Treasury should be set up to review its whole structure and organisation. Paragraph XXXV on page 35 reads,
"Your Committee have been impressed in many ways with the matter in which the Home Office discharges its many tasks and with the organisation of a Department whose wide responsibilities make efficient administration difficult. They do, however, feel that there is a certain lack of urgency in some departments of the Home Office."
At the end of the paragraph the Committee says:
"They would not for one moment suggest that this position should be weakened, but they feel that simultaneously the Home Office should endow itself with an equally strong sense of the need for speed, if its organisation is to be capable of maintaining a standard of efficiency appropriate to a great Department of State."
These are some of the chief criticisms and the conclusions to which the Committee came.
The Immigration and Nationality Department was discussed at some length on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill last November, but I want to draw attention again to the rather extraordinary situation whereby everyone who comes into the country fills in a landing card and when he or she goes out an embarkation card is filled in. There are millions of these cards, but most of them are never checked out. I always thought in my simple way that these cards were not only married together but were systematically checked. We are told that for those who are considered bona fide travellers this not so, but that a sample is taken occasionally.
This seemed to me, and it seemed to the Estimates Committee, a great waste of time and an inefficient way of dealing with the matter. The immigration officials do a good job in spotting undesirable immigrants, but the present system is entirely unsatisfactory. Here I part company with the Estimates Committee, because I do not like the alternative proposed by the Committee that cards should be filled in only by those who are not considered to be bona fide travelers.
This opens the door wide to a great many things. If it is known that those considered to be bona fide travellers do not have to fill in a card, it seems to me that it would be quite simple for un-
1390
desirable immigrants to come in and to pretend to be bona fide travellers. I am sure that the immigration officials could not spot them in 100 per cent. of cases. Therefore, while I think the present system to be entirely unsatisfactory I do not like the solution put forward by the Estimates Committee. I do not know a great deal about computers and mechanical aids but we are told that these machines can do all sorts of marvellous things and I should have thought that it would have been possible to get a computer which could have married up the cards.
The Home Secretary told the Committee that this matter was being looked into. I hope that tonight he will be able to tell us what progress has been made. In many of his replies to the Report of the Estimates Committee the right hon. Gentleman said that the particular matters were under constant review. Like the hon. Member for Aldershot, I hope that tonight the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what has been happening in the last few months as a result of some c f these matters being kept under constant review.
The hon. Member for Aldershot referred to the Criminal and Probation Department and I was glad that the Committee drew attention to the functions of the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Law Officers' Department. It is important that the functions of these three Departments should be clearly defined. But I myself—I am sure that this is true of many hon. Members—find it difficult sometimes to decide to whom queries should be addressed. I believe that great misunderstandings arise as between these three Departments. It is important that there should be a distinction between the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department but at present there appears to be a blurring between the two in some respects. Not only is there a blurring but, as the Committee points out, there is overlapping and confusion which may cause difficulty in the administration of the law as well as in the reform of the criminal law.
Although we have had a certain amount of law reform during the past few years, everyone in the House knows that law reform is particularly slow and there are many Measures which ought to

1391
be on the Statute Book for which we have been waiting a long time. The Committee gives the example of the Fugitive Offenders Act, saying in paragraph 36:
"It appears to Your Committee that in the case of the Fugitive Offenders Act the Home Office showed a lack of urgency and foresight which has caused considerable embarrassment and expense, to put it no higher."
In paragraph 35, the Committee says:
"In Your Committee's opinion the Home Office has not been successful in this aim"—
that is, the aim of getting more legislation on the Statute Book—
"and the backlog of legislation in urgent need of revision is in their view serious."
Sir Barnett Janner: The Government have plenty of time now.
Miss Bacon: I hear my hon. Friend say that the Government have plenty of time in the coming few weeks, but I do not think that a few weeks would compensate for the few lost years in putting on the Statute Book some of the very important Measures which are needed.
There is the Criminal Law Revision Committee, but its members serve part-time; they are busy people who can only do this kind of work in the spare time which they have. There should be a permanent Commission sitting all the time to deal with this very important matter of law reform.
I turn now to the Children's Department. This department is today better than it was four or five years ago. For one thing, we are getting much more information from it than we used to have. At the time when the Criminal Justice Act, 1961, was going through the House, it was very difficult for those who were members of the Standing Committee to know exactly what was happening in the Children's Department because we had very few reports from it at all. I think that there was a space of seven years between one report and another. Now, at least, after the efforts of some of us—I see here my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), who played a great part on that Bill and the Children and Young Persons Bill—we now have, by law, a report from the Children's Department every three years and a statistical report
1392
every year. But this is because we pressed for it at the time when the Criminal Justice Act was going through the House, and our proposals were at first strenuously resisted.
The Report of the Estimates Committee makes the point that some of the responsibilities of the Home Office might, perhaps, be taken over by other Ministries. A point often discussed is whether or not the Children's Department and the whole care of children should be in the hands of the Home Office or the hands of the Ministry of Education. There is a theoretical case for the Ministry of Education having control of the care of children through the Children's Department, but I am not sure that this would be right in practice.
Although in the past I have criticised the Children's Department of the Home Office, I have always been full of admiration for the children's committees of local authorities, who, I believe, have done a particularly fine job. They have one particular function, and they have discharged it admirably. I believe that if the care of children anti the Children's Department were taken over by the Ministry of Education responsibility for the care of children might go to the back of the queue as, I am sorry to say, the special schools appear to have gone in the Ministry of Education. I do not blame the education authorities too much. Although some blame attaches to them, they have a lot to do and their finance and building programmes have often been cut by the Government. The local education authorities have not had all the resources which they would have liked for our schools.
I was very pleased to see the remarks of the Committee about approved schools. Indeed, the Report of the Estimates Committee endorses what some of us have been saying about the approved school system over the last three or four years. We said it at the time of the Criminal Justice Act, 1961, and last year during the progress of the Children and Young Persons Bill. The Home Secretary only last year swept away my criticism of the approved school system in the same way as he has swept aside the criticism of the Estimates Committee with regard to the

1393
approved schools. The Home Secretary tried to make it appear that when we are criticising the approved school system, we are in some way criticising the approved school staffs. That is absolute nonsense. I have the greatest admiration for the work which the teachers do in the approved schools.
There are a few matters in this Report that I should like to raise. The Estimates Committee draws attention to the fact that it costs £11 6s. 3d. a week to keep a child in an approved school. It has reckoned that on an average stay of 18 months, it costs about £900 for each child sent to an approved school. For some children it costs much more than that, because children who go into approved schools early in life seem to stay there a long time. The Report for 1961, shows that nine children were in as approved school for over 60 months, that is over five years. I think that is absolutely disgraceful. Nine children were in approved schools between 64 and 60 months, so that the cost for some children is much more than the £900 which the Committee has used as an illustration.
The Estimates Committee is concerned with the finance of this. If by spending £1,000 we could ensure that a juvenile delinquent became a useful member of society for the rest of his or her life, I should consider that money well spent. But, as the Estimates Committee points out, the success rate in approved schools does not lead us to believe that this is happening. In fact, the success rates have been going down. We see from the Report for 1961 that of the boys released from an approved school over the previous three years only 43 per cent. have not been in further trouble, and 57 per cent. have been found guilty of an offence in the first three years after leaving approved school. Therefore, it does not lead me to believe that we are being very successful with our approved schools.
It is stated that 86 per cent. of girls are satisfactory and that 14 per cent. are unsatisfactory, but this means nothing because 65 per cent. of the girls in approved schools are there not because they have committed an offence but because they are in need of care, protection and control. In most cases they
1394
have had sexual offences committed against them. It is therefore very difficult to measure the success rate among girls when they leave approved schools.
I have said before that I think that taking children away from home, besides being expensive, as the Estimates Committee pointed out, usually creates far more problems than it solves. The Estimates Committee asked the Home Office why more use had not been made of attendance centres to which boys can go on Saturday afternoons. I asked this question of the Home Secretary during last week's debate on juvenile delinquency. He said that it was not possible to find places where there would be sufficient young people to fill the attendance centre. I am not sure that I believe that.
I have been considering some of the places where we have attendance centres. To take one at random, Dewsbury, which is quite a small town, has an attendance centre. During 1961, 88 attendance orders were made for Dewsbury. I should have thought that there were many places of the size of Dewsbury where there are not attendance centres and where they would be a very useful way of dealing with juvenile delinquents.
Sir E. Errington: Attendance centres are of great merit because they can be set up in schools when the school children are not there. A building programme is not involved, as is the case with so many of these things.
Miss Bacon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Most attendance centres are run by the police, but there is no reason why they should all be run by the police. They could be run by other organisations.
I wonder whether the Estimates Committee saw the Report of the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders, published in 1962, on the non-residential treatment of offenders under the age of 21 in which an attempt was made to see whether we should follow the Boston scheme of having training centres for young people. The Advisory Council came to the conclusion that it would not be right to have training centres. A lot of people—I am one of them—where very disappointed about this. We felt that more could be done on those lines.
Dr. Horace King: Would my hon. Friend agree that it would be a bad thing to have the attendance centre at a school in case schools were regarded as places of punishment?
Miss Bacon: That may be. Most of the attendance centres are not in schools. They are in other buildings, but, except for one or two, they are not in buildings built specially for them. They are in buildings used for other purposes during the week and as attendance centres on Saturday afternoons.
I should like to hear from the Home Secretary why there was such a difference between the Estimates Committee's estimate for new approved school places of, I think, £8,600 each and the Home Secretary's reply that they would cost £2,700 each. This seems to me extraordinary. I cannot think that the Estimates Committee, after hearing all the evidence given by the Children's Department of the Home Office, could have been so misled as to make such a very great mistake between £8,600 and £2,700.
The Estimates Committee says that it believes the time has come for an investigation into the whole system of approved schools, and I agree. It is not only the financial aspects that are wrong. No other institutions completely financed by public funds have so little democratic and public control. Only 27 approved schools are run by local authorities. The rest are run by voluntary organisations or ad hoc committees. Yet all the money for approved schools comes from public funds. There should certainly be an investigation. I have been urging as much for a long time, and I am pleased that the Estimates Committee agrees with me.
I will mention the prison service only briefly, although there is a good deal I would like to say. The Estimates Committee emphasises that when a person is in prison there should be a notification so that the State is not paying both his general practitioner and for his medical care while in prison. I believe that it is important that when a man goes to prison the medical authorities should be told not so much in order to save money but because it is important that the prison authorities should know the man's medical history. It is that aspect
1396
which is so very important. I am pleased also that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the recommendation of the Committee that there should be more assistant directors of prisons so that more visits can be made.
We have had many debates in the last few months during the passage of the Police Bill, but the Estimates Committee stresses one point which should be mentioned tonight. This concerns the grant given to the Metropolitan Police Force. Now that the Home Secretary is responsible for the police throughout the country and can call for reports, surely it would be possible, as some of us suggested during the Committee stage of the Bill, for the Metropolitan Police District to coincide with that of the Greater London Council and for the G.L.C. to have a police authority like every other local authority in the country. In that way it could have some financial control over the money spent on the Metropolitan Police. That would have been a way of achieving what the Committee wishes.
I will not deal with civil defence, because it was covered so adequately by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan, but I wish to make one or two general remarks. The first concerns the General Department of the Home Office, referred to by some witnesses before the Committee as the "rag-bag" of the Department. Because the Home Office takes on all the functions of Government not specifically undertaken by any other Government Department, it has a very wide and miscellaneous collection of subjects in the General Department.
I agree with the Estimates Committee that there should be some investigation to see whether or not some of these functions could be taken over by other Government Departments. It always seems silly to me that the Home Office and not the Ministry of Agriculture should he responsible for the protection of wild birds. It is suggested by the Committee that the electoral register should be the responsibility of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government because it seems to concern local authority problems.
But I believe that not only the General Department but the Home Office as a whole must be looked at. Some people,

1397
both inside and outside this House, believe that the Department is so big and its functions so varied that it could be split into two departments of State. I do not agree with that, but I believe that there is a case for treating the Home Office in the same way as the Ministry of Education has been treated in the last few months, with Ministers of State with specific responsibilities. That could be looked at. I am sorry that the Estimates Committee confined this overall investigation more to the General Department than to the Home Office as a whole.
We are told in paragraph 70, as I have quoted, that there is a certain lack of urgency in some departments of the Home Office. Reading the replies of the Home Secretary to the Estimates Committee, I feel that there is this lack of urgency on the part of the Home Secretary, too. He gives what The Times has called a "brush-off". On 26th November, 1963, The Times said in a long leading article, some of which has already been quoted by the hon. Member for Aldershot, how disappointed it was that the Home Secretary had brushed off the Report from the Estimates Committee.
In giving a brush-off to the Estimates Committee, the Home Secretary said that some of these things were under constant review. I hope that tonight the Home Secretary will tell us just what has happened during the last few months as a result of these things being under constant review. The Home Office is a great Department of State, and we want it to remain so. It is a Department of State of which in the past everybody has been proud. I hope, therefore, that the Home Secretary, even at this late hour—I refer not to the time this evening but to this late hour after the Report of the Estimates Committee—will show that sense of urgency and responsibility, which the Committee says is lacking, in his attitude towards this very important Report.
9.22 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I am delighted that this debate gives me the opportunity for which I have long been waiting to speak at rather greater length on the Report of the Estimates Committee. The reply sent on behalf of the Home Office to the Estimates Committee was personally approved by me in consultation with the Treasury, but it is
1398
customary for these replies to be kept reasonably brief. I am glad, therefore, to be able to say rather more this evening, thanks to this debate which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) has initiated.
I hope that I can do the greatest courtesy to the Estimates Committee by going through the 18 recommendations. On a few it will be necessary to say only a word or two, but I should like to dwell on those which have given rise to debate this evening.
The first recommendation was:
"The Home Office, in consultation with the Treasury and the Ministry of Public Building and Works, should carry out an immediate review of the accommodation of the Home Office with a view to its greater concentration."
This was a matter on which we had already been working for years. My dearest desire is to see the whole of the Home Office concentrated in one building. This is impossible in our present premises; it depends on the new premises across Whitehall being built, into which we can move. This has been a plan which has been under discussion for some time. It has now been announced, and I greatly hope that a building will go up on the other side of Whitehall into which the whole of the Home Office can be concentrated. I entirely agree that that would bring savings of money, staff and time.
The second recommendation was:
"The Home Office should consult with the Treasury and the Stationery Office, with a view to introducing further mechanisation within the Home Office as soon as possible."
I can tell the House that the computer about which the Estimates Committee received considerable evidence was delivered to us at the end of 1963. It is already in use for the payment of police salaries. We are planning that it should take on the payment of other salaries, and that it should take on the preparation of criminal statistics and various other tasks.
I have seen the computer. I do not pretend to understand these things, but we certainly hope to make the utmost use of it, and the possibility of mechanisation by the introduction of further new and modern office machinery other than computers is another matter on which we are constantly working. I have my Organisation and Methods

1399
Branch working on that. We are in close touch with specialist officers of the Treasury, and I entirely agree with the Estimates Committee that we should press on as rapidly as possible with further mechanisation in the Home Office, not just for its own sake but wherever we can effect a saving of time and money thereby.
The third recommendation was:
"Immigration officers should be given much more extensive information about those people whom the Home Office does not wish to allow to land."
This subject was discussed at some length during the debate on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and I have to confess that I am still somewhat at issue with the Estimates Committee here.
My immigration officers who carry out their difficult duties at the ports and airports do not tell me that they want to be supplied with more information. If I read the Estimates Committee Report aright, the Estimates Committee felt that it would be desirable that the book of about 7,000 names of people who are not to be allowed to land should be embellished also with photographs and fingerprints of those people.
If a person comes in giving his right name, it is easy to look him up in the book. One does not need his fingerprints and photograph. But if his real name is Brown and he gives the name of Smith, it does not help very much to have the photograph and fingerprints of Brown, because the immigration officer cannot possibly marry up the two. No person can remember 7,000 sets of fingerprints or 7,000 photographs.
There was a feeling that had the book contained a photograph of M. Bidault he might not have been allowed in. But M. Bidault, being an ex-Prime Minister, was able to provide himself with a genuine passport—it is easy to detect a forged one—correct in all respects except that it gave a different name—not M. Bidault. It would have been impossible for anybody, unless he had personally known M. Bidault, to detect that. This is the very exceptional case where an alien has not had to forge a passport because, owing to his previous position, he had been able to obtain a perfectly genuine one in a name not his own.
Mr. Rankin: We had a great deal of evidence in the case of M. Bidault, but we never discovered how he got in, despite what the right hon. Gentleman has told us. Can he tell us now how M. Bidault got into the country?
Mr. Brooke: I thought that that had been explained, but I can tell the House how it happened. He had held high office in the French Government, and at some stage had possessed himself of a genuine passport. It was correct in all respects, except that it did not describe him by the name of Bidault but by another name which, I gather, he sometimes uses. That is how he got in. That other name was not on the black list, and unless the immigration officer had personal knowledge of M. Bidault's appearance, it would have been impossible to detect him. But this is the most exceptional case, because the average alien wishing to slip past the controls has no means of obtaining a genuine passport. If he comes in under some disguise he will have obtained a forged or altered passport, and that kind of thing can be detected. But there was nothing phoney about this passport, except that the individual concerned had managed to obtain it made out in a different name.
Sir G. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend saying that the only way in which an undesirable alien can be detected is if he has a forged passport? Surely it would be a help if the immigration authorities had photographs. If M. Bidault's features had been familiar to the immigration officers he would not have got through.
Mr. Brooke: That is true, but we must bear in mind that the human brain cannot carry 7,000 pictures. It can refer to a book containing 7,000 names, but if somebody arrives under the name of Robinson when he is really a Mr. Jones, to have the fingerprints of Mr. Jones attached to the picture of Mr. Jones is no help at all. The case of M. Bidault was an exceptional one. I could never claim that any system of immigration control is 100 per cent. perfect, but in my opinion our immigration officers do extremely well.
Sir E. Errington: We have already had these observations in one debate, when my right hon. Friend gave a clear

1401
and unambiguous undertaking that there would be a thoroughgoing review covering a much wider field than the question of landing cards. He said that he expected to get the report next year, and that when he got it he would be pleased to make a statement to the House. Has he had that report? If so, what is the result?
Mr. Brooke: This comes under Recommendation (4), which I was just coming to. It says:
"The system of landing and embarkation cards for those classed as bona fide visitors should be abolished, and immediate consideration should be given to the possibility of mechanising the Traffic Index for the remaining aliens."
As I pointed out in a previous debate, that creates the extremely difficult practical problem of distinguishing in advance between visitors and others. What we have been doing is to carry out a thoroughgoing review of our system of control, including landing and embarkation cards. I have recently received the report, and am considering it. I would not like to forecast at this moment what conclusion I shall reach. Whichever way one turns one comes into difficulty.
If we could simplify the procedure it would be a tremendous gain in cost, burden of work, and everything else. But somebody would have to pay the price. We cannot say to incoming aliens, "If you are not bona fide visitors you must fill in the cards, but if you are you need not", because everybody who wished to slip into the country would say that he was a bona fide visitor. We must therefore either ask everybody to fill in cards before reaching the immigration officer or provide for a much longer inquiry by the immigration officer than is the case at present. The procedure at the moment is pretty quick. I am inclined to be in favour of a quick passage past the immigration officer. He can look at the landing card which has already been filled in rather than cause a hold-up at that point. But if I can find any way round the problem I will do so.
Another solution would be to assimilate our system of control more to the Continental system, under which there is very little control at the frontiers or at the ports. Control over aliens is
1402
exercised by requiring everybody, nationals included, to carry papers of some kind, which the police can ask for. I think that the British public would find that quite intolerable. Therefore, to avoid putting the burden on the British public we have instituted this strict control of aliens at the ports, although it has some of the disadvantages to which the Estimates Committee drew attention. I certainly intend to think very carefully over this thorough Report which I have received to see whether we can find any way through the problem.
I must say that I do not like the idea of allowing in even people who call themselves bona fide visitors without any record of them at all. Then we should be, so far as I know, the only modern country which would not know whether a particular alien was in the country at any given time. In other countries there is a system, which, again, I think we should Lind most trying and vexatious, whereby a report has to be made whenever an alien is staying in a hotel or private house. It would be quite intolerable if every time any of us had a foreigner staying with us we had to report to the police. That is an alternative and a less acceptable way of ensuring that we know where aliens are.
However, I should like the Estimates Committee to know that the Report has been completed and is under my consideration. If we can find means of simplifying these matters, if there is a case for a major change of policy or we can find any means of streamlining the system, nobody will be better pleased than I. I hope that the House will support me when I say that we ought to maintain a system which is efficient, if only for security reasons, and that we ought not to render it too easy for people to come into the country and be about here when there is not much known about who they are, when they came or when they are likely to leave.
Sir E. Errington: Regarding the 7,000 microfilm photographs which are rarely looked at, has the wider review to which the Home Secretary referred dealt with that?
Mr. Brooke: It has dealt with the whole matter. When my hon. Friend says that the index is seldom referred

1403
to, he is not quite correct. In any case, it is of great value to have an accurate record to which one can refer should the security services or someone else wish to know about a particular alien. The existence of the record is of value even though it may not be referred to frequently. But I mean what I say when I tell the House that I want to think very carefully about this Report which I have now received.
Recommendation (5) says:
"The Home Office should regularly issue fuller and clearer advice to the courts setting out the latest interpretation of the law by the courts and the principles on which the Home Secretary acts in reaching his decisions in the cases of recommendations for deportation of Commonwealth citizens."
That has already been done, it is being carried out. I entirely agree with the recommendation and whenever there is anything new to say we shall see that it is made known.
Regulation (6) states that
"Immediate steps should be taken to ensure that there should be the least possible delay in reaching a decision about recommendations of the courts for deportation of Commonwealth citizens."
Here there is a difference on policy between the Estimates Committee and myself. When a Commonwealth citizen is sentenced to a term of imprisonment and recommended for deportation, I consider that the right time to take a decision whether or not to act on the recommendation is towards the end of his sentence of imprisonment rather than at the beginning. One then knows more about the circumstances. One has up-to-date information, and has learned something of the man while he has been in prison. I should be very sorry if I took a decision as soon as the person was sent to prison and had to modify it before his time for discharge came. I hope the Estimates Committee will not press me to change my policy on that. I can assure it that we want there to be no delay.
Recommendation (7) was that:
"The Home Office and the Treasury should carry out an extensive reorganisation of the Immigration and Nationality Department".
This is linked with what I have been saying. We must clearly get the policy right first and then examine the structure and the staffing. I should like my hon.
1404
Friend and the House to know that as a result of part of the review we have been making, of which I have spoken, we have made a number of changes and simplifications in the landing conditions imposed by immigration officers so as to reduce the work of immigration officers and the work of the Home Office and the Ministry of Labour. We want to simplify wherever we can, but I hope the House will accept that we must first decide what kind of control we are to maintain for the future.
Recommendation (8) is:
"The system of financial control of expenditure on approved schools should be investigated."
In fact, we changed the system of control some years ago and the Treasury reported, I think in 1958, to the Public Accounts Committee that it was fully satisfied with the system. I do not see any way in which we could effectively tighten it up. I was asked how it came about that there was a difference between myself and the Estimates Committee on the cost per place of additional places. The cost of additional places in new schools and extensions to existing schools is about £2,700, whereas the Estimates Committee said it was £8,600 a place. The figure of £2,700 is correct.
I can only presume that the figure of £8,600 was arrived at by the Estimates Committee dividing the number of new places, not into the capital cost of providing those new places but into the total capital expenditure of everything to do with approved schools, a great part of which was not concerned with enlarging the schools but with the necessary modernising and rebuilding of old schools, and which did not in fact give rise to any additional places.
Miss Bacon: I am sorry, but I do not quite understand how that accounts for the great difference of about £6,000. I still do not understand why there is that great difference. Could the right hon. Gentleman enlarge on what those particular items were?
Mr. Brooke: It is very difficult for me to explain how the Estimates Committee arrived at a figure which is so grossly incorrect. I can only presume that it did it in this way. Capital expenditure in regard to approved schools is partly related to enlarging

