Sitting of 9 February 1965

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  WELSH SHIPPING AGENCY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Third Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time and committed.
  BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

  COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (HIGHER FERRY SALTNEY FOOTBRIDGE) BILL (By Order)
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time and committed.

  MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  MERSEY TUNNEL (LIVERPOOL/WALLASEY) ETC. BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MALTA

    Dockyard (Loans)
    Mr. Woodnuttasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will state the total payments made to the managing company and the Council of Administration by Her Majesty's Government since the dockyard was taken over from Bailey, Malta, Ltd.
    The Minister of State, Commonwealth Relations Office (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): Loans made by the British Government to Bailey (Malta) Ltd. since the Council of Administration was appointed to administer the company amounted at 31st January, 1965, to £3,556,600.
    Mr. Woodnutt: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I point out that it does not really answer my question? I really want to know whether the managing company is making profits or losses because, according to the published figures of Bailey's, that company made profits until the time that it handed over. Is it true that the cost of this legal action will be borne by the Council of Administration?
    Mr. Hughes: The position is that it is estimated that the loans issued for the original scheme will amount to £7·21 million as against the £7·25 million which the British Government agreed to contribute, but in addition there are certain new items to be financed by a scheme for financial assistance and these are estimated to cost over £½ million.

  CEYLON

    British Companies (Taxation)
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what information he has on the effective percentage rates of taxation levied by the Government of Ceylon on British companies in respect of their operations in Ceylon; and in particular, what the tax would be on gross profits of £50,000, £100,000, and £250,000.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The rate of taxation levied by the Government of

    173
    Ceylon on British companies depends on whether the company holds immovable property in that country or not. In the former case, taxation amounts to 84 1/9 per cent. On chargeable profits, although under the existing tax laws the total tax payable is restricted to 80 per cent. In the latter case the total tax payable varies between 72¼ per cent. and 74 1/9 per cent. These rates apply irrespective of the amount of profits earned. To relate these figures to gross profits might give a misleading impression as this would ignore allowable expenses, allowances for depreciation, etc.
    Mr. Taylor: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that even by the present Government's standards these rates of taxation are excessive and unreasonable? Would he also agree that even the small profits left after this taxation are not receivable in this country because of the ban on remittances imposed on 31st July last? Would he finally agree that, in view of the very substantial contribution made by foreign and Commonwealth investment income to our balance of payments, it is about time that the Government took a tougher line with those nations which are expropriating our assets without compensation or who are achieving the same result by putting on unreasonably high taxation and by banning remittances?
    Hon. Members: Speech.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister had better answer at this point. We have heard enough of it.
    Mr. Hughes: I agree that taxation in Ceylon is very high, but the hon. Gentleman should remember that it has not precluded British companies from continuing to operate at a profit. It falls into a different category from the moratorium on remittances to which he referred and other measures damaging to British interests which were introduced in the July budget to which he referred.

    British Companies (Transfer of Profits)
    Sir J. Barlowasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what representations he has made to the Government of Ceylon to permit the transfer of profits in British registered
    174
    companies from Ceylon to Great Britain; and whether he will make a statement.
    Sir F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what has been the result of the representations made to the Ceylon Government regarding the continuing moratorium on the payment of overseas dividends by British companies, and the consequences of the imposition of new taxation on British tea companies.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: As my right hon. Friend told the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) on 1st December, he made representations to the Ceylon Finance Minister personally during November about all those measures in the Ceylon budget which have had an adverse effect on British interests.
    The position remains unsatisfactory. But, as the House will be aware, the Ceylon Parliament was dissolved in December following the defeat of the Government, and a General Election is due to be held on 22nd March. We intend to make further representations to the new Government after the election if the position remains unsatisfactory.
    Sir F. Bennett: From what the hon. Gentleman says, he presumably hopes for the emergence in Ceylon of a less Left-wing and refractory Government but, in any case, will he bear in mind the desirability of pointing out in every way to Ceylon that if she needs overseas investment she is at present going just about the worst possible way of getting it?
    Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we shall make the strongest possible representations to whatever Government may emerge from the election.
    Mr. Tilney: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the very favourable balance of payments that Ceylon has with this country; and also the fact that there are many widows of those who helped that country's economy in the past and who are entirely dependent on dividends?
    Mr. Hughes: We are fully aware of that. My right hon. Friend and I made personal representations to Dr. Perera when he was here, and stressed to him the gravity and the seriousness of these cases.

  COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

    Raw Material Resources
    Mr. Peter Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will consult Commonwealth countries with a view to producing a new survey of the raw material resources of the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: No, Sir. The Commonwealth Trade and Economic Conference of September, 1958, agreed that in view of the value of the Raw Materials Survey it should be kept up-to-date by extending the former range of the Commonwealth Economic Committee's periodic Commodity Series to cover all the materials in question.
    Mr. Walker: Would the Minister of State consider asking the new Commonwealth Secretariat to look into this problem, particularly in relation to future worldwide raw material demands, because this will have a considerable effect on the position of the sterling area?
    Mr. Hughes: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is rather early days to consider what the Commonwealth Secretariat will do.

    Commonwealth Secretariat and Commonwealth Foundation
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will make a statement on progress made with setting up a Commonwealth Secretariat.
    Mr. Hornbyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he is yet in a position to publish the report recently prepared by officials on the establishment of a Commonwealth Secretariat and Commonwealth Foundation.
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what progress has been made in the establishment of a Commonwealth Foundation to promote interchanges between Commonwealth organisations in professional fields.
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what stage he has reached with
    176
    his plans for setting up the Commonwealth Secretariat.
    The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Arthur Bottomley): As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards) on 19th January, senior Commonwealth officials, after a series of informal and very friendly meetings, reached agreement on a report which was submitted to all member Governments for their consideration. We are already in communication with all Commonwealth heads of Government and have made suggestions to them as to how progress should be made, particularly with the early appointment of the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Secretariat.
    The report by officials and our exchanges with Commonwealth Governments must remain confidential, but I should like to take this opportunity of emphasising that, for their part, the British Government are anxious to press forward with all speed with the establishment of the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Commonwealth Foundation. We are convinced that these bodies can have an important part to play in strengthening the Commonwealth association.
    Mr. Lloyd: In regard to the scope of the Secretariat, has the right hon. Gentleman considered the future evolution of Commonwealth bodies, such as a Commonwealth consultative assembly?
    Mr. Bottomley: These are matters for the Commonwealth Secretariat, when it is established, to consider on representations from the Governments concerned. I have no doubt that at least one Government will consider putting forward that suggestion.
    Mr. Hornby: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman that the Commonwealth Secretariat, if established in time, should play any part in the planning of the next Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference?
    Mr. Bottomley: It is not anticipated that the Secretary-General can be appointed before the next Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, but it is hoped that some progress can be made so that he can sit in at the initial stages so that he may be ready to take over in time.
    Mr. Irvine: The right hon. Gentleman has said nothing about the professional fields. Could he emphasise the importance he feels that they could play in Commonwealth co-operation?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. I am well aware of the enthusiasm which has been aroused in professional and voluntary circles interested in the Foundation. The Government are grateful for the wide measure of support which the proposal has attracted. We are convinced that, with such backing, the Foundation can find a valuable rôle to play in strengthening the unofficial links in the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Johnson: Would my right hon. Friend care to scotch the view which is held in certain quarters that the senior officials of the new organisation should perhaps come from the older Dominions or white Dominions, but that it should be open to all the Commonwealth Governments concerned?
    Mr. Bottomley: This, too, is a matter for all the Governments concerned. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has suggested to them that names should be submitted.
    Mr. Sandys: While not asking the right hon. Gentleman to give the details, may I ask him to say whether agreement has been reached as to the scope and functions of the Secretariat? In view of what he said about the wide measure of support for the Foundation, does that mean that offers of financial support are forthcoming from other Commonwealth Governments?
    Mr. Bottomley: On the question of finance, how the Secretariat and the Foundation can be paid for is now being considered. We will await the result of the discussions which are going on. The scope of the Secretariat is, again, a matter on which all the Commonwealth Governments are consulting. We hope that it will be as wide as possible.
    Mr. Fisher: Could the Secretary of State say, very approximately, what size the Secretariat will be and the numbers of staff and so on? Will there be an annual budget and is he able to give any idea of the size of the organisation?
    Mr. Bottomley: It is not anticipated that in the beginning it will be a very
    178
    large body from the point of view of the numbers employed in the Secretariat. Discussions are going on as to what the numbers should be. The matter of cost is being considered by all the Governments.