1405
the schools for providing new places, and partly to modernising and rebuilding those schools—the hon. Lady will surely agree that a great deal of that is needed—although in fact no additional accommodation for more boys or girls is provided. It appears that the Estimates Committee took both those elements of capital expenditure, added them together, and divided the total by the number of new places provided, instead of confining itself to the first element, the capital expenditure actually required for enlargement of the schools, and dividing that by the number of new places.
The hon. Lady referred also to a statement in the Estimates Committee's Report which said that a full inquiry should be carried out into the whole approved school system. This is something which should be well within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission which has recently been announced. I am not saying that the Royal Commission will have cause to find fault because I think that in general the approved schools do their work extremely well, but I should be the first to grant that approved schools have grown up over a number of years and nothing but good could come from a kind of stocktaking. When, however, she suggests that public money is being paid out to people who are under no sort of democratic control, I remind her that all approved schools are regularly inspected by the Home Office inspectors. That inspection is very thorough, and we should pick it up at once if any approved school were falling below the required standard.
Recommendation No. 9 was that,
"The Home Office should draw the attention of the courts to the advantages of attendance centres, and should take steps to ensure that sufficient centres are provided to meet any demand for them."
In 1961 a circular to the magistrates' courts drew attention to my predecessor's readiness to open new junior attendance centres where there was a need for them. In 1963, in my time, there were discussions with representatives of the Juvenile Court Committee of the Magistrates' Association, which confirmed that magistrates were aware of the advantages of attendance centres.
1406
There is a radical difference between attendance centres, which are Saturday afternoon affairs, and approved schools, which are far more expensive, residential affairs. I do not think that it would be right for the Home Secretary to ask magistrates, "Before you send somebody for residential treatment at an approved school will you please pause, because it is very much cheaper if you decide that he might be sent to an attendance centre". The two treatments are so different that it must be for the magistrates to decide which is the suitable treatment. There are 54 attendance centres. Another will open on 6th June and proposals for seven more are under consideration.
I am anxious to get attendance centres open and operating in all those places where there is a sufficient load, but it will be appreciated that in country districts and small towns there would not be enough boys to justify the opening of an attendance centre. Nevertheless, I am entirely with the hon. Lady in her views about the importance of these centres.
Recommendation No. 10 was:
"Responsibility for junior detention centres should be transferred from the Prison Department to the Children's Department."
With great respect, I do not think that this would be economical. My Children's Department has no experience in or responsibility for running residential accommodation. The Prison Department has a great deal. I do not believe that it would be wise to build up the Children's Department to take charge of three or four junior detention centres, which is all there are. But, of course, centres are inspected by the Children's Departments Inspectorate and the abolition of the Prison Commission and its conversion into the Prison Department of the Home Office has greatly helped to bring the two sides together.
Recommendation No. 11 was:
"The Home Office should emphasise to local authorities, particularly those in whose area the proportion of children boarded out is low, that, where boarding out is in the best interests of children, it also has welcome financial advantages."
I assure the Estimates Committee that I take every possible opportunity to do this. I entirely agree with the recommendation. It was as recently as 14th April that, when I was addressing a local authorities' child care conference, I

1407
seized the opportunity to emphasise that in a number of areas there is still room for considerable further development of boarding out. I have been doing that ever since I became Home Secretary, and I assure the House that I shall continue to do so.
Sir G. Nicholson: But there is a wide discrepancy between different areas, is there not? Does my right hon. Friend take steps to account for this discrepancy? It seems that so much is at the whim of local authorities.
Mr. Brooke: That is exactly the point which I was making when I was addressing this conference at Church House the other day. But the House will appreciate that local authorities are autonomous bodies, and I do not believe that the children's service would be better run entirely by me from Whitehall than it is at present by the children's authorities.
Recommendation No. 12 was:
"The Home Office and the Treasury, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor's Office, should take immediate steps to reorganise the present division of responsibilities between those departments concerned with the administration of the criminal law, with a view to rationalising its administration and rendering more effective the methods of bringing the criminal law tin to date."
Frankly, I do not think that the reform of the criminal law is hampered by the present distribution of functions. I have the Criminal Law Reform Committee, which is working very hard. It is producing frequent reports on matters which have been referred to it by me. Only the other day there was one on the number of jurors.
I keep in the closest touch with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor on all these matters of common concern. Recently we appointed a working party of representatives of the Departments concerned to review the effectiveness of the present system for the provision of court accommodation in England and Wales. Lately my noble and learned Friend and I have jointly appointed a Committee under Lord Donovan to review the constitution, powers and procedure of the Court of Criminal Appeal. In the Administration of Justice Bill we have proposed, and the House has approved, a certain trans-
1408
fer of responsibility from me to the Lord Chancellor for the appointment of magistrates to juvenile courts in London.
So all this is in hand. I do not think that major changes are needed here, or that there is any confusion along the borderline. As to the Fugitive Offenders Act, I think that the House accepts that this can be amended only after thoroughgoing Commonwealth consideration. This is the stage that is being reached now. I very much hope that before the end of the year, perhaps sooner, we shall manage to reach some kind of agreement among Commonwealth countries, and then the way will be clear to introduce an amending Act, because I am sure that the Act should be amended.
Sir E. Errington: As the Lord Chancellor is responsible for one class of court and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible for another class of court, which is a pure historical accident, ought not something definite to be done?
Mr. Brooke: This is exactly the matter on which I said that we had appointed a working party. The system does not seem to me to lead to any confusion or difficulty, but if we can improve it we want to do so.
Recommendation No. 13 was that—
"An immediate inquiry should be set up with the object of instituting a more appropriate system of payment to the Metropolitan Police for their special services."
We could do this. We could at great length seek to make an annual estimate of what the appropriate division of costs should be. The House will appreciate that this is an allocation as between the taxpayer and the ratepayer. In fact the grant was fixed in 1910 at £100,000 a year. It was not reviewed for over 50 years. When it was reviewed, in 1962, it was decided to alter the grant to £500,000 a year, based on the change in the value of money rather than on a precise calculation. With respect to the Estimates Committee, I do not believe that a precise calculation would be practicable to try to see exactly what extra cost falls on the Metropolitan Police for this, that or the other which is of a national rather than a local character. This is simply an allocation as between the taxpayer and the ratepayer.

1409
Recommendation No. 14 was to the effect that—
"The Home Office should increase the scale and improve the nature of national publicity in respect of civil defence."
We are constantly trying to improve its nature. I do not know whether the Estimates Committee examined the publicity material that we put out. It did not ask the Home Office to provide any of it. In 1963 we made a radical change at the time of our recruiting campaign, and we gave much fuller information as to the wide scope of home defence preparations. I am entirely with the Committee on the importance of this.
Another point the Committee had in mind was that greater use should be made of television and films. The advice of the experts in television, which I have obtained, is that it is doubtful whether television advertising would be successful in bringing in recruits to Civil Defence at an acceptable cost. However, we agree that it would be desirable to run a pilot scheme, and that is what we are proposing to do this year. There will be an experiment in part of the South of England to see whether television advertising for recruitment purposes is successful.
Recommendation 15 is that Civil Defence Handbook No. 10 should be withdrawn. I am afraid that I cannot accept that Recommendation. I appreciate that if one takes particular sentences out of the Handbook they may look silly. On the other hand, in wartime, nuclear or other, small actions of common sense may be as important as the more technical preparations for safety.
I must tell the House that from those who are using the booklet throughout the Civil Defence service we have had no criticism whatever of the type put forward by the Estimates Committee. I must be guided by the Civil Defence organisation. Nor do I think that it would have been conducive to economy to have accepted the suggestion of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) that we should have made a free issue of the Handbook to 15 million householders. Frankly, as it came out about 15 months ago probably most of those copies would have been lost by now and the householders would not have them.
1410
Recommendation 16 is:
"Arrangements should be made to notify the central register of National Health Service patients of the removal to prison for periods of over two years of those patients on the lists of doctors in their area."
The Government accept that recommendation and are implementing it, but we must appreciate that there will be no saving to public funds from it.
Recommendation 17 is that the number of assistant directors in the Prison Department should be reviewed. That is being done. There will be one assistant director, who has been on special duties, moved to reinforce the assistant directors concerned with general inspecting functions. I think that that is what the Committee wished. We will keep the number of assistant directors under review, with particular reference to the development of the building programme.
Recommendation 18 states:
"A joint committee of the Home Office and the Treasury should be set up to review the whole structure and organisation of the General Department with a view not only to improving its organisation, but also to ascertaining whether any of its duties might not more appropriately be performed by other Government Departments."
I would like the House to know that O. and M. officers of the Treasury and the Home Office are now engaged in a survey. This is an intractable subject, as the Estimates Committee probably discovered. The Home Office is the residuary legatee. There must be some Department which takes over any function or responsibility not specifically assigned to any other, and that is why the Home office becomes responsible for fixing the fees of ministers at burial grounds, for example.
The protection of wild birds and many other things come into this. I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would consider the protection of wild birds to be concerned with fish, food or farming, but I am not clinging on to any of these matters if they could be better done by another Department.
There has been a suggestion underlying the Estimates Committee's Report that certain parts of the Home Office are slow. I would be grateful if any hon. Members would give me specific evidence where they think this is so. I

1411
have been most concerned, since coming to the Home Office, to drop on any case where I thought there had been undue delay. That always needs watching in any organisation, public or private. I am most concerned that the Home Office should work swiftly, but at the same time most carefully, because this is not a Department in which one can afford to make mistakes. I am anxious that the Department for which I am responsible should meet the needs of the House and show that it is responsive in all ways to both Houses of Parliament.
Sir G. Nicholson: On behalf of the Estimates Committee, I thank my right hon. Friend for his speech. We can no longer accuse him of giving us the brush-off and I am sure that we will gladly bury the hatchet.
Sir E. Errington: It would be churlish of me not to thank my right hon. Friend for the remarks he has made, although he may not have satisfied me in all respects. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question again proposed.
Mr. John Peel (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Committee Tomorrow.

HOME OFFICE (ESTIMATES COMMITTEE'S REPORTS)

  RIDING ESTABLISHMENTS [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to regulate the keeping of riding establishments it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to
  1412
  local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.—[Mr. Green.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

BRISTOL COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel.]
10.2 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: I want to raise a question tonight that greatly concerns a firm and its workers in my constituency—Bristol Commercial Vehicles, a famous firm of bus makers now working well below capacity, facing redundancy, and with a very uncertain future, solely and simply because of Government policy. Before I come to the point at issue, I should like very briefly to go into the background of the case.
Bristol Commercial Vehicles, in its very early days, had links with the famous Bristol Aircraft Company and was later taken over by Thomas Tilling at a time when it operated the Bristol Tramways and Carriage Company. The company's task then was to provide vehicles for the carriage company operating services in Bristol. At that time, it sold in the open market quite normally, and even had an export trade of its own.
In 1948, the firm of Thomas Tilling voluntarily sold itself to the British Transport Commission and, therefore, the operation of Bristol Commercial Vehicles, it being a subsidiary of Thomas Tillings, came under the British Transport Commission and under the operations of the 1947 Transport Act. That Act, which is no longer on the Statute Book, provided a quota system for the manufacture of vehicles, and certain limitations on the operations of subsidiaries or component parts of the Transport Commission. The firm only in one year actually reached the maximum production allowed within the quota. It had worked, and still works to a lesser degree, with the Eastern Coach Works in Lowestoft supplying vehicles for Tillings and also for the Scottish group.
Then came the 1962 Transport Bill. When that Measure was first introduced

1413
into the House the restrictions of the 1947 Act appeared to have been removed; that is to say, the Bill when first introduced was absolutely silent on the manufacturing powers of the new subsidiaries of the Transport Holding Company, of which Bristol Commercial Vehicles was one. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's predecessor as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport defended this very vigorously in the Standing Committee when certain pressures were raised against this new freedom for subsidiaries. On 27th February, 1962, he talked about the pressure to limit the operations of these companies, and said:
"Frankly, if people like A.E.C. and Leylands—the big manufacturers—cannot meet competition from little firms like this which are producing a thousand or 300 chassis a year, then it is time that A.E.C. and Leylands woke up a bit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 27th February, 1962; c. 982.]
This was definitely Government policy at that stage. However, when the Bill came to the House for the Report stage, the Minister changed his mind and the House wrote in, on his Amendment, a provision which laid down that the subsidiaries of the Transport Commission Holding Company were only to produce goods for sale or use by the Holding Company or any other subsidiaries. It is this provision of the Act which in the first instance created the difficulties to which I refer.
I know that it is not in order on the Adjournment to raise a matter which entails legislation. Lest you should think that I am veering from this, Mr. Speaker, I should explain that I shall make it clear that legislation is not necessary to put this matter right. At any rate, the consequences of this Amendment to the Transport Act has inevitably been the contraction of Bristol Commercial Vehicles. I say "inevitably" because of the position in which the company finds itself. It can sell only to subsidiaries of the British Transport Holding Company, namely, the Tilling Group and the Scottish Group. However, there is nothing to prevent the bus-operating companies from acquiring their vehicles from other sources. They can go to private enterprise for them but Bristol Commercial Vehicles is able to sell only to them.
1414
Similarly, and this is an important point, Bristol Commercial Vehicles can buy components from private engineering firms but cannot sell them to private engineering firms. As an inevitable consequence of this, in November last year, production having fallen and prospects being poor, 123 men were declared redundant. The confidence of the workers in the future of the firm was greatly shaken. They began consultations with me and I went to see the firm. I saw modern equipment lying more or less unused and I tried to help find a solution to the problem.
I wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary and I pointed out the difficulties, particularly with regard to subcontracting I had a reply from him which was really just a repetition of a quotation from Section 29(7) of the Transport Act, 1962. He followed this quotation with a very firm reference saying that it was impossible in the circumstances to permit such subcontracting, which was a point on which I had particularly written to him.
I then went to the factory in Bristol and discussed the matter with the men there. It was unanimously decided by the men that the way in which the problem should be tackled would be quite another way, namely, that the workers in the factory, and this was unanimously agreed at a meeting in the canteen of the clerical and manual staff, should write to the chairman of the Holding Company, Sir Philip Warter, and ask permission to buy shares in the company. This they were entitled to do under the Transport Act, 1962. The intention was to buy shares to participate in the ownership of the company. It would then no longer be a "wholly-owned subsidiary" of the Holding Company it would be free to trade without restriction. This was plainly stated in a letter to Sir Philip Warter and to the Ministry of Transport and I sent a covering letter in support of the application.
I want to make it clear, because I am not sure that it was altogether clear, that the workers had no specific interest in the management aspect of the company. They were concerned, by sharing in the ownership of the company, to free themselves from statutory restrictions which made nonsense of their work. It showed a remarkable faith

1415
in the future of the company that they should do this. Incidentally, this cooperation in national and co-operative ownership could well have something to offer in the future, but I let that pass.
The chairman of the Holding Company wrote to me in response to my letter and he said that, in the circumstances, he thought it necessary to consult the Minister of Transport. Under the Transport Act, of course, the Minister has power to deal directly with the Holding Company. He can give it a direction compelling it to sell the shares in this instance or to refuse the request. He is ministerially responsible, and this is the only reason why I am able to raise the matter on the Adjournment tonight.
Later, I had a reply from the chairman of the Holding Company in which he said that he had decided to decline the request to buy shares, and in his letter he used a phrase which puzzled me very much. He said that he thought it would be better if we used
"more direct means "
of dealing with this particular problem. I could not understand the meaning of "more direct means" because the only more direct means which came to my mind was an amendment of the Act. It would not be in order for me to speak about that now, and it was clearly impossible for an amendment to be introduced this side of the General Election. Therefore, I asked exactly what "more direct means" meant. As a result, I learned that it was in the mind of the Holding Company that it might decide to sell shares to private industry or exchange shares with private industry, which would have exactly the same effect as what the workers in the firm wanted, namely, it would lift the restriction which now applies to the firm and permit it to trade outside.
At the same time, I had a letter from the Minister of Transport himself in which he said that this was a decision of the Holding Company, indicating that he did not feel able to overturn it although, clearly, he had power to do so. From the Holding Company, on the other hand, I had a message to say that this was their view but that, in any case, I should remember that, if it had been an opposite view, the Minister would
1416
have power to overturn it. Thus, there was a completely circular argument, the Holding Company to some extent shielding behind what it thought the Minister's view would be and the Minister upholding a view which the Holding Company had taken after consultation with him.
The Holding Company being prepared, if circumstances were right, to contemplate the transfer or sale of shares to private interests, the last logical reason for refusing the workers' request had completely disappeared. It would be one thing to say "We, the Holding Company, are hanging on to our subsidiaries and we will not let them go to anybody", but it is totally illogical to say, "We are prepared to sell them to certain economic groups which might be interested but not to the workers who have a direct interest in the success of their undertaking". In fact, the only valid case which the Minister and the Holding Company had in these circumstances is destroyed.
I have, therefore, tried on several occasions, so far without success, to raise the matter in the House in order to air the problem and to ask the Minister, as I do tonight, to reconsider the decision taken in his Department and to ask the Holding Company to agree to sell the shares.
I do this for four reasons. First, the position of the firm is now absolutely intolerable. Here is a firm which can only face long-term contraction, a firm which has excellent new plant, newly equipped, which is not being used. Its position is quite impossible. With the great appeals which the N.E.D.C. now makes for an extension of production and with the great need for general economic expansion, it seems to the workers there and to me absurd that this plant, because of Ministerial decision, should not be used as it could be.
Second, the decision by the Minister and the Holding Company is entirely contrary to the claims which the Government have made about their attitude to the running of nationalised industry. The Minister justified the Beeching plan for the railways on the ground that one had to operate the railways on a commercial basis. When the right hon. Gentleman was himself speaking on the Transport Bill in 1962, in a period

1417
of my temporary absence from the House, he said that he thought that
"…the assets should be used to the maximum".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1962; Vol. 658, c. 513.]
That was the Minister's view. Yet, as a result of this restriction, the assets are not being used to the maximum.
The third reason why this is such a monstrous decision is that it makes nonsense in a modern technical age when firms increasingly specialise in certain components. They buy what they need from firms which specialise in such components, and they would normally wish to sell what they specialise in and make best. Bristol Commercial Vehicles buy engines, chassis frames, castings, springs and electrical apparatus from private enterprise, but the things in which they specialise, which include engines, gear boxes and axles, they are not allowed to sell even for assembly by other bus construction companies. This has the effect of freezing the pattern of production in the nationalised industries into a pattern which has no relation to modern technical needs.
The final reason why I raise this matter is this. No doubt the Minister will produce the figures of the chassis being produced. A year ago 800 were being produced. Now the figure is 757. A year ago 900 men were employed. The figure now is 680. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will produce these figures and say that as far ahead as can be seen there is a prospect for the firm to do well. But the men do not see it this way, because, although there is no immediate prospect of further redundancy, they know very well that the situation in which they are trying to operate is economically nonsensical.
The result is that, after the redundancies had stopped, skilled men who are now needed in the firm are seeking employment outside. Although I do not want to suggest that morale in the factory has collapsed—the attitude of management and men on this issue is absolutely united; there has been full support for this at every level—the anxiety of the skilled men about the future is likely to do further damage to the company.
I sum the matter up in this way. The restrictions under which Bristol Commercial Vehicles operate are absurd,
1418
unfair and economically nonsensical. The Minister has the power, without legislation, to correct the situation and to lift the restrictions by acceding to the workers' request to buy some of the shares—they are interested in only a very small number—which will enable them to go ahead. I appeal to the Minister to give Bristol Commercial Vehicles, 'Which has a proud history, modern machinery and a highly skilled and forward-looking labour force, the green light which it needs to develop in future.
I want to ask the hon. Gentleman two questions which I hope he will be able to answer, for unlike some ministerial decisions this is not a once-for-all decision; it can be reviewed at any time. There is no reason why it should not be reviewed again. Will the hon. Gentleman come to Bristol and visit the factory and experience for him-self the sense of waste that there is in these well equipped workshops not operating at capacity when there is a demand for the products which they make? Will he talk to the Chairman of Tillings, who has been charged under the Transport Act with the responsibility for maximising the profits of his undertaking, and ask him how this can be done in the existing situation?
Naturally, I have thought of the situation in terms of the forthcoming General Election. Hon. Members opposite have decided to stay in office for a little longer. The inevitable effect of this in this field and every other has been to delay important decisions. Therefore, having failed to get satisfaction from the hon. Gentleman and from the Minister, I decided to approach my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, since it is a matter of great concern to my constituency and others in a similar position. I am glad to be able to give the answer which my right hon. Friend would give if he were answering this debate—that "a Labour Government will remove the restrictions that now prevent nationalised industries from engaging in normal trade in the home and export markets, and will encourage them to develop to the full in the interests of the industry, the workers in it and the whole community."

1419
Those are quotes from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who, within a few months, will be able during his period of office to give instructions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is the consequence which hon. Members opposite must face of deciding to delay the election. The power and decision making on this and other issues must now be passed to my own Front Bench but there is no reason why the Minister should not review the situation now, visit the factory and discuss it with the chairman concerned.
10.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Bonn) has raised a subject of considerable interest to a number of his constituents and one which also contains important points of policy and principle. In deploying his case the hon. Gentleman has, I think—and I hope that he will not mind my saying this—made quite a good speech. I do not deny that there is something in what he has said but perhaps not as much as he thinks, for otherwise there would not, of course, be any difference of opinion between us.
In order to understand the points at issue properly, it is, I agree, necessary to go back a little into the history of the firm involved. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Bristol Commercial Vehicles Limited is one of three wholly owned subsidiaries of the Transport Holding Company. The other two are Star Bodies (B.R.S.) Limited and Eastern Coach Works Limited and they are all three engaged only in manufacture.
The Bristol Company makes chassis for road vehicles. Its capacity is about 1,070 chassis a year and, until recently, output has been running at about 1,000 a year, more or less up to capacity. It is now, as the hon. Member said, expected to stay at about 750 per annum. Most of the firm's orders come from bus companies in the Tilling Bus Group, though the company has also done work for the Scottish Bus Group and for British Road Services.
Before the Transport Act, 1947, the Bristol vehicle manufacturing plant was owned by the Bristol Tramways and Carriage Company, Limited, and it was
1420
sold with the rest of the Tilling Group bus interests to the British Transport Commission in 1948. Here, we come to what is a very interesting point.
Under the 1947 Act, the company was obliged, like the other manufacturing companies I have just mentioned, to manufacture solely for the British Tran-port Commission and its subsidiary undertakings. In other words, it was statutorily debarred from supplying its products to outside concerns. It was also subject to an output restriction in the form of a quota.
That was the position under the Socialist Party's nationalisation Act. The company was doubly limited—limited in its clientele and limited in its output. So I really do not understand why, in the last few minutes, the hon. Gentleman got so excited, saying that this is a most monstrous state of affairs and how he and his party, in the extremely unlikely event of their ever getting power again, will change the set up. If, after all, it is as bad as that, why did they ever introduce it in the first place? It is their baby and yet from the hon. Gentleman we have had the same sort of arguments as we had from several of his hon. Friends in a somewhat similar debate on the railways' manufacturing powers and the same threat to alter their own legislation if they get power.
I suppose, however, when it is so difficult to get a clear enunciation of policy on major issues from hon. Members opposite, we must be grateful to be told what their policy is on these minor matters, even if it is only to reverse decisions they themselves took when they were in power.
In the Government's Transport Act, 1962, although some changes were made, the position remains very much the same as in the original Act which the hon. Gentleman now complains about. Under Section 29(7) of the 1962 Act the three companies I mentioned are still allowed to manufacture only for the nationalised transport undertakings and their subsidiaries. On the other hand, the quota system has been removed and instead the companies are subject to a direction issued by the Minister to the Transport Holding Company under Section 29(4) of the 1962 Act. This requires the Transport Holding Company to exercise its powers

1421
over the manufacturing companies so as to ensure that their productive capacity does not exceed the productive capacity as it stood on 1st January, 1963.
The Government's view on this whole question was made abundantly clear when the Bill was being passed through Parliament in 1962. We recognised two things. First of all, we recognised that the position of the three companies in the new organisation was anomalous, but that to prohibit them from manufacture would seriously affect the value of the public investment in them. Secondly, we recognised that there was no objection to the sale of these companies at the right price and under the right conditions.
In fact, the components of the Holding Company were placed in much the same position as they had been in when they were part of the British Transport Commission. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us credit for the fact that, though there was scope here for changes of a doctrinaire nature, we virtually maintained the status quo as it had been in the Socialist 1947 Act.
To bring the picture up to date, there has recently been, as the hon. Gentleman said, some redundancy in the Bristol company's works. As the result of this redundancy, the men made a request to the management to buy some shares in the company. The object of this proposal—and there was never any secret about it—was to make the company no longer a wholly owned subsidiary of the Transport Holding Company, so that it would escape from the manufacturing restrictions imposed by Section 29(7) of the 1962 Act. The company could then, in its new found freedom so far as the Act was concerned, set out to expand its markets and during slack periods perhaps accept sub-contracting work from local engineering firms.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman's constituents then appealed to him to support this proposal and the hon. Gentleman wrote to my right hon. Friend, as he has told us, and to the chairman of the Transport Holding Company, supporting the request of these workers at the Bristol Factory to buy shares in the company.
1422
What happened after that was that Sir Philip Warter, the chairman of the Transport Holding Company, discussed this suggestion with my right hon. Friend and subsequently replied to the hon. Gentleman that he did not consider that the course proposed was the best way of dealing with the restrictions placed upon the company by the 1962 Act. But even if the chairman had agreed to the proposal, I must remind the hon. Gentleman of the assurance given by Lord Mills in July, 1962, that the company's productivity would not be materially increased. This means that, even if the company were free to find customers outside the nationalised transport field, it could do no more than take up the slack to the level of capacity as it existed at the beginning of 1963. It could not, in fact, expand beyond that level.
But, quite apart from this restriction against expansion, would it be right to proceed in the way that the hon. Gentleman's constituents have proposed? I think that this is an important aspect that we ought to consider—the propriety of acting in the way that the hon. Gentleman's constituents want. I am sure that there is no doubt about what the intentions of Parliament were in this matter. They have been stated, after all, on two occasions. In the 1947 Act the company was confined to the nationalised transport field, and in the 1962 Act Parliament clearly decided to leave that position unchanged—a tribute, if one may put it that way, to the original legislation of the party opposite.
In view of this twice-expressed decision, a small sale of shares on the lines proposed would be merely a device—that is all it would be—to circumvent the intentions of Parliament, and my right hon. Friend would not consider it proper to give his consent to a sale for such a purpose, as he would have to do under Section 29(8) of the 1962 Act, even if the Holding Company sought his consent. But it has not done so, and the initiative in a matter like this is, of course, not for my right hon. Friend but for the Transport Holding Company.
However, as my right hon. Friend suggested in the debate on the 1962 Act, the Government would not think it improper for the Holding Company to consider selling the works outright if a satis-

1423
factory offer were made. In the absence, however, of such an offer, it is the responsibility of the Holding Company to manage the securities entrusted to it by the Act to the best of its ability.
The whole of this problem has, of course, really arisen, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, out of the reduced demand from the company's customers. As I expect he knows, the company has completed the process of rationalisation which it decided to undertake recently. The company tried to handle the unavoidable redundancies as fairly as possible, and I am told that practically all the men who were dismissed were quickly able to find other employment in the Bristol area. I can assure the hon. Gentleman—he indicated that I should probably be able to give an assurance, and I can—that the company is always on the lookout for additional orders of the kind permitted by the Act, and, indeed, that the Holding Company believes that for the foreseeable future there will be enough work for round about the present numbers of staff employed—about 678.
I know that this is not what the hon. Gentleman wants, because he has various doctrinaire desires which I am sorry I cannot satisfy, but I hope that this will be an assurance of the kind in which his constituents are mainly interested. It shows that the position is very far from being impossible in the way that he suggested. The hon. Gentleman may
1424
say that he is not asking for an increase but for production to be maintained at the level at which it was before these changes were made, but this would involve a complete change in the purpose of the Company and would, in fact, amount to an extension of nationalisation.
Before I end I should just like to explain how my right hon. Friend became involved in all this. My right hon. Friend came into the picture as a result of the letter which the hon. Gentleman wrote to him about his constituents' proposals. My right hon. Friend then got into touch with the Holding Company and was informed by the chairman of its views and its policy in this matter. I should emphasise, however—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman really appreciated this—that the initiative has genuinely come from the Transport Holding Company and not from my right hon. Friend. The Transport Holding Company does not like the proposal, and my right hon. Friend agrees that, taking three things into account, it is perfectly right to have come to that conclusion——
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned a twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ROADS
  London-Basingstoke Motorway
  London-Basingstoke Motorway
  Classified Roads (Grants)
  Classified Roads (Grants)
  Motorways and All-purpose Roads
  Motorways and All-purpose Roads
  50 m.p.h. Speed Limit
  50 m.p.h. Speed Limit
  Oldham Bypass
  Oldham Bypass
TRANSPORT
  Vehicle Tests
  Vehicle Tests
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Motor Cyclists (Fatal Accidents)
  Motor Cyclists (Fatal Accidents)
RAILWAYS
  Rolling Stock (Manufacture)
  Rolling Stock (Manufacture)
  London Airport
  London Airport
  Car Parking (Leyton)
  Car Parking (Leyton)
SHIPPING
  Aberdeen Trawler "Deevale"
  Aberdeen Trawler "Deevale"
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Berlin
  Berlin
  London Airport and Northolt (Runway Identification)
  London Airport and Northolt (Runway Identification)
  Ferranti Limited
  Ferranti Limited
ROYAL NAVY
  Fisheries Protection Squadron
  Fisheries Protection Squadron
  Nuclear Reactors
  Nuclear Reactors
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Headquarters Staff
  Headquarters Staff
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Tourist Board
  Scottish Tourist Board
  Science Teachers
  Science Teachers
  Farm Improvement Scheme
  Farm Improvement Scheme
  General Certificate of Education
  General Certificate of Education
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Meat
  Meat
  Timber
  Timber
NATIONAL FINANCE
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Inland Revenue Offices (Telephone Calls)
  Inland Revenue Offices (Telephone Calls)
EDUCATION
  School Building, Essex
  School Building, Essex
  Training Colleges (Kitchens)
  Training Colleges (Kitchens)
  Sandwich Courses (Training Increments)
  Sandwich Courses (Training Increments)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  EC10 Forms
  EC10 Forms
HOUSING
  Slum Clearance, Birmingham
  Slum Clearance, Birmingham
  Worcester
  Worcester
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Refuse Collection
  Refuse Collection
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  United States Computers
  United States Computers
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments (Repair Grants)
  Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments (Repair Grants)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  National Health Service Contribution
  National Health Service Contribution

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

OPERATION OF ANGLO-EGYPTIAN COMPENSATION AGREEMENT
2.35 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the Egyptian Government have fulfilled their obligations and undertakings contained in the 959 Anglo-Egyptian Agreement for Compensation of British Nationals; and if not, whether Her Majesty's Government will state when any failure of undertaking has taken or is taking place.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, before August, 1962, there were several matters in which Her Majesty's Government considered the United Arab Republic to be in breach of the 1959 Agreement; notably the failure to transfer funds under Article V, to provide information under Annex B (4) (ii), to compensate British ex-officials under Article III (f) and to resume payment and transfer of pensions under Article III (e). All these matters were provided for under the Exchange of Notes of August 7, 1962, which was fully discussed in your Lordships' House on several occasions. Since these Notes were signed, Her Majesty's Government have no reason to consider that the Government of the United Arab Republic have failed to fulfil their obligations under the agreement.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for his reply, which is satisfactory so far as it goes? Could I put to him this: that
1230
if it had not been for the attention of your Lordships' House in 1962, it is very doubtful whether these breaches of the Agreement would have been brought to light? May I ask him whether, if there are breaches in the future, he will take steps to inform Parliament of such breaches? Because the alternative would be for us to put down periodic Questions for an indefinite time in the future.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not think I can promise my noble friend that we would necessarily volunteer information to Parliament whenever we were not quite satisfied with anything that was happening under this Agreement. Perhaps my noble friend's safest course—though it may be barren speculation—would be to keep on putting down his Question.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I will.

TOXIC MATERIALS IN FOOD
2.37 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: 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 the Food Standards Committee adheres to the same criterion as the United States Food and Drug Administration that no toxic materials should be permitted in food or drink at a level higher than one-hundredth of the chronic toxic dose.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, my right honourable friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Minister of Health, in association with other Ministers concerned, propose to issue shortly a Memorandum, as a guide to those concerned with the use of additives in food, about toxicity testing and the procedures followed by the Food Standards Committee, its Food Additives and Contaminants Sub-Committee and Pharmacology Panel. The Food Standards Committee knows of the criteria adopted by the United States Food and Drug Administration.

1231
No single method of extrapolation from animals to humans is accepted by all scientists. The composition of the human diet is very different from that which will keep rodents or other animals healthy, and there may be a relationship between the proportion of carbohydrate, fat or protein in the diet and the effect of a food additive. There are certain conditions occurring in man that are extremely difficult to reproduce in animals—for example, certain blood diseases, of which I would give as an example agranulocytosis; and some allergic conditions—for example, anaphylactoid purpura, and subjective symptoms of importance in man cannot be detected in animals. In relating the maximum daily tolerated dose producing no ill-effects in animals with the daily intake for man, a safety factor of 100 is commonly employed by scientists. The Food Standards Committee does not, however, regard this factor as an invariable guarantee of safety in framing its recommendations.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for the large amount of slightly irrelevant detail that he has given, may I ask him whether his answer means that in some cases it is considered that the standard of 100 is excessive?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes, it is so considered, and in that event the recommendations take the point into account. I would point out that my substantive Answer was much more relevant than, in my experience, many of the noble Lord's supplementary questions.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I have listened to the noble Lord's long Answer. Can he tell the House what he had for lunch?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Not in detail, I am afraid.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, am I to understand that my noble friend's Answer was "No"?
LORD ST. OSWALD: No; my noble friend has made a mistake if he thinks my answer was "No".
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord
1232
whether there are any cases in which the criterion of one in 100 has been exceeded and large amounts have been approved?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, "lesser factors" is, I think, what the noble Lord means. Yes, there are one or two cases. I can give the noble Lord examples if he wishes, but not at the moment, I am afraid. May I apologise for the fact that I slightly and unintentionally, misled my noble friend Lord Hawke? In fact, by and large, I suppose that my answer was "No".
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to bear in mind that there is still a sharp distinction to be drawn between human beings and animals?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, that was one of the points I was trying to make.

HERRING FISHING INDUSTRY
2.45 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have taken any action to prevent a repetition of the mistakes made last winter which resulted in the collapse of the herring fishing industry, and for which apologies have now been rendered to Parliament; and, in particular, whether any changes are contemplated in the composition of the Herring Industry Board.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, the Chairman of the Herring Industry Board has accepted responsibility for the mistake to which the noble Lord refers. We all regret this unfortunate mistake in the Board's office. The Board have proposed to the fishermen's associations that retrospective payments should be made to bring up to 27s. 6d. per cran the price actually paid to fishermen who sold them herring at Stornoway.
There is no doubt that the fishermen who took their drifters to the Minch

1233
during the winter faced difficulties, but this was largely because markets were very sluggish and much poorer than in 1962, as a result partly of the good summer fishing in 1963, and partly of the lack of demand from abroad: for example, in the last four months of 1963 the market (other than for fishmeal) was able to absorb little more than 40,000 cran of herring from the North Minch ports, compared with rather more than 80,000 cran in the comparable period of the previous year. This is clearly a much more telling factor in the difficulties faced during the winter months than the underpayment in the price of fishmeal at Stornoway.
My right honourable friend does not feel it necessary to make any changes in the composition of the Board, but he has invited the Chairman to discuss the administration of the Board's affairs with him, with a view to ensuring that there shall be no more failures of this kind.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend whether he is aware that the repeated warnings of the Member for East Aberdeenshire in another place, and of myself, were brushed aside by the Government, who said there was no crisis whatsoever in the herring fishing industry. The recantation and abject apologies which have now been made by Her Majesty's Government and the Herring Industry Board will do nothing to help the fishermen who had to come home at Christmas, and return to seine-net fishing. I should like to ask my friend one question. This blunder was of great magnitude, as has been admitted by Her Majesty's Government. Is nobody at all going to be sacked? If private industry were run on these lines, it would be bankrupt within a month. Unless Her Majesty's Government, and the Herring Industry Board, take greater care of the herring industry, upon which the whole basis of sea power in this country was built up, in the reigns of Henry VIII and his daughter Queen Elizabeth I, they will kill it. I ask for an assurance from the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government will give instructions to the Herring Industry Board to make such recommendations as will ensure the survival rather than the destruction of the herring fishing industry. That was the
1234
object Parliament had in mind when it established the Herring Industry Board.
LORD CRAIGTON: On the question of any sackings, that is a matter for the Board and, as I have said, my right honourable friend is seeing the Chairman himself. On the question of giving instructions to the Board, the Board have their statutory duty. This is a very unfortunate occurrence. I think the noble Lord is wrong in the use of the word "collapse" in regard to the blame for this particular failure. As I tried to explain in my Answer, there were many other considerations which had to be taken into account in the winter period. The fishermen's accounts which have now been analysed show that the majority of drifters did as well in 1963 as in 1962, and 1962 was a relatively good year. Having said that, I am fully seized of the difficulties of the industry, and can assure the noble Lord that we will do everything we can to prevent a repetition of this trouble.
LORD BOOTHBY: I thank the noble Lord. I will gladly withdraw the neat expression "collapse", and substitute "temporary collapse"; and I hope that it will be only temporary.

EVIDENCE IN DRUNKEN DRIVING CASES
2.46 p.m.
LORD CASEY: 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 Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1962 (which authorises the use in evidence of specimens of blood, urine or breath in cases of drunken driving) is yet in force; and, if not, when they propose to bring it into force.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act, 1962, with the exception of subsection (6) relating to the provision of breath samples, came into force on December 20, 1962. Subsection (6) cannot be brought into force until Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that suitable arrangements can be made for taking and analysing breath samples.
LORD CASEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Perhaps I might be allowed to ask whether the noble Lord is aware that the use of breath analysis equipment, popularly (or perhaps unpopularly) known as breathalysers, has been in use by the police in the State of Victoria in Australia since early 1960; that for the first two years the use of the equipment was voluntary, but that from early 1962 the use of this equipment has been compulsory, with a monetary penalty for refusal to accept the test? Is the noble Lord also aware that in this period of nearly four years over 3,000 cases have been tested at once and on the spot of the accident, and that in over 2,000 of these 3,000 cases the result has been a conviction? Further, I would ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the use of this so-called breathalyser equipment has added a valuable quantitative component to the body of evidence available in this type of offence, and has often provided substantial confirmation of the less definite conventional tests?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am aware of some of the things the noble Lord has told me, but there is at the moment a Working Party examining this question whether this equipment is suitable for this country and for our law. Her Majesty's Government are not yet satisfied that the operation of breathalysers, if I may use the term, is entirely suitable. We hope shortly to have a report from the Working Party, which includes representatives of the police and of the directors of the forensic science laboratories. We shall doubtless come to a decision in due course, but we do not want to bring it in until we are satisfied that it is suitable here.
LORD CASEY: While again thanking the noble Lord, may I ask if, when this investigation has been conducted, it would not be appropriate to seek an official account, rather than the rather more personal account that I have attempted to give, of the use of breath analysis equipment in the State of Victoria and also, I believe, in one of the Scandinavian countries?
LORD DERWENT: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could the noble Lord say if the Working Party
1236
is also considering whether there should be a limit to the amount of alcohol a person could consume before he would be considered to have his driving ability impaired?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the particular Working Party to which I referred is dealing only with breathalysers, so it does not deal with that particular question, which, of course, includes blood tests and urine tests.
LORD CASEY: My Lords, may I venture to ask a further question of the noble Lord? I am putting my thought in the form of a question. Would the noble Lord be surprised if I were surprised that there had been no reference to breath analysis equipment in the discussion in your Lordships' House about a week ago which was substantially on the means of coping with drunken driving?
LORD DERWENT: Would the noble Lord be surprised if I, too, was surprised?
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, would the noble Lord bear in mind that in some cases there is almost no limit to the amount of alcohol that can safely be consumed by an individual, but that in other cases a glass of sherry will render a person incapable of driving a motor car? This makes the breathalyser business very difficult.
LORD DERWENT: I most profoundly disagree with the noble Lord.

REFUGEES, DISASTERS AND INTERNATIONAL AID
2.51 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD (on behalf of the Viscount Astor) rose to call attention to the problems of refugees, disasters and international assistance; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I deeply regret the absence from your Lordships' House of the noble Viscount, Lard Astor, this afternoon, and also the reason which prevents him from being here. Noble Lords will feel as I do: a very deep regret at the death of his brilliant mother. Many of your Lordships were very great friends of her. It is with some hesitation that I take his place to-day, because I am no longer

1237
actively engaged in refugee organisation in the United Kingdom. Since my chairmanship of the World Refugee Year Appeal, I have actually withdrawn from the continuing organisation. But Lord Astor, I am glad to say, has been and still is Chairman of this continuing organisation, and has done a great deal to keep the voluntary organisation together and to keep the needs of refugees in the minds of the public.
However, in spite of the fact that I am no longer a member of a committee here, I have kept in very close touch with one section of the work for refugees—namely, that of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in the Middle East. I have twice—once in 1961, and again this year—been to the Middle East and seen the work that is being done by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. I visited many of the camps and saw many of the activities that are the result of the money raised during the World Refugee Year. So, if I may, before I talk about the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the work he does in all the refugee areas other than the Middle East, I should like to say one word about the Middle East.
Here I cannot praise too highly the work that is being done at the present moment by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. They are faced, as we all know, with a very difficult problem indeed; a problem which is, of course, in large part political, but one which is also very human. I do not propose to deal with the political side of this problem; I am concerned only with the United Nations Agency and the work that they are doing there.
After the three years that passed between my first visit and my visit at Easter, I was enormously impressed by the improvement in the conditions under which those refugees living in the camps are being cared for. There is much better sanitation, much better schools, better training facilities and better chances of employment for young trainees, and all this has been done by the staff and organisation of U.N.R.W.A. They have trained refugees to run the camps, to take responsibilities, and to look after themselves in a way for which I have nothing but praise. All this is being done at really a very low cost:
1238
£13½, million, or 38 million dollars. The average expenditure per head per year on refugees is only £12 4s.; a daily expenditure of what amounts to 8d. a head. When one sees what is being achieved with so little money, one realises that it is really nothing short of a miracle. What I am particularly interested in is the fact that so much of the money goes in practical work which is of a permanent character. In fact, 40 per cent. of what is spent by the Agency is spent on what I call permanent solutions for these refugees in their training.
When I was raising money for the World Refugee Year, I said to Dr. Davis, who was then the head of U.N.R.W.A., that I hoped he would spend as much as he possibly could on the technical training schools, on the technical assistance that could be given in the training of young Arab refugees, and, above all, would do something for young women, for the girls in the camps, because in a Moslem country, as I am sure your Lordships will appreciate, it is difficult to get things done for girls. Dr. Davis has started in the U.N.R.W.A. organisation some ten training centres, taking about 4,000 trainees a year, but it was only after World Refugee Year that a girls' training centre was established.
I visited this centre at Ramullah, which is quite close to Jerusalem, in Jordan, and there I met an excellent headmistress, a Mrs. Mufti, and saw a splendid technical training college for girls which really rejoiced my heart. Because, for the first time in this place some 600 young women are being given training in no fewer than nine different professions, of which nursing and nursery nursing, teaching, secretarial work, home economics and a great many other subjects form part. I could see the enormous success that was attending this project, and saw that they could well do with more than one, since the number of young women who are applying for this training far exceeds the number that can be taken in.
I visited, also, other technical training colleges. I went to see the teacher-training colleges where young Arabs are fitting themselves for training. Some of them are being trained in other parts of the world. I was very impressed by a scheme which is being run by one of the oldest of technical training colleges

1239
there—a college at Kalandia near Jerusalem. They have an arrangement with Sweden whereby the Swedish Government train a certain number of young Arab technical men in Sweden. Some of them become absorbed in Sweden and remain there; others, of course, return and get work either in the Arab States or in other parts of the country.
I realise that this is helping only a very small part of the problem, but until there is some permanent political solution I think U.N.R.W.A. are doing a most valuable job. I hope that the Minister who is going to reply will consider this matter, because at the next meeting of the General Assembly in New York in 1964 the need to continue the mandate of the Commissioner General for U.N.R.W.A. is to be discussed. So I most earnestly urge on the Government to vote for another five-year extension of the Commission, which is really essential.
I do not think it is necessary for me to stress in your Lordship's House the danger to peace inherent in this situation in the Middle East. Any war, however limited—and it is doubtful whether it would be limited—would cost the nations multiple millions. The small amount of money involved in keeping U.N.R.W.A. working is, I think, far the best investment for peace that we can make today.
Then, to turn from the Middle East, the position in Europe is, I think, very encouraging. Co-operation between the British Government and the voluntary organisations is now very well established. The Committee which we set up at the end of World Refugee Year to continue the co-operation established in that successful period has continued, as I have said before, under the able chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Astor. This is very important indeed, and I hope that this co-operation will extend to the international Agencies of the United Nations. The International Red Cross also are interested in this whole problem, and I believe that at a later stage in the debate the noble Lord, Lord Inchyra, who is head of the British Red Cross, is going to tell your Lordships something of this co-operation.
In Europe the number of refugees in camps has been reduced from 35,000 in
1240
1961 to 1,900 this year. That is a considerable decrease. Also, figures are available for the out-of-camp refugees. There are still 32,600 refugees out of camps, but this figure also compares favourably with that of 215,000 in 1959. In fact, in four years the number of out-of-camp refugees settled has reached 215,400, and much of this is the direct result of World Refugee Year.
Of course, with this small number remaining we come down to very difficult cases, but the High Commission has enlisted the services of a very remarkable Australian, Dr. Jenson, whose work in finding solutions to these problem cases has been beyond praise. He has undertaken intensive case work with these remaining refugees, and is having a considerable success. But we have got to continue to support Dr. Jenson and not cease in our efforts until a solution has been found for these remaining cases. Not only are these difficult individuals, but there are families and children who must be given a proper chance in life; and we must thank those countries, of which Great Britain is one, who have accepted what are now called the problem families or the Jenson cases. Over and above these remaining cases, a letter I have from the High Commisisoner's office states the less encouraging fact that every year about 10,000 refugees come into Western Europe from other parts of the world. Therefore, there is still a continuing problem of refugees.
There is one other problem which my noble friend Lord Astor asked me to mention, and that is the question of compensation of victims of Nazi persecution. Nineteen years after the war this matter is still unsettled. We must recognise that the German Government have already paid a considerable sum in regard to this problem. They have, in fact, paid £1,900 million, but there are still a number of uncompensated cases. The German Ministry very courteously informed the Committee that they were drafting a new Bill on this subject, and that they would send it to the British societies for their comments. When the Bill came this year, the societies felt that there were still some unsatisfactory features, and a memorial, signed by leading Members of both Houses of Parliament, as well as distinguished