    Immigrants to United Kingdom
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what discussions he has had with each of the Commonwealth territories for imposing a check on the health of immigrants from those countries to the United Kingdom; and what machinery exists in those countries for this purpose.
    Mr. Snowasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he has discussed with each Commonwealth territory the question of imposing a check on the health of intending immigrants from such countries to the United Kingdom; and if these territories have the necessary organisation to carry out such checks.
    Mr. Bottomley: I have had no discussions with other Commonwealth Governments on this subject. There are, as far as I am aware, no special arrangements in Commonwealth countries for health checks on intending immigrants to Britain. My right hon. Friend, the Minister for Health, has recently announced measures for improving the health safeguards for immigrants on and after entry to Britain.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Ought not the right hon. Gentleman to have discussions on this? Is he aware that I picked this idea out of the Labour Party manifesto and thought it a rather good one? If we are going to check the health of immigrants, would it not help if those checks were done by our immigration officers out there?
    Mr. Bottomley: As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has indeed taken action as a result of the Labour Party manifesto, and it is his considered view that it would be advisable to see how the new steps he has taken operate before taking other action.
    Mr. Snow: While taking note of the fact that the hon. Member for Twickenhave (Mr. Gresham Cooke) is improving

    179
    his political education. may I ask my right hon. Friend if he will consider this question further and bear in mind the example of the United States Government in their attitude towards immigrants from Puerto Rico, which is substantially, as it were, a member of the commonwealth with the United States?
    Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend can rest assured that we have these matters constantly under review.
    Mr. Fisher: As it would in many ways be much better to have these health checks in the country of origin before departure, could the right hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks it would be practicable to set up a small British staff, with equipment, in the countries mainly concerned, like India and Pakistan, and, if so, whether such an arrangement would be acceptable to those countries?
    Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Member can rest assured that this matter is being considered and that other Commonwealth countries will in due course be consulted about it.
    Sir C. Osborne: Why was it not done three years ago?
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, in view of the fact that many Commonwealth immigrants would like to return to their own country if they had the fare, if he will take steps to establish a fund of £100 million to assist the immigrants who wish to return home, along with their families, provided they are not entitled to return to this country; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: No, Sir. The Government have no evidence to suggest that there are, in fact, large numbers of Commonwealth immigrants who would return to their own countries but for their inability to raise the fare. In the case of the limited number of Commonwealth immigrants who may find themselves in this position, we would, as a general rule, expect their own Governments to repatriate them. In exceptional cases, however, where Commonwealth immigrants have no funds and clearly have no prospect of employment, there are already arrangements whereby the British Government will pay for their repatriation.
    Sir C. Osborne: If I send the Minister evidence that there are people who would like to return home but have not the fare, would he look at it? Is he not aware that the overwhelming number of English people would like to see these immigrants return to their own countries if they so wish; that the bulk of our people would like to see no more of them come to this country, and that, particularly, they want to know why he and his colleagues voted 100 times during the passing of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill against any control of immigration? Let us have an answer to that.
    Mr. Hughes:The hon. Gentleman's general attitude to this problem is about the most unhelpful in the whole country. The position is that under the arrangements we have, nobody can be sent home from this country against his wishes unless he contravenes this country's laws, as the hon. Gentleman is aware.
    Mr. Paget: Would my hon. Friend make it clear that these immigrants have been of great economic benefit to this country; that they are people to whom we should be grateful, and that it is utterly deceptive to talk about them as a liability and people who ought to be sent home?
    Mr. Hughes: I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. What he says is perfectly true. Many of our social services would break down if some of the immigrants to whom the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) refers were sent back to their own countries.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what really was unhelpful to the whole country was his party's attitude of bitter opposition to the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Hughes: What is unhelpful is the political capital that the party opposite are making of it.
    Sir C. Osborne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since I cannot be called again, and as I have been personally attacked, I beg to give notice than I shall seek, with your permission, to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Gurdenasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if