1241
representatives of many other walks of life, was presented to the German Ambassador this year. I should like to stress that the signatories of the memorial were all friends of the new Germany, who desire, as we all do, that the scars of the past may be healed; but if these victims of Nazi persecution, who are now getting on, spend their last years uncompensated and die poor, it will leave a legacy of distress. We hope that the German Government, by the new Bill that they are going to put forward, will heal the scars of the past, and that a new era may be made possible by prompt and generous action by the German Government in this matter.
If I may pass from Europe to the East, to Tibet, considerable progress has been made in dealing with the plight of the Tibetan refugees in India. The Government of India has now invited the good offices of the High Commissioner for Refugees and a Consultative Council composed of the voluntary organisations helping these refugees to meet monthly in Delhi so that they can co-operate with each other, with the Government of India and with the Indian Committee; and the British voluntary societies express their thanks to a distinguished former member of the Government of India, Sir Olaf Caroe, who has taken the chairmanship of our sub-committee on Tibet and whose visit to India on our behalf did much to secure this helpful development.
To pass from India to Hong Kong, there, although the refugee problem is of an astronomical nature, international help and Government grants from this country are extraordinarily effective. The key continues to be to secure for Hong Kong overseas markets for her produce. Without such markets, no amount of charitable help could prevent a catastrophe. But the Government of Hong Kong is dealing with this matter in a most practical and efficient manner.
From Hong Kong we must go to Africa. There are about 150,000 refugees in Rwanda, as well as something like the same number in the Congo. The High Commissioner and the voluntary societies are making massive efforts to provide both emergency relief and final settlement in these matters. The need, according to the High Commissioner, is to prevent the develop-
1242
ment of what he calls "refugee mindfulness", by encouraging, and even sometimes forcing, self-support among those refugees. This requires the presence of United Nations' representatives and also of representatives of the great voluntary societies in our country—societies such as Inter-Church Aid, the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief, the Save the Children Fund and others—who are working on development to help these refugees.
There is an exceedingly interesting project of settling 13,000 Rwanda refugees in Tanganyika, which has the support of the Prime Minister and the Government of Tanganyika. This will cost 600,000 dollars, but it will be a most valuable project, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will help. I read in the Press to-day that 700,000 refugees have now left the Sudan and asked to be taken into Uganda. This puts the total number of refugees coming into Uganda from the Sudan at the present moment at 60,000. This is a very large number, and means a big charge on the High Commissioner's resources. We are all deeply concerned to-day, too, with the problems in Cyprus. We do not know what the outcome of these problems may be, but the High Commissioner may well be involved in helping with refugees from that unhappy country.
These problems to which I have tried to refer, problems in Africa and in other parts of the world, remind us that, in spite of all our efforts—and our efforts have been very successful—a refugee problem still continues in the world. I believe—and I hope Her Majesty's Government will agree with me in this—that it would be catastrophic to reduce the High Commissioner's present budget, and that we must envisage expenditure on the present level for quite a long time ahead. Unless we do that, my Lords, we risk allowing a backlog of a hard core of refugees to build up in Africa and Asia in the same way as they did in Europe and the Middle East, with equally catastrophic results and which cost far more to settle in the end and involved a gigantic effort, such as the World Refugee Year was in 1961.
My Lords, refugees are created both by human catastrophies and natural disasters, but the problems are basically

1243
the same. A mass of people suddenly requires food, clothing, medicines and shelter; and then later requires to be resettled. We have now set up in Britain an Emergency Disaster Committee of the five big voluntary societies, with the Chairman of the Standing Conference representing the interests of smaller societies and with representatives of the relevant Government Departments to increase co-operation in both sorts of emergencies.
The Red Cross has accepted the leadership of this Emergency Committee. This Committee had its first test with the disaster resulting from the Skopje earthquake. When you know that it is Lord Inchyra who will be in charge of this Committee, I am sure your Lordships will realise that we shall have a most efficient leadership. It is our duty in Britain to set our house in order and to encourage British Societies to exchange information as to what each is doing to solve these problems. We are glad to say that this co-operation is being created on an international scale and it will include organisations under the United Nations, the leading non-governmental organisations, such as the International Red Cross, the World Council of Churches, the Catholic organisations, the Jewish organisations and any of the other organisations set up to deal with the problem. We promise that whatever is done on the international level will be given full co-operation by the British societies.
My Lords, in general we are increasingly trying to seek final solutions as well as to give emergency relief. That was the whole philosophy of the World Refugee Year. That is also the philosophy of the Freedom from Hunger Campaign, ably led by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. There is also the United Nations Development Decade, who are equally interested in the future of these many organisations. But in the carrying out of the permanent solutions new problems have arisen. For instance, are the problems of India and Africa so big that they can be solved only by Governments? There is some truth in this idea. These problems can in the end be solved only by international and governmental action.
But I feel that the voluntary societies will always play a part in this work.
1244
In the first place, voluntary societies can act more swiftly than governmental and inter-governmental organisations. They can make experiments which Governments cannot do; they can succeed or fail—and sometimes they must fail. That leads the way to further action, because success is also pervasive. So I think that the support which is given by the voluntary organisations in these problems is of primary importance. This is the view of Her Majesty's Government, because they have supported the United Nations' Resolution encouraging voluntary bodies to take a great part in this work of permanent solutions. So in the last ten years it is true to say the work of these societies has changed to some extent from providing emergency relief to helping to make permanent development.
But, my Lords, here comes a problem. Consequent upon our British voluntary bodies having entered into long-term commitments for agricultural experiments, reclamation, land development and many other such forms of work. and the Government having given encouragement, the whole basis of this work from the voluntary organisation side is now threatened by, not exactly a decision, but rather the threat of a decision by the Charity Commission that work of this kind does not fall within the ruling relating to covenants and other forms of subscriptions made by private individuals to societies of a charitable nature.
This has caused a great deal of difficulty, unhappiness and uncertainty among the voluntary societies. In a recent Report, the Chief Charity Commissioner discussed these problems. His remarks on the need for appeals to be clearly defined and the need for a proper accounting system for money spent overseas were, in fact, warmly welcomed by the responsible societies. But the Chief Charity Commissioner expressed his opinion that to support what should be the responsibility of overseas Governments in the way of public works is an illegal use of charitable funds.
The societies immediately arranged a meeting with the Charity Commissioner. He was most courteous, but he could relieve none of them of their anxieties

1245
at that time. Accordingly, a meeting was held with the Leader of the House, as this was clearly a matter in which not only the legal position of the societies had to be coped with but also one in which the Government had to bear in mind whether it was to torpedo the efforts of Inter-Church Aid, the Save The Children Fund, Oxfam and all the other societies. I should like to ask the Minister who is to reply to-day to give us a statement about this tax position. It is very worrying for the voluntary societies and for those who subscribe to them; it is hampering the collection of money and the splendid use to which that money has been put. So I hope the Minister will be able to make some reassuring statement, so that the great work which the voluntary organisations wish to do can be carried out.
My Lords, these problems of refugees and of developments are great and often intractable, but I think we can be proud of the British effort. We have seen the spontaneous and generous response of the British people to the World Refugee Year and now to the Freedom from Hunger Campaign. This is a response which proves that we are not just selfishly enjoying the benefits of the affluent society but are anxious to share it with others less fortunate. This is proof, if proof were needed, that the contribution of Her Majesty's Government (which, as we all know, is money provided by the taxpayer) has on this occasion the wholehearted support of the people. I hope it will encourage the Government not to cut their contribution to the High Commissioners but to support the renewal of the mandate of his Commission for U.N.R.W.A. and also to support those other activities which are carried on by the United Nations High Commissioner. I beg to move for Papers.
3.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, we all regret, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, was unable to move this Motion. We regret it because he has moved Motions on this subject repeatedly, and we all know he is a long-standing, enthusiastic supporter of refugee work. But I am sure your Lordships will agree that he could have found
1246
no more able and eloquent substitute than the noble Baroness. Her speech not only showed great sympathy for refugees but displayed her wide knowledge, from personal experience, of the work being done for refugees, both in this country and in other parts of the world.
I am particularly grateful to noble Lords and Ladies opposite, if I may regard the initiative as being a joint one, for drawing your Lordships' attention to this problem, because this country has a high reputation to maintain, a reputation second to none in the world, in regard to its concern for refugees. We can all take pride in the fact that the idea of World Refugee Year was conceived here, that we were the largest donor among the nations that contributed, and that our contribution was nearly half the total sum received from all over the world by the United Nations High Commissioner from private sources.
We cannot rest on our laurels without losing them. Memories are short, and four years have passed since World Refugee Year and we need to be reminded. For that reason, we are most grateful for the initiative that has been taken on the other side of the House. But, in spite of all that has been done by voluntary societies, such as the organisation to combat world hunger and the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief, and in spite of all that Governments have done through the United Nations in the years since the war, these destitute and homeless people are still with us in their thousands and, having no country of their own to turn to, they must still rely for their very existence on the good will of ordinary people like ourselves all over the world.
The refugee problem is not only just as serious as it has ever been in the past, including the years immediately after the last world war, but it is just as certain, I feel, to be with us for a very long time. The stream of refugees would go on flowing, even if every refugee in every country to-day could be resettled with a home and a job immediately. So long as we have big wars, small wars, civil wars and racial, religious or political persecution, we shall have their victims escaping to safety wherever they can find refuge.

1247
I am sure that this debate will serve a very useful purpose if it does two things: if it reminds the British public of the extent and urgency of the refugee problem, and if it convinces the Government that Members of your Lordships' House, on both sides and in all quarters, are anxious that they should not relax the efforts they have made on behalf of refugees and in certain directions should do rather more than they are doing at the present time. After all, refugees have certain disadvantages. They have no votes, and Parliamentary time is much more fully occupied by Government Business in another place. Therefore, surely this is one of the occasions when your Lordships' House is performing its most useful function, when it can supplement what is being done elsewhere without repeating it.
What is the broad picture of the refugee situation to-day? Although I admit that I have much less skill in drawing it than has the noble Baroness, I think that she will agree with me—though I hope that she will say so if she does not—that in Europe there has been a very substantial improvement since the war. In Asia Minor, the situation will regard to Arab refugees is still very serious indeed. In Asia, there are some bad patches, to which the noble Baroness referred. But I believe the greatest deterioration has taken place, and is still taking place, in Africa. In this respect, my view is supported by the fact that the High Commissioner for Refugees, in budgeting for the current year, has budgeted to spend more in Africa than in any other continent.
In our last Foreign Affairs debate, I ventured to draw your lordships' attention to the most burning refugee problem in Africa—the plight of the Tutsi tribe, who have fled from Rwanda to neighbouring countries in that part of Africa. I am not going to weary your Lordships by repeating what I said then. I would only give some figures, which I think are the latest figures, to show the size of this problem and how many people are involved. There are, I believe, 42,000 of these Tutsi refugees in Burundi, 12,000 in Tanganyika, 36,000 in Uganda and 60,000 in the Kivu province of the Congo.
Those are very rough figures. It is always difficult to count anything very
1248
accurately in Africa, and the counting of refugees is one of the more difficult statistical exercises, which would be difficult in any country. But to take the rough total, there are 150,000 homeless and destitute people who have taken refuge in neighbouring countries, which are themselves extremely poor. Of course, the African Governments in these countries are doing their best to assist, but they cannot really cope single-handed with this vast influx of destitute neighbours. The United Nations need funds for immediate relief and resettlement very urgently. They are the only source of assistance to which these people can turn.
I very much hope that the Government will regard this refugee situation in Central Africa as an emergency situation, and will make a special contribution to the work of the United Nations in relation to the Rwanda refugees, apart from their annual contribution to the High Commission. I would make one reference to the annual contribution of Her Majesty's Government, following the footsteps of the noble Baroness. I believe that the annual contribution for 1964 has not yet been decided, so that perhaps this is a particularly appropriate moment. I understand that we gave £200,000 last year and £100,000 the year before. I should like to think—and I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me—that at a time when our national income is expanding, as it is, we should spare a small fraction of this increase for the benefit of those people outside our own country who are in greatest need. And the need of none is greater than that of refugees. I hope that whatever the Government decide to give will be worthy of the traditional British attitude to refugees and will show that this, at any rate, is a field in which Britain can still lead the world.
I am particularly glad that the noble Baroness, with her experience of the Middle East, has drawn our attention to the fine work of the United Nations Relief and Works Organisation for the Arab refugees who came originally from Palestine. The noble Baroness avoided the political issue and I will not comment on it, but we are bound to recognise the political situation as a matter of fact. We are bound to recognise that relations between Jews and Arabs make it most unlikely that we shall be able

1249
to find a political solution, and most likely that about 1 million Arabs will still continue to be unable either to return to Israel or to settle permanently on Arab soil.
I endorse most wholeheartedly the plea made by the noble Baroness that the Government should ask the United Nations to renew the mandate of this invaluable Agency when it expires next year. I also hope that the renewed mandate will be not for a short period of time, but for a period of not less than five years. I am very glad that the noble Baroness made that point, because I think it is an extremely important one. Without having a reasonable period of time, it is quite impossible for an Agency of this kind to do the forward planning that is needed, both to serve the refugees and to make the most economical use of the funds with which they are entrusted.
I should like to turn now from the general problem (I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I do this, but I think that at any rate I shall be saying something that is not likely to be said by anyone else, difficult though this is in a debate of this kind) to a particular aspect of the refugee problem, not by any means the most important—I admit that straight away—but of special importance to this country and the Commonwealth. I refer to the problem of political refugees who come to this country from Commonwealth countries. Their position at the moment is highly unsatisfactory. It conflicts with one of the traditional freedoms of this country—namely, the right of political refugees from other countries to asylum here; that is to say, to freedom from persecution as long as they are on British soil.
A principle in which we all believe is that a man should not be sent back to his own country if he is wanted for a political offence, provided that he refrains from political activity directed at his own Government while he is in this country. I need hardly remind your Lordships that our reputation for freedom in the nineteenth century was largely due to the fact that we gave asylum to political refugees from all the European despotisms. They came here; they claimed the right of asylum, and we gave it to them. In this century, writers, scientists and ordinary people flocked to this country from the rule of
1250
Hitler and of Mussolini, and many of them are living here still. This is a great British tradition. But we are in danger of losing it, because we have failed to alter our law so as to give the citizens of Commonwealth countries the same right of asylum as foreigners.
To illustrate this proposition, I should like to remind your Lordships of the case of Chief Enahoro, which was of such importance—and it shows the strength of British public opinion on this matter—that just about a year ago it occupied discussion in another place for four days. Perhaps I may be allowed briefly to recapitulate the facts of the case. Chief Enahoro was wanted by the Nigerian Government for a political offence. Her Majesty's Government decided to extradite him because, being a citizen of a Commonwealth country, he did not have the right of asylum under British law which foreigners have. If he had been a foreigner he would have had a right of asylum here. Since his extradition he has been convicted by the Nigerian courts and is now serving a long prison sentence.
Her Majesty's Government had a very strong case in law. Their contention, which I think no one denied, was that under the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, there was no provision prohibiting the return of a fugitive from any British territory or Commonwealth country if the offence with which he was to be charged was a political one. There is no such provision in that Act. What the Act does is to give the courts in this country, and the Home Secretary, the right to exercise their discretion in the case of a man charged with a political offence. What they have to do is to decide whether a man will have a fair trial and not receive an inhuman or unjustly severe sentence if he is sent back; that is to say, if he is extradited, whether he will be treated in what we regard as a humane and reasonable manner.
This means that the law, as it stands, obliges British courts and British Ministers to pass judgment on the administration of justice in Commonwealth countries. I cannot imagine anything more damaging to Commonwealth relations than a position of this kind. Of course, this is exactly what happened in the case of Chief Enahoro. This discretionary provision of the existing law

1251
is surely another powerful argument in favour of revising the law. An unfavourable judgment—if Her Majesty's Government had taken the opposite view in this case—would do unheard of damage to our relations with the Commonwealth country concerned. I cannot help wondering whether, if the Enahoro case had gone against the Nigerian Government, Nigeria might have left the Commonwealth, and we should thereby have lost the largest, most powerful and influential country in Africa. So long as the law remains unchanged we are placed on the horns of an intolerable dilemma whenever a Commonwealth country applies in our courts for the release of a political offender. We have the choice either to surrender our proud tradition of political asylum, or to offer a gross afront to one of our Commonwealth friends and neighbours.
This is not a theoretical asylum. It cannot be said that because no case has cropped up in the last year it will not happen again. This sort of thing may confront us again at any moment. We are all aware that the system of government in some of the new Commonwealth countries has already resulted in opponents of the ruling party seeking refuge abroad and being afraid to go home. So long as the law remains unchanged, another Enahoro case, with its inevitable consequences both for British public opinion and for the Commonwealth, could crop up to-morrow.
Her Majesty's Government agree that the law, as it stands, is unsatisfactory and that some alteration should be made. But the point that was made when this matter was debated a year ago was that nothing should be done without consultation with Commonwealth countries; and, of course, we should entirely agree with that. I will not weary your Lordships with an extract from the record of what the former Prime Minister, Mr. Macmillan, said in the debate, but I know the noble Earl opposite will agree that he gave the undertaking that Commonwealth countries would be consulted immediately with a view to getting their agreement to some alteration in the law. This is absolutely the right procedure.
We are just as anxious as the Government that Commonwealth countries
1252
should agree with whatever we want to do. But it was just over a year ago that the former Prime Minister said he would start discussions with other Commonwealth Governments. Three weeks ago I asked the Government whether these discussions had been brought to a conclusion, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, told me that they were still going on. It seems almost unbelievable that our High Commissioners in Commonwealth countries, who received their instructions about a year ago, should still be unable to ascertain views, one way or the other, of the Commonwealth Governments to which they are accredited. I can only say that it shows that the Government have no sense of the urgency of completing these discussions.
These things can be done quickly. When my noble friend Lord Attlee was Prime Minister, we completed the discussions with the Government of India, which resulted in the division of British India between India and Pakistan, and an independent Constitution for these two new countries, within four months. Where there's a will, there's a way. What is lacking in the present Government and the present Prime Minister is the will to see this thing through. I really do not know—at least, so far as my knowledge of what has happened recently goes—any worse example of the weakness and ineptitude of the present Government than their failure after this long period of time to bring these discussions to a conclusion.
What I would suggest, if the Government are still bogged down in these discussions at an official level, is that when the Prime Ministers' Conference takes place in July they should take the initiative in putting this matter on the Conference Agenda. I should like the noble Earl to reply to this question, if he will, at the end of the debate. I have not given him notice, and I do not suggest he should answer it immediately, but he will have an opportunity between now and the end of the debate to consult his advisers. I am sure that if in the end we find that other Commonwealth countries do not agree, they will appreciate our right to legislate, without their concurrence, on any matter we consider equitable and in the best interests of the Commonwealth. That is exactly what

1253
they would expect to do if in our position.
I very much hope that in raising this British aspect, and only a limited aspect, of the refugee problem I have not given the House the impression of losing sight of the wood for the trees. That was not at all my intention. My main plea to the Government is exactly the same as the plea made by the noble Baroness, that the Government should treat the refugees with a statesmanlike policy, and a generous policy at the same time.
3.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I hope to make a few winding-up remarks at the end of this debate, and I rise now for only a few moments so that I may give an immediate reply to the question about the Charity Commissioners which my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood raised towards the end of her speech, because I thought it might economise time and perhaps be helpful to some of your Lordships who were going to speak if the Government's view about this matter could be stated early in the debate.
Some of the voluntary organisations which Lady Elliot of Harwood has in mind have expressed concern that the charitable nature of their activities may be questioned as a matter of law. From the Government's point of view, we think it is very important that the springs of charity, which are very wide and deep in this country, should not be impeded by any needless apprehension about the rigidity of the law on this matter. Charity law in England and Wales has evolved over a great many years, and I think its principles are widely understood. But, of course, the application of those principles to particular circumstances may sometimes pose questions of some difficulty. It would not be right for a Minister to make pronouncements on the position of any particular charities, or to indicate whether the object of any appeal is, or is not, charitable according to law. That is a function which Parliament has entrusted to the Charity Commissioners and, within their field of interest, to the Inland Revenue. Their function is a semi-judicial one and their decisions, of course, may be tested in the courts.
Your Lordships will have seen that the Charity Commissioners themselves
1254
offered some guidance in their Report for 1962, when they pointed out that appeals to enable charities to play their part in the fields which my noble friend and the noble Earl opposite have been discussing should be confined to charitable purposes, and should state accurately what their purposes are. The money collected must then be devoted to those purposes, because those who administer the charities are in the position of trustees of the money which is given, and they must apply it in accordance with the intention of the giver.
I understand that the declared objects of the charities which are operating overseas are usually expressed in terms sufficiently wide to cover the whole range of projects which have hitherto been supported, but not quite always. It is sometimes difficult to decide whether a particular project on which money is to be spent is charitable or not, and to assist them in applying the law in these difficult cases the Charity Commissioners and the Inland Revenue have sought legal advice. They have now got it, and I understand that both the Charity Commissioners and the Inland Revenue believe that it will enable them to regard the great majority of the projects which have come to their notice so far as falling within the charitable field, and also within the trust purposes of the charities concerned.
It would, of course, be necessary for them, in consultation with the charity concerned, to go into the facts of any particular case, and to go into the trust instrument, if need be, in order that they may be satisfied. If any charity feels in any doubt about the charitable nature of the project it has undertaken, or wishes to undertake, it will be well advised to get in touch with the Commissioners, who will, I am sure, give all the help and advice they can.
The suggestion has been made by my noble friend that, in view of the encouragement which the Government have given to voluntary societies to devote their resources to work overseas on a more extensive scale than they hitherto have been doing, the Government should secure, if necessary by a change in the law, that no impediment should stand in the way of this laudable object. As your Lordships know, there is no statutory definition of "charity"

1255
The question of whether we should have a statutory definition was very fully debated during the course of the preparation and the passage through Parliament of the Charities Act, 1960, which modernised the whole of our charity law. The conclusion which was reached, with general acceptance, I think, was that there was no reason to change the existing law, and that there would be serious disadvantages in enacting a fresh statutory definition. That still remains the Government's view.
Of course, the law must always be able to protect donors who subscribe to charitable objects against any possible misapplication of the money which they have subscribed. But I am assured that any charity which is anxious, in good faith, to play its proper part in this great work of aid for those in need and distress overseas, need not feel that it will be obstructed; and that if there should be any need for an alteration in the objects for which a charity is established so as to remove doubt in borderline cases about its power to undertake particular projects within the field of charity law, then the Charity Commissioners will be prepared to give all the assistance they can.
My Lords, as there are so many of your Lordships who wish to take part in this debate, I will only add that I think the Government substantially agree with all that has been said, both by my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood and by the noble Earl opposite, except, perhaps, for the noble Earl's suggestion that we have been dragging our feet about getting an agreement with the Commonwealth concerning the law of extradition. We do not want there to be any unnecessary delay. I would put it to the noble Earl that it takes two to make an agreement, and there are a great many countries in the Commonwealth. Although, as he rightly said, we have in the last resort the right to legislate by ourselves, it would surely be preferable to get agreement if we can.
But in general I agree with the rest of what the noble Earl said. We are grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this Motion, and although she may no longer be engaged actively in this work we shall never forget her really magnificent performance in World
1256
Refugee Year, when she led the voluntary organisations of this country in raising the unprecedented sum of £9 million, which was the largest amount raised in any of the 97 countries which took part.
I will leave the other matters which she and the noble Earl mentioned—U.N.R.W.A., the German victims and Africa—until winding up at the end. We all deplore the modern 20th century inhumanity which seems to make it impossible for peoples, who somehow managed to live in the same country through the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages, to do so now, and we all agree that we should combine in our endeavour to mitigate the suffering which is caused by this inhumanity. My noble friend particularly asked about continuance of the U.N.R.W.A. High Commissioner. We voted last year for the United Nations High Commissioner to go on for another five years. The U.N.R.W.A. Commissioner had only a period of two years, which expires in June. We will certainly vote for his continuance. Whether the period will again be two years I cannot say.
As a Government, we have contributed since the war no less than £200 million altogether to the work of helping refugees. We have given more than any other country except the United States; and that applies in particular to U.N.R.W.A. The amount which we have given is very large in relation to that which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, mentioned of £100,000 in 1962. He acknowledged that we had doubled that in 1963, after strong requests to do so in your Lordships' last debate, to which I had the honour of replying. We will certainly listen to all that is said in your Lordships' debate to-day. I think it is right that we should mention the fact that we have done more than any other country except the United States, but I should also, in particular, like to pay a tribute on behalf of the Government to all the voluntary organisations, the Churches and the other institutions, who are playing an indispensable part in this work of humanity and mercy.
3.53 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, it was my privilege for the major part of the month of April to lead a party of Christian pilgrims to

1257
the Holy Land. The opportunity to study the problem of Palestinian Arab refugees at first-hand was too great to be missed; and, with the co-operation of the High Commissioner and many officials of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, I was enabled to meet refugees, to talk with them and to see something of the many projects which have been devised for their assistance and encouragement. It is to the problem as it exists in Palestine that I shall confine myself. Before I say anything else, I should like to express my deep gratitude to the High Commissioner and many members of his staff for their unfailing kindness and courtesy, and to pay my tribute to the splendid labours of this devoted band of men and women.
There are approximately one and a quarter million refugees in the Middle East. About half of this number, some 650,000, are in Jordan; about 325,000 are in the Gaza Strip; and the balance are divided between Syria and the Lebanon. The total figure on January 1, 1964, showed an increase of 38,491 over the previous year because the rate of immigration and resettlement is exceeded by the excess of births over deaths among the refugee population. Despite this, there was a slight decrease in the total number receiving rations, which had fallen from approximately 881,000 to 879,000. Current policy is now not to place further children on the ration rolls except to the degree that other persons are removed from the roll. If U.N.R.W.A. rations and care were withdrawn there is no doubt at all that there would be added to the great hardship, squalor and poor conditions in which most of the refugees are living, the burden of severe privation and, in many cases, actual starvation.
I talk of rations. What does this mean? U.N.R.W.A.'s budget permits of the expenditure of £10 14s. per registered refugee per year; that is to say, approximately seven pennies per person per day. Of this money, 40 per cent. is spent on relief, 15 per cent. on health, 40 per cent. on education and 5 per cent. on social welfare. What the rations mean is a monthly allocation of 22 lb. of flour, 1⅓ lb. of rice, 1⅓ lb. of various pulse foods, just over 1 lb. of sugar, ¾ lb. of fat or oil, and a piece of salt; no meat,
1258
no fish and no fruit. It is an allowance of 1,500 calories in the seven summer months, and 1,600 calories in the five winter months. There are extra rations for pregnant women, nursing mothers and for cases recommended by the doctors. Until now each refugee has also received one blanket in every three years. This has now become one blanket in every four years. There is also an allowance of 2½ pints of kerosene a month for heating. Who could live on such a diet? The fact is that each refugee family has to fight for itself what is called the "battle of the gap", the gap between what is provided for them and the basic necessities of life.
There are many who would reply at once that they should work and not live on relief. Work, yes: but how? They are peasants and they have no land. The lands in which they now live are lands of unemployment. More than one-third of the total population of Jordan, over one-quarter of the population of Gaza, and one-tenth of the population of Lebanon and a smaller percentage of the population of Syria are refugees. Nearly one in six of the total population of these four Middle Eastern countries are refugees. And they are not countries of modern and growing indusstry; they are countries endowed with infertile soils, immense water problems, peasant herding and farming, and very little industry.
If we take Jordan as an example—and it is to be noted that there are important differences in the situations of each of these countries—50 per cent. of the total labour force are engaged in agriculture, 30 per cent. in urban employment and 15 per cent. are unemployed. It is a remarkable thing that the refugees get as much work as they do. Among them, unskilled workers secure some employment at about 5s. a day. semi-skilled workers up to about 10s. a day. About 40 per cent. of the refugee labour force manage to get work for between 60 and 90 days of the year; a far smaller percentage are in permanent work. How the rest manage to live no one knows.
The fact is that U.N.R.W.A. has done well in relief, but not nearly so well in the provision of work or completely resettling. These are problems which have no solution on the terms which now

1259
exist. The provision of relief work has proved to be too costly. Money was not voted for long-term projects of water conservation, land use, irrigation and so on indicated in the Economic Survey Mission for the Middle East, of 1950. There has been some emigration, mainly to the United States, Canada, Latin America, Australia and New Zealand, but the total figure for the six years ending June, 1963, did not exceed 200,000 persons. Serious attempts are now being made for vocational training, and I myself visited the vocational training centre at Kalandin, where facilities are available for training 392 persons, and the Ramullah Training Centre for girls. I also visited centres for training health workers and pharmacists. The work that is going on in these centres is beyond all praise.
It is important that it should be noted that this is a field where, because of strict limitation of funds, only the surface is being skimmed. I was told by the head of the training school that in the whole of Jordan there is only one garage where a Jaguar car can be repaired. There is a grave shortage of skilled mechanics, as there is of engineers and technical personnel of all kinds at all levels. Certain Swedish firms have recently opened three-year courses for refugees as motor mechanics, part of the training being done in Sweden. This is something which provides great benefit, not simply to the individuals concerned but to the whole economy of these Arab countries. I have with me a letter from a boy who has gone overseas to learn. This is his letter to his instructor:
"From the country of calm and sound organisation I send you sound and true greetings.
"It is difficult to express in writing our gratitude for the sincere services you have rendered to us by teaching us to lead the proper way. You have been a brother, a friend, and a father to all of us.
"I am proud of extending the news of my success in Sweden. This has come through your hearty efforts and those of the instructional staff, particularly those of Mr. Salloum whose instruction has proved our attainment of the same standards as those of our colleagues from this country of advanced industry and "high standards"—
that is Sweden.
"I shall always cherish the memories of my time spent in the Centre, which is a large
1260
house accommodating many fathers and brothers. Please convey on my behalf my best wishes and regards to all the brother instructors and colleagues. To every ambitious trainee I wish all the good luck to have the opportunity I had of seeing the Western world.
"Your obedient son,
"Ragheb Hasan El-Ayyeh."
There is warning and encouragement in these lines of the young Ragheb Hasan El-Ayyeh. As young Arabs grow up in idleness and poverty they will be the more prone to war; as they grow up in the technical skills they so deeply desire with the aid of the West the more will they be disposed to peace. If British industry and British trade unions could see this as a great task for the furtherance of peace, the gain to the whole world would be immense. That is something which both industry and the trade unions must see.
The truth is that the majority of the refugees do not want to emigrate. Why should they? What they really want is to return whence they came. But the immediate reality we have all to face is that there can be no hope for them save in the total development of the whole bloc of Middle East countries, where there is space for all, but where there will be work for all only when there is economic development and expansion.
Time does not permit to go into the details of health centres, schools, youth centres, and other projects that I visited. None of the ones I saw was run by foreign experts, but by refugees themselves. They meet immense need bravely and skilfully and develop a self-sacrificing co-operation which is a joy to see. School children donate their coppers to help plant trees in their playgrounds, to build shelter from the scorching sun; poverty-striken villagers provide money to help build their own post office or their own little pleasure garden. With their own hands, I watched them, building their mosque. In one school in the region of Jericho there is a photograph on the wall of the staff and pupils of the Queen Elizabeth School for Girls in Barnet. The girls of this school have collected £400 to help this particular Arab school at Jericho, and have financed an expedition of the headmistress of that school to Britain, both to be the guest of the school in Barnet and to take educational

1261
courses here in Britain. This is the kind of imaginative gesture which schools and church groups throughout the country could well follow.
Tribute must also be paid to the British Red Cross, the International Red Cross and the many Christian and other organisations which have done so much to help in this tragic problem.
Faced with a problem so immense, of course there are difficulties and shortcomings. People die and their names are not removed from the ration rolls; material is not always used for the purpose for which it is donated. But problems like these are minimal and the authorities are aware of them and do their best to face them. The overwhelming problem which the conscience of mankind must face is not this; it is that 25,000 young people per year are growing up with nothing to do in any discernible future. You cannot prostitute the human spirit in this way without reaping a terrible reward.
Already this year the acceptance of further schemes of vocational training were made contingent on a 5 per cent. reduction in relief, a cut which I regard as appalling. Just think, 7d. per day on food and a 5 per cent. cut! These schemes need more money, not less, and it should be realised that the amount paid for these purposes by Her Majesty's Government and by other Governments is a modest contribution indeed towards the peace of the Middle East, in which we are so deeply and so intimately concerned.
But this, I venture to think, is a minor matter. Before long a decision is to be taken as to the whole future of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Will it continue after June 30, 1965, or not? I beg that Her Majesty's Government will stand resolutely within the counsels of the United Nations for its continuance. To interfere with it at this point of time would result in an enormous increase of human suffering and, because it would be the end of the moral authority of the United Nations in the Middle East, might make war almost certain.
I have already said that there is no real future for so many of these unhappy people unless there is a major development of Middle East economics.
1262
Here is the real challenge to us and to the Western world. Project after project has been tabled by United Nations Agencies and rejected for budgetary reasons. I regret this for many reasons, not least for the reason of self-preservation, for wise preventive action is often the best means of defence. Possibly some diminution of armaments expenditure, even the price of one nuclear bomb, would begin the road by which alone this problem could be solved, and would make a major contribution to the peace of the Middle East and so to our own security and defence. Here I think is a challenge to the Government, a challenge to all the United Nations and a challenge to all Christian people.
It would be wrong to finish without facing the bitter reality that, in the immediate future, this particular problem of human suffering is a political one. The refugees demand return to their previous homes; they demand compensation. But even if Israel were to offer compensation it would be refused because its acceptance would imply a settlement. One refugee school teacher said to me, "We are here for a long time; we are here till Arab unity is accomplished. Then we shall push Israel into the sea." While I was in Jerusalem the King of Jordan came there to say that the Arab League had agreed on this subject and Jordanian Palestine was to be made a base for the restoration of the whole of Palestine to Arab possession. For this, said the King, he would give his blood.
On the other side, the Government of Israel—I saw some of its representatives—says that it sees the human problem, but it cannot admit into its country 1¼ million potential fifth columnists. Behind Israel and its formation stands the whole historic iniquity of Christendom and the savage and relentless persecution of the Jews in Europe. Here is a problem before which I think we must be quite humble. But, perhaps because I speak as a Christian, I cannot abandon the hope that Jew and Arab, these two ancient Semitic peoples, will one day inhabit the land together, will live in peace in those ancient lands of the Bible which are wide enough and fair enough to hold them both. Till that day comes it is our solemn duty, with the

1263
rest of the United Nations, to hold the peace—and to give aid, to give aid, for now is the time.
4.11 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, though I am an inferior clergyman I have upon a previous occasion taken it upon myself to congratulate a right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech. This afternoon it falls to me to do so by custom, and I am glad to take this opportunity because I share with the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken the conviction that politics and religion are not things to be kept in separate compartments, but much the reverse. I am sure we all value greatly this first contribution that the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Southwark has made to our debates. I hope we can look forward to seeing him on many future occasions on these Benches. I think I know him well enough to say that, whether we look forward to it or not, his contributions on those future occasions are quite certain to be searching, trenchant and almost certainly most controversial.
The noble Baroness who introduced this debate on behalf of my noble friend Lord Astor has already reviewed some of the changes, developments, setbacks and achievements which have occurred in this field since we considered this matter in the context of World Refugee Year in 1960. As the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said in a recent report, it was not until after 1955 that it was possible to offer much more than emergency relief to refugees. It is only since then really that the plight of refugees has begun to be effectively tackled in the wider context of international aid and development.
What the right reverend Prelate has just said illustrates the importance of tackling these problems more and more in that wider context. The wider terms of the Motion to-day, calling attention to the
"problem of refugees, disaster and international assistance",
reflect this change of approach. In these last four years, while the original relief work has certainly had to be carried on and has continued to meet each fresh disaster and each fresh refugee problem as it has occurred, while the approach
1264
has switched in emphasis to deal in turn with such things as the earthquake in Skopje, the refugees in Rwanda, the flood disasted in Langarowe and the cyclone in Pakistan—while all this has continued, as it has to do, and as it will always have to do, there have been developing, further back as it were, new and more sophisticated plans, and more sophisticated structures to embody these plans, for tackling human need in greater depth and with longer-term measures and projects.
I have just made a short list of some events—birthdays, really, which illustrate this trend. For instance, we had in 1960 the birth in this country of our own Overseas Development Institute. We had the creation in 1961 of the Department of Technical Co-operation; also, in the same year, the change in emphasis when the O.E.C.C. became the O.E.C.D. In 1961, following upon World Refugee Year but with a quite different emphasis, we had the beginning of the International Freedom from Hunger Campaign, with its climax in this country in 1963 when we last discussed hunger. Finally, as the noble Baroness mentioned, we have the formation of this Disaster Committee. Those are only samples, among many others, which reflect a general awakening and a widening of public concern and interest throughout this country and the well-to-do nations of the world.
I see all this as the equivalent on an international scale of that which in this country first led to the pioneer social reforms of the 19th century. I see it as the equivalent to the climate of thought which was crystallised, for example, in the findings of the Royal Commission on Poor Law Administration in this country in 1906, and to the great public debate which followed it. I see these changes as the counterpart, on an international scale, of the trends which led in this country, to the flowering of our National Health Service, our National Insurance schemes and our welfare services after the war.
Your Lordships may feel that to talk like this is to be fanciful; that it is wishful thinking. On the other hand, let us look at some of the facts which I believe give weight to this conviction—a conviction which, I hold, is widely shared. There are, I believe, a number of signs that we are living at the dawning

1265
of an international social conscience that is determined to establish sturdy, flexible and effective means of ensuring that food, work and homes are more justly shared among mankind than they are at the present day: the determination to bridge the gulf between the two worlds in the way in which we bridged the gulf in this country between the two nations.
May I take four examples to illustrate the strength of this determination? We have heard recently a good deal about the Voluntary Service Overseas. It is only six years ago, in 1958, that a Member of this House first mooted this project in the pages of the Sunday Times. This year, only six years later, we have 300 school-leavers and 500 graduates giving a year of their life to serve overseas in grappling with some of the problems which we are debating to-day. The V.S.O. is only one sample of many others like it that I could have quoted. Take Oxfam, for instance, only just coming of age—21 years old, but now already a national institution: Oxfam, which harnesses the care and compassion of people in this country for human need overseas to the tune of £2¼ million per annum; which, with many other older and more established organisations copes with hunger, homelessness and disaster all over the world, both with immediate relief and with helping with longer-term solutions.
I notice particularly, among the faster growing features of Oxfam, the support that they get in regular, sustained, covenanted gifts. This is the support of people who are receiving from Oxfam Headquarters regular monthly bulletins of what their money is being used to do. It is the support of people who are combining their giving with an understanding of the problems they are dealing with.
Take the churches. The Churches' Inter-Church Aid and Refugee Service is far and away the largest department in the World Council of Churches, which the Churches operate in common. Christian Aid Week, which takes place at the end of this month, is by a long way the greatest single combined operation which the Churches of this country stage together. By this means, year by year, they lay the whole range of human need before the public at large, they demonstrate some of the means used to
1266
tackle it, and invite public support to help. This single annual enterprise by the Churches, engaging the active support of about half a million people in a single week, evokes a public response of around £700,000.
This readiness, shown by these two examples, this eagerness to grapple with human need outside our own shores, is by no means confined to this country. In fact, in some respects we lag behind others. In France, for instance, where, after their experience in Algeria and Indo-China in the past decade, one might expect a rather jaundiced attitude towards the less developed and less fortunate countries, we find aid running at the very high rate of something like £10 per head per annum, compared with an equivalent figure in this country of around £6. These are rather crude figures and if the Government have better or more accurate ones I shall be happy to be corrected, but I believe this to be roughly right.
In Holland the scale of international assistance in relation to their resources is even more impressive and striking. I believe it is more than double the 1 per cent. of gross national product advocated by the United Nations for the Development Decade. I read in the January Bulletin of the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees a graphic account of a recent campaign in Holland in support of a number of refugee projects in Turkey and in Greece. For this nearly one million dollars was raised, and in this case much of the success was due to the wholehearted and imaginative co-operation of the Dutch television, radio and press services, which sent correspondents to the problem areas and built up programmes and articles in support of the campaign at home.
I say all this just to make one point. I believe that we need to reckon now with a rapidly widening and deepening desire among people everywhere still more thoroughly to come to grips with all that has been set before us once again by this debate. It is up to all of us to move on with the greatest despatch to build up services on an international scale at least as generous, effective and comprehensive as the social services which we have come to have and to

1267
enjoy in this country. The need is certainly there, I believe the means are there, and the will to use them is there. As our children might say, it is up to us to "get with it": to pray, to think, to plan and to work towards the day when there is no one without food to eat, work and to do and a home to live in.
4.25 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, at a time like this, when we are all conscious of the refugee problem which is brought home to us day after day in our newspapers, it is apt that we should have a debate of this kind. Those of us who have been to refugee camps feel impelled to make a contribution because we cannot forget the plight of those miserable people, helpless and homeless, whom we saw.
I find myself to-day a disappointed person. I listened first to the noble Baroness, whose efforts in Refugee Year quite rightly have been applauded by speaker after speaker. She did a wonderful job in raising more money—£9 million—than was raised in any other country. Having heard her opening speech, I sat back and thought, well things are better. Then I heard the right reverend Prelate make his maiden speech—I congratulate him on it and on his forthright manner; and, if I may dare say this in the presence of his superior, we rarely hear this forthright approach from that Bench, and it was rather refreshing to-day—and I found it most difficult to reconcile his speech with that made by the noble Baroness, although I recognise, of course, that the noble Baroness dealt particularly with the Girls' Training College, and not with the detailed way of life which was dealt with by the right reverend Prelate.
I cannot forget—and I have mentioned this on another occasion when we had a debate on refugees—the occasion when I went to that camp eight or nine years ago, and in the scorching heat and the dust watched a tragic band of children being treated for incipient trachoma. The doctor was there treating these children, everting their eyelids, and I went near, as I thought I might give a hand. But the doctor turned away from me, showing quite clearly that he regarded me very unfavourably,
1268
since he identified me with the plight of the refugees. I presented a target for his professional wrath. He projected all those pent up frustrations which symbolise the attitude of the refugees.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: What camp was this?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: It was the camp by the Dead Sea in Jericho, the one the right reverend Prelate spoke about; I think it is the biggest in the Middle East. I fully understood his pent up feelings. Those small children were being subjected to treatment for a disease which was entirely preventable if they had had a chance to live under better conditions. The doctor knew this and I knew it, and his indignation was too great for words. Then I saw the squalor; I saw those appalling huts in which there were seven, eight and nine people sleeping. I enquired about the calories they were taking, because that is our only test of nutrition, and was told that calorie consumption was very low. I enquired about the ration books and heard that they were not surrendered after the people died because bodies were hidden in the hills.
I had formed the opinion, on hearing the noble Baroness's speech, that after nine years everything had changed. I have a feeling that the noble Lady was perhaps not shown everything, because I think she would agree with me that those two speeches cannot be reconciled.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble Lady, but I would point out that I did go to the same camp, which is called Aqabet Jaber. I went there originally three years ago. Then all the hutments the noble Lady had been speaking about had been replaced by little breeze-block or mud houses, and the conditions were very much better then. Now the houses are better still. There is much better sanitation, there are now shops and streets and people trading with each other, and so on. I know that the right reverend Prelate is quite right in saying that there are vast numbers of people who do not get employment, but what U.N.W.R.A. has done in this particular camp—and there are others too, but I went to this one in particular, because I had been there on an occasion before—is nothing short

1269
of a miracle. They have a Y.M.C.A. and a Y.W.C.A., they have schools and clinics, and the things which the noble Baroness saw when she was there ten years ago simply do not exist at all now.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I am glad to hear that. I am very glad to hear that they have got modern sanitation, and that the ghastly slops that were collected at 4 a.m. every morning from the people in the huts have all disappeared.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: Yes.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Then the extreme squalor which I saw then is no more. I am very pleased to hear this from the noble Lady, and I feel that I can continue my speech along those lines. It is no doubt very difficult for the right reverend Prelate to believe that nine years ago things were infinitely worse than anything he saw recently. It is the kind of thing that left such an impression on one's mind, that one came away so ashamed because one could not do anything. After that I went to visit camps in the Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, and there one learnt at first hand the full, miserable import of the word "refugee".
I have had an opportunity since last year of meeting Dr. Flack, the medical adviser who is in charge of U.N.R.W.A.'s medical services, who came through London, and Doctor Davis, the former Commissioner General of U.N.R.W.A., before he returned to the United States. It was some comfort to learn from them that 30,000 young refugees, reaching maturity each year with no prospect of a normal working life, had had their lot eased to some extent. I am rather anxious to know to what extent it has been eased, and whether the institutions that the noble Lady saw, particularly those for girls, are anything more than a prototype. We must have prototypes, but we should like to know just how far they have gone.
I understand that the expansion of general education and vocational and teacher training is now well established, and that U.N.R.W..A. is making a special effort to improve the quality of teaching in its schools by setting up an in-service teacher training institute. That is quite new. But I could not
1270
quite understand why on earth they did not use earlier the material they had in the camps to get instructors and teach potential teachers. Could we know how this is developing and whether there is an adequate supply of instructors and equipment? When I was there there were not even enough books. It seems a dream, and noble Lords may not believe it, but I saw children standing round at both ends of one book, so that some of them looked at it with the print upside down. That was their only opportunity of getting near a book. I should like to know whether they have everything that is necessary now, because surely all these wonderful people who are helping would make even bigger contributions if they knew that these children were denied books.
However, it seems to me that the major problem for refugee youth is prolonged unemployment, with the consequent risks of demoralisation. I am told that, with the fund from the World Refugee Year, the Agency expected by the end of 1963 that there would be ten teacher training centres and ten vocational training centres. The noble Lady mentioned ten teacher training centres, but I did not hear her mention ten vocational centres. Are they actually in being? We all know about politicians, and the fact that people talk about plans and planning for the year to come. We were promised these things, but are the ten institutes for teachers and the ten for vocational training in being? We were also told that they would be able to turn out 2,500 trained youths a year. Were they turned out last year, or is this pie in the sky?
Although I have read the material very thoroughly, I find it difficult to assess the real rate of progress. Could we know what percentage of girls and boys—I should like to have the sexes separated, because, with the noble Lady, I welcome this change in approach to women in the Middle East—receive vocational education compared, let us say, to the percentage five years ago? In so many of the documents we are given numbers; and numbers, of course, convey very little when one is thinking in relative terms.
We read these days of the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East in relation to the Western countries. Practically everybody who has spoken