    181
    he will discuss with Commonwealth Governments the problem of immigration which takes place by means of false passports.
    Mr. Bottomley: We are already in close touch with such Commonwealth Governments as may be concerned with this problem.
    Mr. Gurden: Would not the right hon. Gentleman accept that we should now have fingerprint identification on all the passports, so that the abuse alleged by his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary can be stopped? Further, does he not think that it is about time that we altered the law in respect of British nationality?
    Mr. Bottomley: We do not intend to take any action except in consultation with our Commonwealth partners.
    Sir D. Renton: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that it is not only passports that are forged, but other necessary documents? Will he also make representations so that the Commonwealth countries concerned can stop the moneylender racket, of which the forged documents are an essential part?
    Mr. Bottomley: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman shares with me Lois concern, as do the Commonwealth Governments, and we should give those Governments credit for seeking to stamp this out as much as we are doing ourselves.
    Mr. Peter Emery: Can the Minister tell us quite plainly whether the Government and the party opposite have ever altered their view since they voted 100 times against the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill?
    Mr. Speaker: That does not arise in any sense at all from the Question. The Question is about false passports; this is a false point.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what progress has been made in discussions with Commonwealth Governments about immigration problems.
    Mr. Bottomley: I am not yet in a position to add to the reply I gave to the Question by the hon. Member for
    182
    Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) on 17th November, 1964.
    Mr. Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman conducting his negotiations on the basis of the statement by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government that the Act, which the Labour Party opposed so bitterly, is, in his view, now not sufficiently strong for its purpose? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear in his negotiations that it is in the true interests of all in this country that at least until the acute housing shortage is solved entry should be strictly limited?
    Mr. Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the social problem, which is not of race; but the fact that people cannot be housed adequately is a factor. I can only repeat that the Government are consulting other Commonwealth Governments about the matter, and we shall continue to do so.
    Sir C. Osborne: Did the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues consult the Commonwealth Governments before they reimposed the Commonwealth Immigrants Act which they had before so bitterly opposed, and did they get the Commonwealth Governments to agree to the reimposition of that Act?
    Mr. Boftomley: As is customary with us on this side of the House, we always have consultation with the Commonwealth.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, if the late Government had entered into consultations with the Commonwealth Governments on this problem three years ago, the situation would be very different indeed?
    Mr. Bottomley: That is the point I had in mind when I answered an earlier question.
    Mr. Sandys: Is it not a fact that, if the Labour Government had had more consultations with Commonwealth and other Governments about the import surcharge, we would not be having all the trouble we are having now?

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he is aware of the negotiations of

    183
    certain West and East African Commonwealth countries with members of the European Economic Community to enter into a special relationship likely to be detrimental to Commonwealth and British trade; and what action he has taken to safeguard this trade.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: We are watching these discussions. The Commonwealth Governments concerned are aware of our interest and I have no reason to think that they contemplate anything detrimental to our trade.
    Mr. Tilney: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, with the exception of those countries which are trading with Commonwealth countries governed by the Congo Basin Treaty, Commonwealth preference has evolved to the mutual advantage of Commonwealth trade? If certain countries make it harder for our exports, then aid and our own import policy must be reconsidered.
    Mr. Hughes: I think that there is a good deal in what the hon. Member says, but he will realise that Nigeria and the three East African countries—Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania—have traditionally operated a non-discriminatory tariff and Britain does not receive preferential treatment from them. On the other hand, they enjoy free entry and preferences in the United Kingdom for nearly all their exports.