1271
has said he has no intention of dealing with the political problem. My Lords, this is a political assembly. Are we really helping the situation if each and every one of us refuses to grasp this nettle, and simply says, "The time will come when everything will be all right and the peoples of the Middle East will be living together again"? In my opinion, these refugee camps constitute a canker which erodes the whole region. I realise that the instances I have put are concerned with symptoms of a condition, and not with the fundamental cure. I would remind the House that the impartial arbitrator who was called in many years ago was the United Nations Organisation, and it recommended treatment and a prescription.
The Commissioner General—and I think everybody recognises that Dr. Davis has done extraordinarily well in the Middle East—has thought it necessary recently to remind the world of what the United Nations Organisation recommended. He repeated again that we should find means of carrying out the provisions of paragraph 11 of General Assembly Resolution 195, which recommended repatriation or compensation of the Palestine refugees. It has been said that this is impossible. I believe that the time for this has come, when there are in Israel fine men and women of vision, of understanding, who would welcome support from this country, and who believe that more of these people should be returned. We are told (and the noble Lord who has just spoken has said this) that Israel has said, "These people would be subversive and they would be a fifth column." I would say that not all of them would be prepared to return. I do not agree that if they were offered compensation they would all refuse—not at all. These men and women are all like ourselves and they want a home. If they find that they have money to settle elsewhere they will do so.
I am firmly convinced that these things should be said, and that we are not aiding Israel or the Arabs by running away from the problem and simply saying that we have no intention of dealing with the political aspect of the refugee problem. The noble Lord said—and I agree with him—that finally Arabs and Jews will live together as
1272
they have in the past, very happily. But we are not helping. All we are doing is propping up this refugee service, which becomes more dangerous to the Middle East with every year that passes. These young men and women listen to the radio, they think for themselves, and they are aggressive by instinct as all young people are. They have been fed with the stories of the past, and the problem is not going to be solved by just having debates in which we say nice words about the people who are helping in the refugee camps. I believe that it is only when the United Nations directions are observed that this tragic problem will be resolved.
4.40 p.m.
LORD INCHYRA: My Lords, I wish to refer, quite briefly, to one particular point which was mentioned by the noble Baroness in moving the Motion and which has been mentioned in, I think, one or two subsequent speeches, and that is the question of arranging for better and more effective co-operation and collaboration between the various voluntary societies in this country and elsewhere which are interested in the question of international emergency relief. This is, of course, a matter in which the British Red Cross Society, of whose Executive Committee I have the honour to be Chairman, is very much concerned, and that is the reason why I am venturing to intervene in the discussion this afternoon.
I should say straight away that when I speak of international emergency relief I am thinking of short-term emergency help to the populations or countries which have been stricken by some sudden disaster, whether it be a disaster brought about by natural causes, such as an earthquake or a flood, or whether it be some sudden emergency, such as the influx of refugees due primarily to political factors.
The aid to be given in such cases varies, of course, according to the circumstances. It may be medical assistance or supplies, or it may be help to prevent the spread of epidemics. Sometimes it is emergency supplies of food or clothes; at other times, what is wanted is tents and blankets and temporary shelter. In short, what I am speaking about is first-aid action in an

1273
emergency. I am not referring to the longer-term work, such as the rehabilitation and resettlement of refugees, or the planning of agricultural development and re-afforestation, or the rebuilding and reconstruction of villages or schools. In fact, my remarks will be directed entirely to the question of disasters, and not to the problem of refugees. This is not, I hasten to say, because of any lack of sympathy on my part or, even more so, on the part of the British Red Cross Society in the question of refugees, but simply because that matter has been far more eloquently dealt with this afternoon by others, and because it is perhaps just worth while saying something about disasters, for they have a habit of cropping up at very short notice.
The British Red Cross Society have, of course, always taken a very active interest and part in the problems of emergency relief in the case of overseas disasters. We were actively engaged in the relief work which followed up the earthquakes in Morocco, in Yugoslavia and in Iran during recent years, and at this very moment we are engaged, at the request of the Government of Uganda, in giving what help we can to provide medical assistance in connection with the influx of refugees from Rwanda. We have, as a matter of fact, two medical teams in that area at the moment, and we have recently received a request from the Uganda authorities for the despatch of two further teams to deal with a fresh influx of refugees, this time from the Southern Sudan.
But, as has been said this afternoon, there are several other voluntary societies in this country who have been, and are, very active in the same field, and there is an obvious risk of overlapping, and possibly some waste of effort. So far, therefore, as the British Red Cross Society are concerned, we should certainly be very much in favour of any steps which can be taken to ensure close and effective co-operation and collaboration between all the voluntary societies in this country. Such co-operation is obviously highly desirable from the point of view of the recipient country, if only to ensure that there is no duplication of effort and that the help given from abroad takes the form which is most suitable to the circumstances of the time. Equally, co-opera-
1274
tion is very desirable from the point of view of the donor in this country, who naturally wishes to be assured that the money which he has contributed is being spent in the most useful fashion and with the greatest measure of economy.
There are certain difficulties in the way of such co-operation, because there are differences between all these various voluntary societies—differences in organisation, differences in methods of raising their funds, differences, to some extent, in their objectives. For example, we in the British Red Cross Society, as I think I have already made clear, are primarily concerned with first-aid operations—the provision of medical assistance, and so forth—whereas some of the other voluntary societies feel able to extend their activities rather further into the longer-term field of rehabilitation or reconstruction.
Some of these voluntary societies are also able to concentrate nearly all their efforts and nearly all their funds on their activities abroad, whereas the work of the British Red Cross Society overseas is only a part, although a very important part, of its general activities. As your Lordships know, those activities consist very largely of a major effort in this country in the relief of suffering and distress and in the training of individuals in first-aid and nursing.
There are also other differences of approach and method. Inter-Church Aid, for example, in its activities abroad operates largely through the World Council of Churches, while the Red Cross has very close links with the League of Red Cross Societies in Geneva and with the various national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies throughout the world. In this connection, I might say that in our activities the Red Cross have found that in nearly every case the most efficient way of sending aid abroad, or of ensuring that the aid which is sent abroad is put to proper use, is to work through the existing authorities or societies in the recipient country. In most cases that may be the local Red Cross or Red Crescent society; in others, it may be the local government authority. By and large, we have always found that the best thing to do is to make the maximum use of the local authorities and the local societies, if only because that is

1275
usually the most acceptable method to the Government of the foreign or overseas country concerned.
But the mere fact that there are these differences of approach between the different British societies, I think and my society feels, makes it all the more desirable to ensure that there is the closest measure of collaboration between them in this question of relief for overseas disasters. There is, as a matter of fact, already a very considerable measure of collaboration. There is a constant flow of information between the main societies about developments abroad. For example, such information is being exchanged about the present very unhappy situation in Uganda. Furthermore, some of the societies, notably Oxfam, The Save the Children Fund and War on Want, have during the past twelve months most generously channelled very considerable sums of money through the British Red Cross Society for expenditure on overseas relief.
As the noble Baroness has said, a further step has been taken quite recently by the constitution of a committee called the Disaster Emergencies Committee. This consists of representatives of the five societies, Oxfam, War on Want, Inter-Church Aid, The Save The Children Fund and the British Red Cross Society, with representatives of the Government Departments most immediately concerned. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, to whose initiative the foundation of this Committee was to a large extent due, is also a member in his capacity as Chairman of the Standing Conference of the British Organisations for Aid to Refugees. This Committee, I should explain, is in no way exclusive. It is entirely possible to include any other organisations or societies as and when they may be appropriate. It is quite informal; it does not possess any executive power; it can only advise the constituent societies. But it provides a very useful channel for the exchange of information.
It enables the representatives of the societies to reach an agreed estimate about the seriousness of any particular disaster; it makes it possible for them to consider and decide what form any assistance from this country might most
1276
usefully take. It can also make recommendations as to which of the various British societies are in the best position to supply that aid. Sometimes, of course, the aid takes the form of supplies or medical personnel; sometimes it takes the form of foodstuffs; but, more often than not, what is most wanted urgently is actual money to enable necessary supplies and foodstuffs to be bought on the spot. We hope to be able to carry this process of co-ordination further; but bearing in mind the various differences in organisation and approach of the different societies, and remembering and respecting their very natural desire to maintain their independence, I think this is a process which will have to proceed carefully and must not be pushed too fast.
That is all very well so far as this country is concerned. But there is an equal, perhaps even greater, need for co-operation on the international front. To some extent, of course, that co-operation already exists in the shape of the machinery of the League of Red Cross Societies at Geneva. This is, so to speak, the United Nations of the Red Cross movement. It has a highly efficient staff in Geneva and is in direct and constant touch with the various national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies all over the world. It is, therefore, in a position to collect and pass on to the various Red Cross societies immediate information about any disaster which may occur abroad. It can also advise as to the form in which any urgent assistance can best be given. It can express an opinion as to the extent to which the local authorities or local Red Cross societies may or may not be able to cope themselves with the emergency; and it can suggest that help should be given from such-and-such a country rather than from another. In fact, it acts as a co-ordinating agency and, to a large extent, prevents overlapping and waste of effort.
However, although this goes on all the time—and it goes on very efficiently —at present it covers only the Red Cross world; it does not cover the many voluntary organisations in other countries which are interested in this question of helping in international emergencies of this kind. Nor does it cover the specialised Agencies of the

1277
United Nations such as the High Commissioner for Refugees and the Food and Agriculture Organisation. It seems to us highly desirable that some steps should be taken to bring all these organisations, official and unofficial, or, at least, the more important of them, into some system of co-ordination and co-operation. But we must bear in mind the undesirability of setting up some new piece of machinery just for the sake of creating a new toy; and we must remember the importance of making the maximum use of the existing and well-tried machinery of the United Nations Agencies and the League of Red Cross Societies.
I understand that a meeting was very recently held in Geneva between the representatives of the United Nations and the League, with a view to discussing just this problem. I do not know what the outcome of this discussion was, or, indeed, whether the discussion has yet been finished. But so far as the British Red Cross Society is concerned, I would hope that some practical results may emerge, and would certainly wish these negotiations well. I hope that Her Majesty's Government would also view these developments with favour.
4.58 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I do not want to follow many of the arguments that have been made about the problem of the refugees of the world, and particularly those in the Middle East. What I want to do is to follow up some of the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Inchyra, because I, too, have been connected with the work of the Red Cross Society for a long time, though in a more humble capacity than the noble Lord who has just spoken. It has been suggested in the past that there might be some new central body to deal with emergencies—say, something working under the United Nations—which would be an official body to deal with these problems. For the moment, I am not talking about the refugee problem but about the disasters, which is the second point mentioned in the Motion we have before us. If some official body were appointed to do this relief work, I do not think the work would be done so efficiently as it is now, because the Red Cross have had a long experience and
1278
are able to supply voluntary relief when an emergency occurs, thereby anticipating Government or more official action.
When a flood or earthquake disaster occurs, two points arise. The first is to supply immediate relief to cope with hunger, disease, lack of clothing, sanitary arrangements, et cetera. The second is to provide long-term rehabilitation and reconstruction, so that the normal standards of living can be restored. The former has to be done with the utmost speed possible. The second requires a comprehensive agreement, thought out calmly and quietly.
Why I think that the first can be better done by a voluntary society than by some Governmental or official agency is that it must be done quickly. The trouble about official agencies is that they not only tend to be expensive to administer, but also work slowly, being governed by regulations and rules which are not really flexible. Another reason why we should encourage the voluntary societies to do this sort of work is because, if we do not do that, it is quite likely that the well of voluntary kindness will dry up, and I think that that would be a catastrophe for mankind in general. I am associated closely with two charitable organisations and I am surprised to find what an enormous amount of money comes in to them, because people realise that they are bodies which are worthy.
The trouble about a Governmental organisation is that they cannot act promptly. When they can come into action, they work extremely efficiently, but the one thing they cannot do is to act promptly when a disaster occurs. Where Government can assist is in supplying such things as helicopters, landing craft, shipping space for supplies and stores and suchlike things. Another point, however, is that it is difficult to get long-term relief work done, if support is not forthcoming from the Government of the country where the disaster occurs.
One point about the Red Cross is that it has become a very satisfactory clearing house for information about the work of voluntary bodies, and I think that a good deal of the money and work of these other bodies has been

1279
channelled through the Red Cross. I should like to see something of the same sort being done by the League of Red Cross Societies in Geneva, so that all relief could be canalised via Geneva, because the Red Cross have enormous experience and a great amount of skill, and I am sure that they would do this work far better than any other body would.
I think it would be an advantage if a representative of the United Nations were attached to the Red Cross—I believe they have someone attached in Geneva and in New York—so that they can assist in getting the relief required organised in the proper way. It is important that they should be advisers and that the actual work should be done by the local people. That is one of the reasons why I think the Red Cross has its great reputation. People know that the Red Cross workers do the work on the job themselves and do not leave it to Government Departments and other official bodies. I shall be very interested to know what the Government's reply will be about the suggestion that something more might be done to encourage the Red Cross Society to form a world clearing house for relief.
5.7 p.m.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: My Lords, there was a time when automatically people who professed a faith gave one-tenth of their incomes, in cash or kind, for the alleviation of distress of others, and it seems sad, because we are more affluent to-day, that people seem to have mislaid that idea completely. I feel that your Lordships do not want to discuss the collection of money, but would rather like to think for a moment about what our responsibilities as a nation really are. As several speakers have said, our name has stood high throughout history, not only for providing a place in this country for people but, much more important, for giving them an opportunity to merge into and become part of the body corporate of the country.
I have visited refugees in most parts of the world—in Germany, in the Middle East, in Hong Kong and in Korea. And, like other speakers, I feel that once one has seen the amount of tragedy there is, one can never stop recognising the
1280
amount of work one ought to do in order to be able to help. One has to think to-day not only of the registered refugees, but also of the out-of-camp refugees, unlisted and very often unknown. As the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, said, they are not only helpless but homeless—and, I would add, something even more serious, they are hopeless. To my mind, this is the worst thing of all.
We in Great Britain believe in trying to help other people and to achieve this we have always had recourse, in the first place, to appealing to the emotional reactions of the people of Great Britain. Their natural impulse is first to open their purses and cheque books. But we must face the fact that that is only the beginning and we must not rely on that for all the strength. In addition, we must think of how we can keep the interest of those who are helping, how we can keep the support of the individuals.
Here I think we must examine what we as responsible people feel is needed in such appeals, so that they are handled with safeguards for the public. Surely what we need to examine is the vast undertaking of settling and absorbing these tragic people, not only in Great Britain, but throughout the world. In our own country we do not want collections of non-British people living in our midst. It has always been our habit to show human kindness and understanding so that we can help them to attain the object of their coming here, which is ultimately British citizenship.
I do not see how we can attain this or anything else unless at every stage we safeguard our own people against the dangers that are to-day dominant in anything to do with cash. We teach our children to count the change they receive when they pay a bill. We, as housewives, constantly check that measure is good and that the weight given to us is correct. Those of us who are responsible for handling the emotional gifts of other people have a very real responsibility towards those donors for the commodities we are handling; and the responsibility is a moral as well as a financial one.
I am convinced that it is wrong to undertake a great piece of work which has as its final objective relief of suffering, or any other sort of relief, only

1281
to find subsequently, because of commercial advantage or professional advice, that the ultimate value of donors' contributions is very much lower than it should be due to extravagance in the collection. In this country we have as watchdogs the Charity Commissioners. It is important that people who, out of the kindness of their hearts, give money to help their fellow creatures should have some guarantee that it is spent as it is meant to be, and I am sure that every one of your Lordships would agree with me that societies which invite people to send them money should never lose sight of this point.
To-day, for the first time in your Lordships' House, I am speaking without declaring any interest whatsoever. I speak not as a member of a service or representing any organisation; I have the temerity to speak as a responsible human being with years of experience as my qualification. I contend that much harm is done by persons of eminence and repute giving their names in support of organisations, committees or undertakings of which they know nothing. I have often been told when I have queried friends and acquaintances on this subject, "Oh, but old So-and-so is on it". And when I have queried "old So-and-so", his answer has been exactly the same. The lending of names to appeals for charitable causes should be done only with the utmost care, except when the lender is prepared to take responsibility for such causes. Often what is intended to be an endorsement of the excellence of the purpose is taken to be a guarantee of the excellence of the administration, and this is not at all the same thing. I honestly believe that people should not give their names to organisations unless they are really conversant with the make-up of such organisations and really participate themselves in the activities of the undertakings.
I have often taken the names of people I know well from the headed paper or the list of patrons on appeals I have received and subsequently asked them who the chairman of the organisation is, what the aims of the particular society are and so on, and always I have received the same answer: "But I only gave them my name". The reason the name has been asked for, my Lords, in
1282
the first place is to use it to strengthen the appeal; to give substance to the backing; to convince others of the worth of the society. Surely, to give one's name is tantamount to backing the cause as well. I say this in support of all that has been said before. The Chairman of the British Red Cross Society has put forward a strong and important case, and all of us who have worked many years in these fields must feel that these points are safeguards which back the strong appeal of the noble Baroness who opened the debate, and who has put us all under an obligation to her for having aired a matter about which we all feel strongly.
I specialise in this type of work, my Lords, and I am deeply troubled by the very few who mislead in a field where the very many are real in their aims and dedicated in their objects. Such people do harm, both nationally and internationally, by misusing the emotional and the natural reaction of good and generous people in order to further unworthy aims. I feel it is our responsibility to safeguard our public. British law, we often complain, moves extremely slowly; but, equally, we believe it moves extremely justly. We must obviously, in the first place, be careful within our own country that money given for a cause is used for that cause in its entirety. We must be equally careful that grants made by trusts to other bodies, whether at home or abroad, are grants made for purposes within the terms laid down by the trust deed of the trust. We must, above all, be sure that grants of British funds for work in other countries are made to the appropriate internationally recognised body. I am sure we all believe that reports on how money collected in this country is spent, whether at home or overseas, should be true and real reports. I welcome the steps which I understand some societies are taking to secure a system of inspection on the spot; and I think we should all encourage the efforts of the Charity Commissioners to bring all societies up to the standard set in this regard.
I am known as a protagonist of simple action, and I am afraid I am also known as one who is always anxious to do away with red tape; but I am confident that safeguards must exist to protect the generous giver. The Charity Commissioners were right to draw attention

1283
to the new situation that has developed, and the need for trustees of the various charities to remember that they are accountable to the public for what they spend on their behalf and to be careful in this direction. I believe that the great majority of ordinary people who give to the various organisations for overseas aid do so because they think that their money will be used directly to ease someone's distress; and, thank goodness! this is what usually happens. If you are moved to compassion to help a starving child because your heart has been stirred by a specific appeal, you might be less generous if you thought your contribution was going to be diverted to some other endeavour. And even so, it is necessary that the other endeavour be well within the terms of the original appeal.
I feel that we want to look at this whole question with the broadest of outlooks. I am quite convinced that there is nothing we can do which would be too much. I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, in a firm stand in regard to asking, and indeed supplicating, for the range of the mandate to be long term. I should also like to ask, not only that we renew the mandate, but that we once more have the courage to give an example to the whole world by deciding on a bigger contribution than we have given before, to show others that what we do to-day they may perhaps copy to-morrow.
5.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I must begin by apologising to the House, and particularly to the noble Marchioness, for being absent so long this afternoon on duties that perhaps could be described as international and Parliamentary. For that reason, and because of my habitual fear of differing even in emphasis from the noble Marchioness, I hesitate to say one word which might seem to be not quite identical with what she has said.
I am bound to say that I am one of those who lend their name quite freely to good causes. Many people come to me and ask whether I would help with this good cause or that. If I am to be censured, I must accept it, but I am afraid that when I know the person extremely well, and know the extent of
1284
their idealism, I say, "I haven't any money, energy or time, but you may have my name." If that is wrong, I am afraid I err in the company of a great many noble Lords, because it is sometimes the only service we can render. In general, I think the noble Marchioness was absolutely right in what she said.
I know that many of us, wherever we sit, will wish to join in the tributes that must already have been paid, when I was absent, to the right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech—surely a most powerful maiden speech, indeed the most powerful speech we have listened to in this House for many a day. I knew that this would be so, but I realise, as we all must, that a great force for all the causes of idealism and distress has been added to us with the coming of the right reverend Prelate.
I do not want to repeat what has been so well said by other speakers with much stronger qualifications, but I should like to echo fervently the last two points made by the noble Marchioness at the end of her remarks (and I know that other speakers have taken that view) on the need for renewing the mandate, if possible, for five years; and I join in the call for a much bigger contribution from this country to the High Commissioner's Office. I am not quite clear whether anything is known, so to speak, or suspected, about our intended contribution. I gather not up to the present; nothing official has been said. But it seems a shocking thing—and I am not now talking about the Middle East, but about the rest of the world—that our total contribution from the Government is £100,000, although last year it was £200,000 as an exception.
I gather that Oxfam, to mention only one body—and I do not want to single them out more than others, but we know they are very worthy people, as are other voluntary bodies—raised £358,000 in 1963, which is more than three times the ordinary contribution of the Government. So this contribution of £100,000 I think is almost worse than nothing. It is almost insulting. It is as though great trouble had been taken to arrive at the maximum figure, and we decided that, for some reason, we could afford just £100,000 and no more. I think this is disgraceful, and I hope that before

1285
the debate ends the noble Earl will hold out better hope than that.
I will now turn to one important aspect of the refugee problem, and one only, but one in which I should like to join in spirit, if I may, with the right reverend Prelate, in stressing what may be called the Christian, or, to use the fashionable word, the Ecumenical attitude of all those who are working on the Christian side to help refugees. Wherever I go among my own Communion, I find an absolute disregard of parochial or sectarian considerations, although there are, of course, special responsibilities. In saying that, I do not mean that anything that Catholics try to do is confined to helping Christians. For example, there is a school for the deaf near Beirut, run by my Communion, which includes boys nearly all of whom are Moslems. I know all this work is being conducted without reference to the nationality or the religion of those whom it is sought to help, but simply in accordance with the need.
I want to deal briefly, but clearly, with one problem in which I know noble Lords are interested and which I feel may be dealt with later by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, when he winds up for our side. I confess to being worried, and more than worried, about the position of some—I stress the word "some"—victims of Nazism who have not yet been compensated and whose distress is still great. The German people can point, not unreasonably, to what they, through their Governments and voluntary bodies, have tried to do for those who were persecuted on grounds of race, religion or ideology—and at first sight noble Lords might think that I have covered almost everybody.
Even in those cases, which are the majority, and, indeed, in all cases, it can be argued that no financial compensation, no material compensation, can be sufficient. Yet in another sense each generation of Germans is surely entitled to be judged, not on what their fathers did, but on what they themselves do or try to do. By that test, taking them generally, I would say that the present generation of Germans have no reason to be ashamed. The Germans have made serious efforts to discharge their responsibilities towards those who were persecuted on grounds of race, religion
1286
and idealogy. Compensation can be paid in these cases for loss of life, loss of freedom, injury to health or property, injury to business prospects, and interference with education. There is also a hardship fund available without any ceiling for claims not covered by these causes.
But those groups do not represent the whole of the population who were persecuted. If you take the victims who were persecuted on the grounds of nationality—some in Germany, and some in other parts of the world—the only benefits allowed are the right to claim for loss of health, although since 1960 a special fund of 45 million Deutschmarks has been handed over to the High Commissioner for Refugees to meet the claims of the heirs and also claims for loss of freedom. But that fund is quite inadequate for the purpose. I fear that the new draft law will—I was going to say do nothing, but that is perhaps not quite right; it will do practically nothing to improve the situation and, in some respects, it will make matters worse. It includes the following paragraph:
"A compensation claim in accordance with Part I shall only exist if the earning capacity of the injured party is still reduced, on the date of the decision, by at least 25 per cent. and is unlikely to improve substantially."
This apparently means that if the victims who were arrested in their teens, after years in concentration camps and hospitals happen to be only 20 per cent. disabled when their claim is finally decided, they will get nothing at all. That is, I honestly believe, the correct interpretation.
It also appears—and I have made inquiries upon it—that the inadequacy of the law is intensified by the serious shortage of the staff who are supposed to be dealing with this problem. Claims are dealt with by an office called the B.V.A. in Cologne. There are only two doctors in this office to review all the cases and prepare reports. An old man of 73 was recently told officially that his claim could not be considered for another four months, and possibly longer, in view of the congestion over medical reports. So, on the one hand, there is the very unsatisfactory law, and, on the other hand, there is the total inadequacy of the staff in numbers. I

1287
will not go into further details this afternoon; it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will speak about the matter again. I would only make the general point (and there are many detailed points which could be made) that it would be better to base a system of compensation on the degree of suffering, which should surely be the principle, rather than on the particular category into which the victim of the persecution falls.
My Lords, I hope that I shall never say a word in this House, or anywhere else, which can be remotely construed as anti-German. I would much rather be mistaken for a pro-German—and I often have been, without resentment—than an anti-German. When I first went to Germany in 1947, as a British Minister, at a time when the Germans were without food, money or Government of their own and were physically broken, I told the young Germans, amidst considerable public criticism in this country, "You are absolutely right to be proud of being German." Since that time the German people have on the whole exceeded the expectations of their warmest friends in making democracy work, in rebuilding their country and in making a contribution to international affairs; but that does not mean that the Germans, any more than the rest of us, are beyond criticism. Occasionally it is the duty of a friend to offer clear criticism. I can only hope that my words on this subject this afternoon will have some small effect in assisting those in Germany who are striving to remove the last stains on their honour, and to undo, so far as it lies in human power, the tragic events of the past.
5.32 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Astor, writing to me before this debate, asked me to say as much as possible about the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in particular, and Palestine refugees in general. My task has been made infinitely easier by the magnificent introductory speech of my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, and also by the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Southwark, which has received universal acclaim.
1288
It remains for me, however, to take up a challenge, if I may call it that, from the opposite Benches, delivered by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, when she said that nobody dare grasp the nettle. It would be a foolish man to grasp it too hard, but I will grasp it at least gingerly and will address myself to certain political aspects of this very complicated problem. In doing so, I hope to approach it in the same manner as the late Lord Birdwood did when he said that he was bi-partisan. I hope, equally, that no remarks which I make in this House will be construed as being overtly partisan to either side. Having said that, I speak from small experience in these territories, having served for some time in a humble capacity for two organisations, notably Oxfam.
There can be few groups in history who have been called to suffer such affliction and distress as the Palestine refugees, and they feel to-day, and they continue to feel, a profound sense of injustice and despair at the inability of the United Nations to find an equitable solution to their problem. Combined with this is a bitter resentment at the loss of their homes and livelihood. Of course, we are all too well aware of the intensity of political feeling which surrounds this problem. In fact, it would be true to say that it is the nexus of the Middle East conflict of our time.
To pass on to the great humanitarian work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency without mentioning the political background at all is, I feel, to evade the issue because the two are so inextricably linked. The refugees staunchly maintain their right to return. In support of this plea they cite paragraph 11 of the General Assembly Resolution No. 194(III) which allows for repatriation or compensation. I am sure it is known only too well to your Lordships, so I need not quote it. This Resolution was adopted on December 11, 1948, and has been reaffirmed at each subsequent session since then; but it still remains unimplemented.
The attitude of the Israeli Government is, I think, best demonstrated in the words of its delegate Abba Eban at the United Nations in a speech in 1957—and I quote his words:
"Unless we understand how this problem was caused, we cannot rightly judge how it

1289
may be solved. The responsibility of the Arab Government is three fold: theirs the initiative for its creation; theirs the onus for its endurance; theirs the capacity for its solution."
But I believe it to be true to say that there is abundant evidence that the Israeli Government deliberately incited Arabs to flee from their homes by the use of radio, loudspeaker vans, whispering campaigns and armed force. Official recordings of Jewish broadcasts monitored by Anglo-American experts are in the hands of the British Museum.
Let us not forget that 75,000 refugees were driven from the towns of Lydda and Ramle at bayonet point in circumstances described in a book by Ethel Mannin called The Road to Beersheba. There is an abundance of evidence from eye witness accounts. Equally, the Dier Yassin massacre of defenceless Arabs by Irgun men on April 10, 1948, played an enormous part in the psychological warfare of expulsion. The official Zionist expressions of shock and denunciation, disclaiming responsibility for this outrage, followed the pattern used by the Jewish Agency in 1946 over extremist atrocities against British personnel, as the White Paper on Palestine issued in 1947 documented to the hilt. It was the identical technique: prior secret agreement that Irgun and Stern should carry out the atrocity, but public denunciation by the Jewish Agency. I would not presume to offer conclusions to all this, but I find it increasingly relevant in my mind that those among us who condemn apartheid in South Africa yet support Israel over this issue and say that these refugees should simply be resettled, have a very serious moral issue to face.
Let us pass on to the non-political aspect, the great humanitarian work of U.N.R.W.A., about which so much has been said. We have heard that the present mandate is to draw to the close of its life in the late summer of 1965. I would join with all those previous speakers who would seek that it would be renewed for at least five years. It is vitally important that this should be so for a number of other reasons, notably budgetary considerations, because it is so extraordinarily difficult for the Agency, which suffers under the severe handicap of having to place contracts and of engaging its staff, to be placed in this position of not knowing
1290
of its future existence on more than a year-to-year basis.
It is very pleasing, as a representative of a voluntary Agency, to hear Dr. John Davis's forthright welcome of the fact that vocational training was the voluntary agencies' initiative—the Y.M.C.A. and Y.W.C.A. blazed the trail. The three-year courses for metal work, upholstery and carpentry which have proved so successful for boys, and the considerable activities such as child welfare for girls, have been, I think, an astonishingly useful part of the vocational training programme. There were fears when it started that the girls would have difficulty in getting jobs on completing their courses, but I am glad to say that these fears have proved groundless, as over 80 per cent. of them obtain jobs within a very short time of graduating.
Let us not forget also that the benefits of vocational training spread a good deal wider than the actual graduates concerned. Among the family, perhaps four or five people might benefit from the skill of one individual. I think there is an astonishing difference, which has been witnessed by all those who have recently been to the Middle East, between the morale of those who have not undergone training and those who have. I think the testimony of that letter read out by the right reverend Prelate has given us a very good idea of that. In closing my remarks I would urge the Government to continue their support, to increase their support, to both the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
5.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken said that he was non-partisan. His speech, however, reminded me of the Southern colonel in the United States who went into a New York publishing office and said he had brought the manuscript of an impartial history of the American Civil War, written from the Southern point of view. My noble friend Lady Summerskill also raised the question of the Arab refugees, but in rather more moderate terms. I had the pleasure of meeting her during her Middle East tour, and I agree that one should not shirk the political aspect; one should do everything to try to get the Arab

1291
States and Israel to find a solution of what everyone admits is a great human problem.
I have lived in Palestine and now Israel for the last forty-six years, and I was actually in Jerusalem as a member of the Colonial Service when the Arab refugee movement started. It is still very difficult to determine the exact causes. Whatever they were, I see very little possibility of any solution. Something has been done to reunify families. I personally have always been in favour of readmitting up to 100,000 Arab refugees, and at one time the Israeli Government made such an offer, but it was not taken up, on the grounds of "all or nothing"; and the offer has since been withdrawn. I see very little hope of further progress.
I am more hopeful, however, of the developments in another part of the world which were mentioned by the noble Baroness who instituted this debate, and that is in Hong Kong. I visited Hong Kong last year and saw something of the remarkable resettlement of 300,000 Chinese refugees in the Northern Territories. This was largely started by a single family of wealthy residents of Hong Kong, the Kadourie family, and the costs are now shared between them and the Hong Kong Government. One of the remarkable features is the insistence on self-help. The refugee family is given a pile of stones, and with them they build their own house. A number of very ingenious new methods of settlement at very low cost have been adopted. There is hillside farming. Roads to enable the peasants to take their goods to market are always a problem. That problem has been solved by building cycle tracks about 18 inches wide, on which the peasants cycle their loads to market, without the expense of building motor roads. I think that Hong Kong is a remarkable achievement in a British Crown Colony, and worth further study by all interested in the long-term settlement of refugees.
5.45 p.m.
LORD TWINING: My Lords, I propose to confine myself to a few remarks on natural disasters, which to some extent will underline what my noble friend Lord Inchyra said earlier this
1292
afternoon. Natural disasters seem to occur all too frequently. I do not know whether there is any statistical record of them over the last 50 years, but it may be that nowadays they attract more publicity than they did in the past because more interest is being shown in underdeveloped countries, many of which are situated in areas susceptible to earthquakes, volcano eruptions, cyclones and floods.
Some countries maintain at least a skeleton organisation to deal with the consequences of the disasters which afflict them, but rarely are these arrangements sufficient to deal with the dire situations in which a large number of people find themselves when they are afflicted by sudden and unpredictable disasters which destroy, totally or partially, their homes and property. There results an immediate problem and a long-term one. The latter is essentially a matter for the Governments concerned to put right, albeit with aid from international agencies. The immediate problem is at once more urgent and one requiring aid from whatever sources are available.
Frequently the local services have entirely broken down and thousands of homeless people need to be provided with shelter, food, clothing, medical aid and human sympathy. The organisation which is recognised as the one which is best suited to provide this aid is the Red Cross. There are national Red Cross Societies, or their equivalent, in almost every country, and the League of Red Cross Societies in Geneva maintains a permanent relief department through which requests for or offers of aid are channelled. The department receives such a request from a national society, on average, every six weeks. The department has an annual budget of under £250,000, but in the last ten years it has channelled nearly £40 million pounds for disaster relief in about 50 countries. In this country the British Red Cross Society has a standing organisation with experienced people on its staff or at call, while emergency stores are kept ready in warehouses.
There are, of course, other organisations, such as the Order of St. John, Oxfam, War on Want, and the Save the Children Fund, who are concerned with relief work overseas and who wish to

1293
make their contribution when a natural disaster occurs. This is catered for by the Red Cross being the recognised channel to administer the assistance these societies can offer. As we have heard this afternoon, there are arrangements for close co-operation and co-ordination of effort as a result of which overlapping is reduced to a minimum.
Some disasters strike a chord of public sympathy, and thousands of people wish to play some part in offering practical help. A notable example was the case of the severe earthquake in Iran two or three years ago, when, as a result of an appeal broadcast by the B.B.C., the British Red Cross Society received over £400,000 contributed by some 200,000 people.
From time to time the suggestion is made that the responsibility of providing aid for natural disasters should not rest with the Red Cross or any other voluntary society but should be vested in international agencies of the United Nations. But the Red Cross has a great fund of experience in this kind of work, which it first undertook twenty years before the United Nations was established. There are many people who have great knowledge of what is required in situations of this sort and who are doubtful whether anything more effective or efficient than the present arrangements could be established. International official agencies are often notoriously expensive and tend to be slow and inflexible in their operations. Moreover, the International Red Cross maintains close relations with the United Nations Agencies, and this arrangement could hardly be bettered.
The relief which voluntary bodies can give is primarily in the nature of emergency aid, anticipating and supplementing Governmental action. They are less concerned with the medium or longterm measures which are needed to repair damage and to lessen the risks in the future, which mainly are the responsibility of Government. Emergency aid must be applied quickly, must be untrammelled by red tape and must be administered economically. To replace a voluntary agency by an official body would frustrate those who wish to feel that they have made a personal contribution, and might dry up the well of human kindness and com-
1294
passion that is such a striking feature of the aid which is given so generously whenever occasion arises and which, transcending political differences, makes a valuable contribution to international relations.
5.50 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this debate has gone exceedingly quickly. This, however, is not, I think a result of over-familiarity with the subject. It is true that we have previously debated refugees, I believe on no fewer than four occasions in the last four to five years, and in these debates a quite extraordinary knowledge and experience has been brought to bear. Indeed, of the speakers here probably only the noble Earl who is going to speak for the Government and myself have not been directly involved in visiting refugee camps. Undoubtedly my noble friend Lord Longford has lent his name, as he pointed out, to many suitable refugee causes; and, regardless of whether or not he knew them to be good, we know that he is a trusting individual.
I think we all greatly enjoyed the speech of the right reverend Prelate, a most distinguished maiden speech, if I may say so. We know that we can expect force and humanity, and, indeed, love from anything he says; and of course he brought a great deal of knowledge to bear from his recent visit. It is always customary to say that we shall look forward to future speeches from maiden speakers. But I hope that he will take part in our debates often, because there are many subjects, social affairs and others, on which he will have a lot to contribute.
What was striking in the debate, even in the last three speeches, was the width of experience. My noble friend Lord Samuel made a regrettably short speech—because we know how much he knows on this subject, being fresh from Palestine—and, if I may say so, a moderate speech in reply to the equally knowledgeable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, who attempted to grasp a nettle. I shall refer to that subject myself, because I think we should grasp this particular nettle, or at least try to do a little more than we have done in the past.
I, too, with the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, am sorry that the

1295
noble Viscount, Lord Astor, was not able to open this debate. I should like to pay my tribute to him. I have worked with him on many refugee matters, and it is quite striking how much he personally has contributed in time and effort and, indeed, in money. I think it ought to be appreciated, because I think it is not realised how much he has done. But, of course if anybody else had to take his place it could not have been better taken than by the noble Baroness. The drive and energy, at times almost terrifying, that she brought to World Refugee Year, are only to be expected from somebody who we know was, during the recent cold spell, riding around the Lowlands of Scotland taking hay to refugee animals.
Clearly, she has kept her knowledge and experience up to date, although there was a certain possible point of controversy between her and my noble friend Lady Summerskill, in regard to which I must confess I found myself rather more on the side of the noble Baroness opposite. I was proposing to give certain facts and figures in reply to my noble friend, and perhaps then the Government would be prepared to act as arbiter on this matter between the noble Baroness opposite and my noble friend Lady Summerskill, in regard to which I shall be making a particular suggestion relating to the effectiveness of the U.N.R.W.A. operations to which this country makes some big contributions. I will leave that just for the moment and make some general comments on the situation.
I think the right reverend Prelate will agree with me when I say that, although there is continuous ground for much sorrow and regret at man's inhumanity to man, there are also grounds for pride and thankfulness in regard to man's humanity to man. This is nowhere more true than in regard to refugees. While the refugee tragedy continues, it is worth noting that it is not, except possibly in the case of the Arabs, necessarily the same refugees who are concerned. This does not make the total position any better, but it does, I think, the individual position.
There is little doubt that the World Refugee Year and the tremendous effort which was put into it, and which was so striking in this country, went a long way to break the back of certain particu-
1296
larly acute problems. I do not think I need go into this matter, because the noble Baroness covered pretty fully the situation with regard to European refugees and the clearing of the camps. This has shown such vast improvement that I am only sorry that we never seem able quite to get rid of that last little bit: there is always a remnant in a camp somewhere. It may be that this remnant will always be particularly intractable.
Here again, I would appeal, as have noble Lords on other occasions, to the Government to be particularly understanding and generous to those particularly hard cases who, on health or mental grounds, or grounds of social undesirability, cannot find a home anywhere. It is a distressing thought that one might have to take to a country refugees who would immediately find their way into prison or into hospital. But, of course, the problem of criminal refugees is no less acute because they are refugees. There are a few such people. I do not want to give the impression that there are a lot. This is one of the matters to which the High Commissioner has been directing some attention, and it is interesting that there is organisation available, of a kind that I am sure my noble friend Lord Longford would approve, for dealing with and helping refugee prisoners when they come out of gaol in a particular country. This is only one small aspect.
The most encouraging thing is that the European situation has greatly improved. When we look outside Europe, of course we see a considerable number of new refugee problems, some of which scarcely existed at the time of our previous debate, and certainly did not exist at the time of the World Refugee Year. My noble friend Lord Listowel has referred to particular ones: the problem of the Sudanese, and particularly the problems (this is a matter on which the noble Lord, Lord Twining, would know so much) that have arisen in East Africa. It is quite clear that continued support for the High Commissioner for the many operations that come within his field will have to go on; and it is a matter for gratification that at least his mandate has been renewed until, I believe, 1968.
We have successes to report. Some of the refugees, at least on paper, have been wiped off the refugee map—the

1297
Algerians, the Togo refugees, and others. But their place has been taken by the Tibetan refugees, and I recently read a most distressing report, prepared by Mr. Kelly, a member of the High Commissioner's staff in this country, on his visit to Nepal. Here one finds repeated exactly the same story—unsatisfactory camps, illness, all those diseases to which a refugee situation is so prone, and the apparent impossibility of finding a satisfactory solution without a political solution. By determination, and above all by expert help and by the energies and the money of devoted people, a great deal can be done to ameliorate the situation; and even in regard to Tibetan refugees progress is being made in some degree of settlement.
It is particularly tragic that these refugee situations tend to arise in countries which are least able to cope with them. This is true of the Middle East; it is true of Africa; it is true of Nepal. Immediately after the war it was true of Austria and Germany. Therefore the necessity for strong support is all the greater. My noble friend Lord Longford suggested that the Treasury grant of £100,000 a year—and we do not know whether we are going to get it—for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is a contemptibly low one. It is difficult to assess what is the right figure. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who on a previous occasion, when defending the record both of the British Government and of the British people, pointed out that by many standards we had done very well.
We ought not to be too self-condemnatory, except in so far as we ought to be self-condemnatory of the failure of mankind including the British. But £100,000 is still nothing like enough, and I would appeal to the Government—and I know they will not be able to say anything to-day—to consider helping the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in his particular activities, which are on such a vast scale of responsibility and on which it is not right for quite so much reliance to be placed purely on voluntary help. I do not propose to go into arguments whether people should support these things by voluntary grant or whether it should
1298
come out of the taxpayers' pockets. This is a difficult issue, but is something on which, none the less, the British taxpayer ought to be prepared to pay more than he does. This is not to deprecate the efforts which are already made, and we must remember that the £100,000 is very small when compared with the £2 million which we give to U.N.R.W.A.
In relation to U.N.R.W.A., I should like to refer to one or two of the points that have been made. My noble friend Lady Summerskill was a little concerned as to how far the money which had been raised in World Refugee Year had gone to the causes for which it was intended, and whether the necessary U.N.R.W.A. training centres had been set up. I cannot recall that it was actually estimated, but certainly by 1964 there should be ten U.N.R.W.A. vocational centres working. Looking at the figures which are available on this matter—and it is often worth while reading the Report of the Commissioner-General—one can see the steady increase in these centres and the fact that the great majority of them have been opened in the last two or three years. There is quite a striking improvement.
But what I do not know is the extent to which they have done more than scratch the problem. One sees pictures of fine buildings and reads of the great increase in the output of what are called graduates—not graduates in the sense of university graduates, but technically-trained young men and women. None the less, it seems that the money here has been put to very good effect, and I should certainly be interested to hear the noble Earl comment, if he has the facts. I do not know how right it is to ask Her Majesty's Government to answer for the Commissioner-General, but I am sure the noble Earl will do his best to help us in this matter.
I should like also, like the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, to follow the invitation of my noble friend not to ignore the political solution. Year after year we are told that there can be no solution, and year after year we are compelled to accept it. I remember this very subject being debated in 1959—and I was reminded of this by my noble friend Lady Summerskill—and was minded to look up what my noble friend

1299
Lord Silkin said then. His words were [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 214, col. 765]:
"I have no authority to speak for any particular country, but I have no doubt that Israel herself would be prepared to make a substantial contribution to a solution. Indeed, I understand that she has offered to do so unconditionally—not conditional, that is, upon the settlement of the general question."
It may be that there is no easy solution, but it is clear that at the moment it is the politics of the situation, the politics of Israel and the politics of the Arab countries, which are perpetuating this ghastly and intractable problem.
I would again stress that I am not trying to be like the Southern Confederate colonel to whom my noble friend referred. I looked at the contributions which had been made and noticed that Israel had made a contribution to U.N.R.W.A. about eight or nine years ago. No doubt for good reasons, among them the fact that she had her own refugee problems, since that contribution a few years ago there has been no further contribution. I agree strongly with my noble friend that we ought to see whether there ought not to be some renewed initiative in the political field which would go towards solving this problem. Even if there is not, we ought not to turn aside from facing it.
I should like now to turn back again to the question of Government support. Last year we complained to the noble Earl about the purchase tax which was levied on the special gramophone record to raise money for refugees. That was an all-star gramophone record, on which the Government collected £10,000 in purchase tax. I do not doubt that there are all sorts of good practices and reasons in the Treasury and elsewhere why those records cannot be exempted, but it looks extremely mean. This is not a matter on which knowledge is confined only to this country; I have heard it from other countries. I am wondering whether the Government cannot find a way to remit the tax; whether they might not get round the difficulty by making a slightly larger grant than the £100,000, which is what I think we can reasonably expect. They might even push it up to £110,000. They would then solve their problem, and would not break these admirable Treasury precedents.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: We did put it up to £200,000 last year.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we know the noble Earl put it up to £200,000, and it was at that time, when we knew it had gone up to £200,000, that we asked him to remit this. That increase to £200,000 was for particular purposes. But I am encouraged to believe that perhaps it is not too much to hope that the Government will put it up to £200,000 this year, in which case the noble Earl will never hear this gramophone record repeated again.
My Lords, this is a very sore spot and there is really no strong excuse. This is not the fault of the Charity Commissioners. At this point, may I say that we are very grateful to the noble Earl for the explanation that he gave. It is obviously one that we shall have to examine, but it seems all right. At any rate, when the noble Baroness comes to reply I shall be interested to hear what she has to say on that subject.
One of the interesting sides of the debate to-day was the extent to which we branched out more widely into this field of disasters. There was a conflict of view between the noble Lord, Lord Inchyra, and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, on the extent to which co-ordination is necessary. I may say that I was wholly with the noble Lord, Lord Inchyra, in this matter. It seems to me that there is the greatest need of co-ordination. One gets a most astonishing impression from the newspapers at the time of disaster. There are 50,000 blankets flown out by one country. For all I know, a situation may arise in which a disaster area is overwhelmed with blankets but has no mosquito nets and no food. Surely, the good will that is being shown in this country should encourage us to see that the same good will—because the whole of this activity is essentially based on good will—is reflected in the international field. Of course, there is no better body to sponsor and lead in this matter than the International Red Cross. When the noble Earl comes to reply, perhaps he can give us some information on any progress that has been made in the international field. I believe that the Government themselves have taken something of an initiative in the Economic

1301
and Social Committee of the United Nations, and certainly we would encourage them in their efforts in this direction.
I hope we shall have a further reply from the noble Earl on the subject of those rather specialised refugees who might come to this country from Commonwealth countries. This is a subject on which we are all extremely sensitive. We are all afraid of saying anything, or indeed of doing anything, which is damaging to the Commonwealth. But my noble friend Lord Listowel, in, I think, an extraordinarily clear and interesting speech, made a case which in my view must have convinced the whole House. I would press the Government and say that it is really better, if they cannot get agreement—and I appreciate the difficulties—to go ahead and introduce the necessary amendments to the law, because at any moment now we may be confronted with another deeply embarrassing situation.
The Chief Enahoro case was a particularly difficult one. It was very embarrassing not only to the British as a nation, but particularly to Her Majesty's Government, who of course ran into very severe political trouble. While, quite clearly, reasonable discussion must take place, I think the Government need to make up their minds to introduce the necessary legislation—not in two years' time, because of course they will not be there to do it, but preferably before the end of this Session. This is one contribution that the Government can make in the months that still remain to them.
There is one other aspect of the refugee problem to which I should like to refer, and that is the problem—and it is the classic problem—of legal status and the application of the various Conventions. If one looks through the publications of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, one finds constant reference to Conventions, some of which have been ratified by one group of countries, some of which have been ratified by another. Indeed, this whole problem of ratification of international Conventions is getting more and more acute. It seems that we almost need a special agency of the United Nations to co-ordinate ratification, because a lot of countries are
1302
brought together, they agree to a Convention, and then they all go off and forget about it.
Her Majesty's Government are perhaps a little better in this respect, but not much better. Here they usually get saved by the bell, because they prevail on some private Member in one House or another to introduce a Bill as a Private Member's Bill to give effect to some ratification. But this is not applicable in many cases, and I am just wondering whether it would be worth while for some special study to be made of this problem of ratification of Conventions, particularly in the refugee field. It is an aspect of the complications that arise out of greater international co-operation.
There is still, of course, this acute problem of our relations with, and our responsibilities to, those who have suffered at the hands of the Nazi régime. On previous occasions the noble Earl has argued that the British Government have no locus in regard to those to whom, in our view, the German Government still owe a responsibility. I have previously argued that under the Bonn Agreement they still had the right to intervene, and they suggested that this was primarily a matter for the High Commissioner. The fact remains that the High Commissioner does still think that the Allied Governments concerned have a right to intervene. But, if they have not, then I would agree with my noble friend Lord Longford that we should use every occasion to make clear—speaking as friends of the new Germany—that there are matters on which we are still greatly concerned.
An important Bill was passed in 1956, the Bundes Entschaedigungs Gesetz, which regulated the position of national persecutees. But, as my noble friend said, it is quite absurd that those persecuted on grounds other than race or religion, but who suffered in exactly the same way—and this applies predominantly to Polish citizens who suffered in Nazi camps—should be treated on a different basis. I realise that in talking about another country we cannot, perhaps, use quite as free language as we do to our own Government. I would only say that it is a matter for concern to those of us who regard ourselves as friends of Germany that the