    Diplomatic Service (Cost of Living Allowances)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations how often adjustments are made in the cost of living allowances of members of Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service in Commonwealth countries; whether these are made automatically after a definite period on fixed rise in the cost of living index; and whether the same principle is followed in Commonwealth High Commissions as in British embassies in foreign countries.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Adjustments are made automatically whenever the combined effect of changes in the cost of living index and rate of exchange shows a variation of 10 per cent. or more since the last inspection of the post or the last automatic adjustment; or when a rise of 7½ per cent. has been maintained for six months. This applies
    184
    to all Diplomatic Service posts in foreign and Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Tilney: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in at least one Commonwealth country there is a feeling that the cost of living has risen by over 20 per cent. in the last two years but still there has been no adjustment?
    Mr. Hughes: The procedure for dealing with cost of living variations in Commonwealth countries prior to 1st April, 1964, when this arrangement came into force, was different from that now in force. There was no system of automatic adjustment but each post submitted relevant statistics when it felt that a significant overall rise in local prices had taken place. The figures submitted by the High Commission in New Delhi—presumably India is the country to which the hon. Gentleman is referring—are now being studied, and, if it is agreed that the criteria in force have been met, the allowances for the staff in New Delhi will be adjusted accordingly.

  CYPRUS

    Mr. R. J. Roe
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make representations to the Cyprus Government to permit Mr. R. J. Roe, a retired colonial official, who was in charge of the Government Veterinary Service in Cyprus from 1921 to 1963, to re-enter the island.
    Mr. Bottomley: When Mr. Roe was refused re-entry into Cyprus last September, my predecessor instructed our High Commissioner to make strong representations to the Cyprus Government. Representations were also made to President Makarios. The High Commissioner was informed that Mr. Roe's re-entry into Cyprus had been refused purely on security grounds; but no charges have been brought against Mr. Roe. The High Commissioner was assured that the possibility of Mr. Roe's re-entry into Cyprus would be reconsidered as soon as circumstances permitted. I am keeping in touch with our High Commissioner on this matter.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: While thanking the Secretary of State for that reply, may

    185
    I ask him to have pointed out that Mr. Roe has been a resident of the island since 1921 that he was carrying on private practice as a veterinary surgeon and that when he was illegally refused entry last September no reasons were given? Will the right hon. Gentleman find out the reasons? Does he agree that there is no reflection on Mr. Roe's character, and will he point out that Mr. Roe is suffering grave financial loss as a result of being kept out of the island?
    Mr. Bottomley: Although we cannot accept, in the absence of evidence, that he committed security offences, nevertheless we must accept that the Cyprus Government are responsible, and we can only make representations, as we have done. As to the financial loss, this would be a matter for the Cyprus Government. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it would help very much if the Cyprus Government would consider this matter sympathetically.
    Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Would my right hon. Friend give an assurance that this gentleman will not be deported to the Seychelles, as was President Makarios some time ago?

    Official Conversations
    Mr. Francis Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what official conversations have taken place with the Government of Cyprus since Her Majesty's present Government took office.
    Mr. Bottomley: None, Sir.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the fact that even if it does ultimately take place, any debate in the United Nations Assembly on Cyprus is almost certain to be inconclusive, is it not time that serious consideration was given to a new initiative in solving the problem? Would it not be a very useful preliminary if talks were to be had with the Cyprus Government by a senior member of this Government?
    Mr. Bottomley: No, Sir. At the moment, the matter is with the United Nations. A mediator has been appointed, and until he has made his report it would be unwise for any other action to be taken by Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Sandys: Will not the Government very soon have talks with the Cyprus
    186
    authorities about the problem that will arise if the peace-keeping force has to be withdrawn because of lack of funds?
    Mr. Bottomley: This is a matter for the United Nations, initially. We shall, of course, play our part in trying to get a settlement of the problem.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: When is it anticipated that the mediator will make a report?
    Mr. Bottomley: The question of his report to the United Nations is a matter for the mediator.
    Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the United Nations will take fully into account the interests of the Turkish people in Cyprus, who rather seem to have been left out in the past?
    Mr. Bottomley: Unlike the hon. Member, who seems to show partisanship, we are impartial in this matter.
    Mr. Sandys: Does the Minister realise that, if the peace-keeping force does break down through lack of funds, the British Government, as one of the signatories to the Treaty of Guarantee, will have certain problems on which they will have to take a view pretty quickly?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. The Government recognise that, as one of the signatories to the Agreement, they have obligations which have to be met.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd, for the next one.
    Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that I am partial in this matter. Am I not entitled to ask him whether he is aware that the United Nations appears to be even more partial?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it would stop allegations of this kind.