1303
situation still appears to be so unsatisfactory; in particular, that there have been such delays in paying out even the compensation that has been made available. This is a matter which is of very great relevance to the refugee situation. It is a matter which I know gives great concern to people in certain groups of refugee organisations over here, as well as in the High Commissioner's office.
My Lords, we are once again very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. It is clear that it is well worth while our taking a periodic look at this situation. It is also clear that progress is being made, but not of such a kind—because humanity as a whole does not progress fast enough—that we shall be able to dispense with debates of this kind. I think it would be a message from this House, certainly to the Government, that we expect them to do a bit more. It would certainly be a message from this House to all those who are engaged in this field that we are grateful and that we admire their works—and, of course, this applies especially to those who have devoted so many years, both in voluntary organisations and in international organisations, to a cause which has troubled the world for so long.
6.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Southwark leaves to take his Confirmation Service at Streatham, as I understand he has to do in a few minutes, I should like most warmly, on behalf of all your Lordships, to add my congratulations to him on his admirable and most interesting maiden speech. When the right reverend Prelate complained that in the whole of Jordan he could find only one garage where a Jaguar could be repaired, he may perhaps have given your Lordships the impression that he was seeking a rather higher standard, both of luxury and of speed, than we usually associate with the Episcopal Bench. But his account of the pilgrimage and of the conditions which he and his companions witnessed in these refugee camps in Jordan and Palestine was not only very moving but of great value to us in considering this question.
1304
He also did right, I think, to end up by pointing out that the question there is very largely a political one, and that even if these refugees could be taken back to Palestine or absorbed, as many of them might be, into the countries in which they have taken refuge, they would not be allowed to do that because they have to be kept there for the sake of a political spectacle, which makes the thing even more tragic than it otherwise would be. I hope we shall often have the pleasure of hearing the right reverend Prelate again.
When we last discussed this subject about eighteen months ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has reminded us, a good deal of our interest was still centred on the final winding up of the European refugee problem, which I am glad to say is now not so acute or so urgent as it has been since the war and was until recently—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said, I think we might say the same about the Algerian refugee question, which also took up a good deal of our attention then. I think that the subjects to which your Lordships have given your principal attention this afternoon are the entirely new refugee situation which has arisen in Central Africa; the question of victims of Nazi persecution, on which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, both asked that I should say a word; and, of course, U.N.R.W.A.—the, I hope not eternal, but up to now continuing, question of the Arab refugees.
I think we referred in a subsequent debate, not on refugees but on hunger, to the beginning of this problem of Rwanda refugees, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, called attention, and to which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, also devoted part of his speech. It is estimated that 20,000 people have left Rwanda this year, most of them to go into Burundi and a large number to go into Uganda. That brings the total number of refugees from Rwanda in neighbouring countries to about 150,000.
A representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees visited the area for several weeks, and on the basis of his reports the High Commissioner has prepared several projects for the resettlement of these refugees in

1305
Burundi, in Tanganyika and in Uganda, in co-operation with the Governments of those countries. He also plans to spend a substantial proportion of the funds available to him in 1964 in that part of the world; and his Executive Committee, of which the United Kingdom is a member, has already authorised him to spend 100,000 dollars to take care of the immediate needs of refugees and to do the preparatory work necessary for resettling them later in the year. Those resettlement plans, which involve the expenditure of 780,000 dollars, including the money already authorised, will be submitted to the High Commissioner's Committee at its Eleventh Session, which begins on the 18th of this month.
The Government welcome these plans as a valuable humanitarian venture, and as a contribution to the stability of the area. We also acknowledge the efforts of those Governments in the area which are co-operating with the High Commissioner and assisting with the resettlement of the refugees and the efforts of voluntary societies, and we hope that the High Commissioner will be authorised to carry out these projects during the present year.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, particularly asked if we could not make some special financial contribution to this. He said he did not expect me to say whether we could or what it would be. The High Commissioner has proposed schemes, as I have said, to cover the immediate needs of these refugees in 1964. The Government approve of these schemes, and will pay close attention to the Executive Committee's discussions on them, in particular to the question of finance. That is all that I can tell the noble Earl at this moment.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I welcome what the noble Earl has said, but I hope he will say something more about finance before he sits down. I think that many speakers would wish him to do so—that is, about the Government's contribution to the High Commissioner for Refugees, which, of course, covers the work to which he has just referred.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: In general, yes. Both the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Earl, Earl
1306
Longford, have again brought up the question of the Bonn Convention, on which I remember the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, spoke during our last debate on this subject. Of course, by separating out in the Settlement Convention the question of compensation for sufferings inflicted by the Nazis from general war damage claims, which are normally dealt with in the context of a Peace Treaty, the Allies were able to ensure that a great many people—millions of people, in fact—including large numbers of refugees who would otherwise have had to wait for a Peace Treaty, were able to benefit from the Federal Compensation Law, in which the Germans subsequently carried out their obligations under this chapter. The noble Earl, who had personal experience of this in his Ministerial capacity after the war, has expressed the view that they have done so willingly and generously. They have, I believe, paid out some 23 million marks, or over £2,000 million, by way of compensation.
Her Majesty's Government have great sympathy with the difficult circumstances of all refugees, and it was for that reason that in 1960 we encouraged the signing of an agreement with the United Nations Commissioner for those who had been persecuted on the grounds of their nationality. But these were not matters in which we could make official representations (as the noble Lord has acknowledged) to the Federal Government, because Her Majesty's Government have no locus standi now to intervene in domestic German legislation or in the case of a bilateral agreement between the High Commissioner and the Federal Republic.
What we have done is to make known to the German authorities that strength of feeling in this country about the refugees, and to express the hope that the view of the refugee societies will be given proper, sympathetic consideration by the Germans. In a matter so much charged with emotion as this there are bound to be complaints about individual groups of victims of persecution; but we should not lose sight of the fact that the Germans have done an immense amount to atone for the iniquities of the Nazi réegime.
As for the question of British victims of Nazi persecution, that, of course, is

1307
another subject. I know my noble friend is anxious to hear more about that. So far as we can say anything—and Her Majesty's Government's present concern is to reach agreement with the Federal German Government at the earliest possible moment so as to remove this long-standing source of friction between the two countries—noble Lords will be aware from a statement made in another place by the Foreign Secretary that further negotiations on the subject of bilateral agreement have been under way since last October. These are inevitably complicated negotiations, but they are being conducted, I think, expeditiously, and certainly in an atmosphere of good will. By their nature they must, of course, be regarded as confidential, and I can only assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will make a statement as soon as an agreement is reached.
Now I should like to congratulate your Lordships, if I may, on the, I am afraid, unwonted but welcome brevity of the speeches in our debate this afternoon. I am trying to emulate this; but so many speakers have concentrated the burden of their remarks on the problem of the Palestine refugees and U.N.R.W.A. that I must say a further word about that. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, particularly required my attention in order that I might, as he said, "arbitrate" between the slightly different views which he thought had been expressed on this subject as between the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. I should like to give Lord Shackleton one very humble word of advice. Never intervene in a disagreement between ladies. It will only lead to trouble if you do. And let the noble Lord try to remember what happened to Paris who got involved in a difficulty of this kind. But what I will do, to the best of my ability, is to try to give you briefly as many of the facts as seem to be relevant to this question.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt? I am not sure that the noble Earl's classical illustration is wholly appropriate; but I will just leave it there.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am glad it is sinking in. I will leave
1308
it to germinate in the noble Lord's mind.
The number of refugees is slightly increasing. There were 1,228,000 at the beginning of this year, which was an increase of over 38,000. Of course, part of that is due to the fact that they are continuing to increase in the refugee camps. Their children are marrying and having more children and they are all being brought up as refugees. That is part of the tragic aspect of this problem. Between 600,000 and 700,000 of the registered refugees are in Jordan, 283,000 in the Gaza Strip and the remainder in Syria and The Lebanon; 497,000 of them are living in camps. A large proportion are receiving rations, but not all. Some are working and are self-supporting. As the right reverend Prelate said, their rations consist of flour, pulses, sugar, rice, oils and fats, which provide 1,500 calories a day in summer and 1,600 a day in winter.
As for shelter, there is some doubt as to how great the improvements have been since the noble Lady remembers going there. There has indeed been a great improvement since that time; but there is still a great deal to be desired, because there is not nearly enough improved accommodation; there is a great deal of overcrowding. All the tents in camps have been replaced by either traditional mud huts or concrete constructions. A family generally has one room of about 9 feet or 10 feet by 12 feet or 15 feet, which means a great deal of overcrowding, particularly because children have sometimes grown up and married and continue to share their parents' rooms.
There is a large and varied programme of social welfare designed to alleviate distress and correct the moral ill-effect of idleness. It includes training in artisan skills and domestic arts and crafts, particularly sewing; and there is a distribution of cloth donated by voluntary agencies. There is individual assistance in finding employment; there are youth activities and community development. U.N.R.W.A. maintains 103 static health centres and 11 mobile clinics. It has more than 2,000 hospital beds at its disposal. There have not been any major epidemics during the last year. Emphasis is laid upon preventive medicine, health education,

1309
environmental sanitation and experienced care, including supplementary feeding for expectant and nursing mothers and their children.
As for the educational training programmes, they are mainly designed to prepare the refugees for earning their living. Six years' elementary education is provided for all; and further education for as many as possible. Last year there were 398 U.N.R.W.A. Schools with nearly 150,000 pupils, and another 54,000 refugees pupils attending other schools. U.N.R.W.A. also is sponsoring between 500 and 600 refugees students in Middle East universities, and the budget for general education in 1964 was nearly 9 million U.S. dollars. Our share of the cost of U.N.R.W.A.'s current year allocation to education was increased by 5 per cent., but our contribution to rationing cost was reduced accordingly. This emphasises the importance we attach to this educational progress and shows the emphasis that is laid on vocational training, too.
Mention was made of the greatly expanded programme under the guidance of Dr. Davis, the former Commissioner-General. There are now nearly 4,000 people being trained in vocational training centres, with more than 1,000 graduates leaving each year. Most of them will be skilled craftsmen, although a growing number are trained to a higher level. This programme not only means giving the refugees a livelihood but also contributes to the economic development of the Middle East as a whole. As for teachers, U.N.R.W.A. teacher-training is also being expanded. By the year after next, it is expected there will be a yearly output of 375 teachers trained on fairly modern lines, and a further 250 teachers trained in the prevailing traditional systems of the area.
Originally, U.N.R.W.A. was meant by the General Assembly to carry out a programme of works for the economic rehabilitation of the refugees; and while plans for various large-scale projects have been drawn up over the last sixteen years none has been put into effect, because of the opposition of the Arab Governments and of the refugees' spokesmen to any projects likely to diminish the rights of the refugees either to repatriation or to compensation. Therefore, U.N.R.W.A. activity in this field
1310
has had to be confined to the provision of small loans and grants to individual refugees designed to help them to become self-supporting.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and other noble Lords said that we ought to face up to the need for a political solution. Of course, there is no doubt that a political solution would be the best one, if we could get it, and we ought to have it in mind as the most desirable end. The United Nations General Assembly set up a Palestine Conciliation Commission in order to search for a political solution a long time ago, and every year the General Assembly has adopted unanimously a resolution which
"Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity should be made good by the Governments and authorities responsible;"
and instructs
"the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation and to maintain close relations with the director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and through him with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations."
That has been reaffirmed every year by the United Nations General Assembly, but very little progress has been made in this task by the Commission so far.
The United States Government have promoted various initiatives in searching for a political solution of the refugee problem. So far they have not been successful. The most notable recent one was the mission of Dr. Joseph Johnson to the Middle East in 1962, which was followed up with talks between the United States Ambassadors and the Governments to which they were accredited, but I am afraid that the Arab Governments have since found it necessary to deny that such talks ever took place. They are all terrified of admitting that they may be willing to consider a political solution. So far, these initiatives have foundered on Arab insistence that the 1,200,000 refugees must all be permitted to return to Israel. That is the ground on which they base their objection. The Israel Government argue

1311
that in practice it would impose on them an impossible security problem, but they are ready to pay compensation.
In default of a political solution, which I agree is the most desirable thing, what can we do to ameliorate the situation? I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was a little more generous than the noble Earl, Lord Longford, about what the British Government were doing. If I may say so, the noble Earl is never really happy unless he is accusing us of being mean about something. It is particularly ungracious of him in a way, because last year he pressed us to double our contribution of £100,000. We did double it and now he says that we are mean to give that £100,000 which, for some exceptional reason, was doubled last year. Surely we must relate our contribution to the needs of the position. I agree that these are great, but the noble Earl never seems to mention the fact that we have given £29 million to U.N.R.W.A., more than anybody else except the United States, and that our annual contribution is very nearly £2 million—£1,928,000 to be exact.
We believe that, in particular, the educational programme on which much of this is spent is vital to the welfare of the refugees and to their future. We have pledged ourselves to continue this contribution in the coming year, and we have allocated from this sum a larger proportion for education and training. We shall continue in future to support this vital work of helping the refugees, and we very much hope that other countries which at the moment are subscribing only limited, or even token, sums to the work of U.N.R.W.A. will be prepared to support this deserving cause with gifts more proportionate to their resources and thus help to solve the financial problems which the Agency faces.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that my feelings towards the Government are not only those of criticism, but also those of curiosity. Could the noble Earl tell us when he is going to make an announcement on this, and what is now holding up the announcement?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I could not tell the noble Earl last year, but we did make an announcement, which I think was quite pleasing to the noble Earl. But I cannot do these things "off the cuff" at this Dispatch Box, in the middle of a debate, and I am sure that the noble Earl does not really expect me to.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked, I thought very rightly, of the need for the association of this help with economic development, because, by spending money on development in the Middle East and elsewhere, we are helping the refugee problem. We are engaged in the provision of technical assistance to most of the countries where refugees at present reside, which is contributing to their economic development. That is particularly true in the case of Jordan, to which for several years we have provided substantial interest-free development loans. This year we are lending Jordan £700,000, free of interest, for development purposes, and by doing that we are indirectly making a substantial contribution towards the future of these refugees, because sooner or later a great many of them will have to be absorbed into the economy of the country. Our help has been particularly devoted to the field of exploring and exploiting the water resources which are so essential for the progress and development of agriculture.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves the financial position, our concern is that most other Governments have announced what their contributions are. The United Nations High Commissioner, who has to budget, clearly needs to know, and there is some concern. Normally we would expect the Government to be well up in these matters and I cannot believe that the noble Earl did not expect to be asked this question. I realise that he may not be able to give an answer, but I hope that he will be able to convey our feelings to his colleagues.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's anxiety about this. I would remind your Lordships again, because I did so in our debate in the last Session, that our total

1313
contribution to the whole of the refugee problem since the war has been £200 million, which I think is a fairly substantial contribution for a country even of our resources. I understand that my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood also has a few figures to give in the course of her remarks, and I would conclude by thanking her for giving your Lordships the opportunity of this very interesting and useful debate.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask whether I could have a reply to the question I asked the noble Earl earlier this afternoon? Will he be good enough to ask the Minister to consider the desirability of taking the initiative in putting the amendment of the Extradition Act on the Agenda of the Prime Ministers' Conference, if a settlement has not been reached at that time?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I have already told the noble Earl that I agree with him that we have in the last resort a right to legislate ourselves. He agrees with me, l think, that it would be much better if we could get Commonwealth agreement. Having regard to the number of Commonwealth countries and the time which many of them like to take in considering these matters, I do not think we should yet give up hope of agreement; nor do I think it is particularly unlikely that agreement will in time be reached.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: With great respect, the noble Earl has not answered my question. I think he will agree that, if our debates in this House are to have any value, we are entitled to expect that our views will be reported to the responsible Minister. That is all I am asking him, and I hope he can say, "Yes" or, "No".
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, my Lords. The views expressed by your Lordships are recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT and they are always brought to the attention of the appropriate Departments.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, not now. I am not going to add anything to what was said by my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire when he replied to the
1314
Question on this subject a week or two ago. But I have no doubt that the noble Earl's hope that this may be considered at the Commonwealth Conference will be taken note of.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I appeal to the Leader of the House? I am not asking the noble Earl whether or not I am entitled to hope that my views will be considered by responsible Ministers. I am simply asking him whether he will report my view, if not to the Prime Minister (and I think it should be to the Prime Minister, because he is the Minister engaged in drawing up the Agenda of the Conference), then to the Foreign Secretary, with a request to the Foreign Secretary to pass my views on to the Prime Minister. I hope the noble Earl will give me a reply. I do appeal to the noble Lord the Leader of the House to support me in the view that this is the normal procedure of your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Of course I will do that. But the noble Earl is really too modest. What he has said will be taken note of and reported in all the right quarters, and it does not need the intervention of a junior Minister like myself in order to bring these things to anybody's attention. However, I will certainly do what he wants. If I may say so, it is rather redundant to have all this talk about what would happen in any event.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am grateful to the noble Earl and should like to thank him. I should also like to apologise if I have appeared rather irascible, which I do not often do.
6.53 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I think this debate has been one of great interest. I have listened to all the speeches. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that they have had the merit of being short, and I do not propose to take up too much time in my reply. I should like to thank those Members of your Lordships' House who have so kindly taken part in the debate, and to say that I think they have all made interesting contributions. I was most interested in the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate, and if his impressions of what he saw are different from what I saw, that is the nature of

1315
things. I have been there once before and he has not, and I suppose it strikes one more forcibly the first time than it does when you see, as I saw, that a great deal of improvement has taken place in the camps.
I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for the interpretation of the charitable nature of voluntary funds which he gave us to-day; that is to say, that the Charity Commissioners' interpretation of a charity fund seems to cover all that we want. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, that it is important that the voluntary societies should be very careful and strict in the way they interpret either their trust deeds or the principles on which their money is distributed. As long as they do that, that will probably cover the question as to whether or not their funds can be classed under the Charity Commissioners' administration.
I thank all noble Lords who have urged the Government to continue their support for the new mandate which will be needed for the General Commissioner for U.N.R.W.A. This will be discussed at the United Nations this year, and I think I am right in saying that the Government show every intention of supporting this. 1 would support noble Lords opposite who have asked for a decision on our contribution to the High Commissioner for Refugees. I hope the Government will not delay that any longer, and that the contribution will be as generous as it was last year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill, asked me one or two direct questions about U.N.R.W.A. and in the interval I have refreshed my memory about one or two things. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has given her one or two answers, but as the questions were directed to me I will supply her with the answers she asked for. First of all, with regard to training centres, in 1959 there were two training centres only, one in Gaza and one in Jordan. Each had a capacity of 200 and were for boys. In 1964 there are 10 training centres. Eight of these are new and the capacity of the two existing ones has been doubled; they now take 400 instead of 200. There are, in all, 4,000 places in these training centres for young people, of whom roughly 3,400 are boys and 600 are girls.
1316
There is only one centre for girls, but U.N.R.W.A. hope to build a second one if they can get the money.
One of these 10 training centres is purely for teacher-training; three are mixed, with teacher and vocational training, and six are entirely vocational. Their distribution is 4 in Jordan, 2 in Lebanon, 2 in Syria and 2 in Gaza. There is also a new educational institute for the in-service training of teachers. There are 3,000 teachers in the elementary schools who are not professionally qualified, and the training for the additional qualifications for these teachers is being taken by correspondence and by visual aid techniques through this institute which is in Beirut.
I think the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, gave the figures about elementary school education. Nine years of schooling is available to elementary schoolchildren. Not all take advantage of this, though a great proportion do. One of the big developments in recent years is that whereas before so much education was for boys only, now there has been a great increase for girls and the numbers are almost 50–50. After nine years, about half the children go on to secondary schools, and they get another three years' education in that way. The noble Lady referred to books for schools. I understand there is no lack of school books. There is, however, a lack of science equipment. This is largely due to lack of funds and U.N.R.W.A. are very much hoping to remedy this. They have one or two portable scientific sets which they take from school to school.
There are 30,000 young men and women who reach maturity every year and there is room in the U.N.R.W.A. centre for 4,000 of these. But of the remaining 26,000, some go to other training centres run by the World Federation of Lutheran Churches, by the Y.W.C.A. and the Y.M.C.A.; some go to training centres helped by Arab Governments, and some, with secondary school training only, go straight into jobs. A small proportion will, and do already, go to universities, either in Beirut, Damascus, Cairo or Amman. I hope this answers some of the questions put by the noble Baroness.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness?

1317
I understand that while I was at tea two noble Lords tried to stir up trouble between us. I want to assure the noble Baroness that I am not conscious of it.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness and I will not quarrel on these subjects.
I was interested in what the noble Earl said about the political aspect of these problems. I feel, like everybody, that if only one could get a political solution a miracle would be achieved. I was interested in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. I wish he had spoken longer, because nobody knows more about it than he does. I share, in many ways, a great many of his views and those of his father, whom I had the privilege of knowing well.
We have heard a great deal about Arabs and the Arab refugees, but we have not spoken, as some of us would perhaps have liked to do, about the astonishing developments in Israel, and the saving of millions of refugees from the Ghettos and the horrors of Nazi Europe which has been done through Israel. One must not forget these things, which are written on the pages of history and cannot be obliterated. I think one must remember that there are tremendously strong cases on each side. I cannot forget, too, that in World Refugee Year I had the support of all the Jewish organisations in this country. They gave most generously, knowing perfectly well that a vast proportion of the money would go to the Arab refugees and to refugees throughout the world nothing to do with their own race and their own problems. We are very much indebted to them for what they did during those years.
The problems of Africa have been raised, and again this is a new problem from the point of view of the High Commissioner for Refugees. He will have to meet refugees from the Sudan, the Congo and the great African States, which are a big and new complication. There, again, I think this is another reason for supporting him as fully as we can from the point of view of money and help.
I do not want to make another speech. I hope I have answered the questions which were put to me. I should only like to say how grateful I am to all for their kindness in taking part, and for
1318
the expression of their views, which has been of great interest. I am sure Her Majesty's Government will pay attention to what we have said. I have the greatest faith in the Government, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ST. JOHN'S CHURCH SMITH SQUARE BILL [H.L.]
  BARRY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  ELIM CHURCH MOOR LANE BOLTON BURIAL GROUND BILL
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.
  MACDUFF HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee.
  PROPOSED RAILWAY CLOSURES
  PROPOSED RAILWAY CLOSURES
  LICENSING OF YOUNG MOTOR-CYCLISTS
  LICENSING OF YOUNG MOTOR-CYCLISTS