  BRUNEI

    Sultan of Brunei (Talks)
    Mr. Robert Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement on the result of his talks with the Sultan of Brunei.
    Mr. Bottomley: My talks with the Sultan of Brunei in November and December, 1964, were primarily concerned

    187
    with constitutional developments in Brunei. We agreed on the detailed arrangements for holding the elections for the Legislative Council on 20th March, 1965, as well as the outline plan for the introduction of a ministerial system of Government immediately after these elections. I agreed with the Sultan that our joint intention is for Brunei to proceed progressively towards full parliamentary democracy.
    Our officials were also able to hold useful discussions about aspects of administration of the State, Brunei's defence and the recruitment of qualified staff for a number of vacancies in Brunei for which Bruneis may not be available in the immediate future.
    With permission, I shall circulate a copy of the joint communiqué issued at the conclusion of the talks.
    Mr. Edwards: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very satisfactory reply, but I am sure that he would agree that elections are not the end of democracy but just the beginning—[Interruption.]—though fundamental to it, as I am glad hon. Members opposite agree. Has my right hon. Friend any further plans for democratic constitutional progress following the March elections?
    Mr. Bottomley: I agreed with the Sultan that we should have further consultations after the election to consider how best to make further progress in constitutional advance as contemplated in the proposals issued by the Government of Brunei in August of last year. The August, 1964, proposals contemplated an increase, at a later stage, in the elected membership of the Legislative Council from 10 to 20 by a reduction of the ex officio officers and the elimination of nominated membership. They also contemplated the further development of the Ministerial system with the aim of Brunei achieving the stage where the formulating and carrying out of Government policy will be the responsibility of Ministers chosen from amongst the elected members.
    Following is the joint communiqué.

    TALKS BETWEEN THE COMMONWEALTH SECRETARY AND THE SULTAN OF BRUNEI
    The discussions between the British Government and the Government of Brunei have now been concluded. His Highness the Sultan
    188
    of Brunei is remaining in Britain for a short time to fulfil some private engagements.
    Whilst in Britain His Highness discussed a wide range of subjects with the Commonwealth Secretary. His Ministers and advisers had talks with officials of the C.R.O., the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Overseas Development and other Government Departments. The British High Commissioner in Brunei was also present at some of the discussions. In particular, they reviewed the proposals of the Brunei Government for constitutional progress in the State, as approved by the Brunei Legislative Council on 26th August, 1964. They also discussed the economic development of the State.
    His Highness informed Mr. Bottomley that elections to the District and Legislative Councils would be held in March, 1965, and confirmed that a ministerial system of Government would be introduced immediately after the elections and that elected members of the Legislative Council would be appointed to the Executive Council and associated with the exercise of the executive and administrative responsibilities of his Government. It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government and of the Sultan and his Government that Brunei should proceed progressively towards full parliamentary democracy.
    After the elections the Executive Council will become the "Council of Ministers" and will include Assistant Ministers appointed from the members of the Legislative Council.
    It was agreed that detailed plans for the introduction of the Ministerial system should be completed by the end of February, 1965, and that there should be consultations between His Highness and the Commonwealth Secretary immediately after the elections, in order to consider the next steps towards constitutional advance.
    To assist the Brunei Government to implement its plans for the economic development of the State, the Ministry of Overseas Development is taking immediate steps to recruit officers for the post of Commissioner for Development and for other posts which are at present vacant owing to the shortage of qualified and experienced Bruneis. Her Majesty's Government agreed that they would be willing to assist the Government of Brunei in filling future manpower vacancies that Brunei may not be able to fill herself. It was agreed that assistance would be given to volunteers to serve in Brunei under the scheme for Voluntary Service Overseas.

  RHODESIA

    Ministers' Visit
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he proposes to visit Rhodesia; and what conditions he proposes to attach to his visit.
    Mr. Rowlandasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if

    189
    he will make a further statement on the progress he has made towards initiating talks with the Government of Rhodesia.
    Mr. Leadbitterasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what proposals he now has to seek the co-operation of the Government of Rhodesia with a view to making progress towards agreement on that country's constitutional problems.
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if it is his intention to visit Southern Rhodesia; and whether he still attaches any conditions to such a visit.
    Mr. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making a statement on these matters in reply to a later Question.

  AUSTRALIA

    Assisted Passage Scheme
    Sir D. Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations how many people emigrated under the Assisted Passage Scheme during 1964; and how many people will be enabled to emigrate under the scheme in 1965.
    Mr. Bottomley: Approximately 65,000 people emigrated from Britain to Australia under the United Kingdom-Australia Assisted Passage Scheme during the calendar year ending 31st December, 1964. It is not possible to say how many will be enabled to emigrate under this scheme during the 1965 calendar year, as the Australian programme is arranged to cover the Australian fiscal year. The Australian Government's target for assisted British migration for the fiscal year ending 30th June, 1965, is 70,000.
    Sir D. Renton: Bearing in mind that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that only one-tenth of the money provided by Parliament has been spent by Governments for a good many years on the Assisted Passage Scheme, that the Commonwealth countries concerned would like more of our people to go there, that many of our people would like to go there, and also that the right hon. Gentleman's heart is in the right place in this matter, will he try to improve on the present performance?
    Mr. Bottomley: It is interesting to note that the number of people going from this country has been rising year by year. The figures of those going from this country to Australia are as follows—1959, 32,736; 1960, 33,427; 1961, 33,220; 1962, 29,251; and 1963, 46,989.
    Mr. Solomons: Was the increase in the number of emigrants from this country during the period my right hon. Friend has mentioned due to the fact that we had a Tory Government at the time?
    Mr. Wall: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why only £161,000 was spent on this and similar schemes last year when Parliament voted a much greater sum? Will he devote his energies to trying to assist these passages with the funds which are available?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, we can look at that. But we have no plans to increase the amount of funds available for this purpose; that we cannot do.

  MALAYSIA

    Sabah and Sarawak (Indonesian Forces)
    Sir F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what discussions have taken place between the British and Malaysian Governments regarding the threat presented by the build-up of Indonesian troops near the Sabah and Sarawak borders; and whether the Australian and New Zealand Governments have been invited to join these discussions.
    Mr. Sandysasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what information he has received from the Government of Malaysia regarding recent raids by Indonesian forces and the build-up of Indonesian forces on the borders of Sarawak and Sabah, and about the proposals for mediation by the President of Pakistan; and what arrangements have been made for the co-ordination of policy between the British Government and the Governments of Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand.
    Mr. Bottomley: The British, Malaysian, Australian and New Zealand Governments have throughout consulted closely together on the situation arising from Indonesia's hostility towards

    191
    Malaysia, and in particular in recent weeks over the threat posed by the build-up of Indonesian forces opposite Sarawak and Sabah.
    As the Malaysian Government have informed the Security Council in letters dated 7th and 28th January, it is certain that Indonesia is reinforcing its regular forces in Borneo by several brigades, and that the number of Indonesian troops in the border area has already increased to some 10,000 to 12,000, and the total number in Kalimantan to between 15,000 and 20,000. The build-up is still continuing.
    As regards the possibility of mediation by the President of Pakistan, I understand that the Malaysian Government have welcomed President Ayub's reported offer of Pakistan's good offices, but have added that, if efforts at mediation are to have any hope of success, Indonesia must first stop all hostilities and acts of aggression; and that any proposal for a solution should be based on respect for Malaysia's territorial integrity and sovereignty.
    Sir F. Bennett: While welcoming both the offer of the President of Pakistan and the help we are getting on this matter from Australia and New Zealand, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will do everything possible to make sure that he and his colleagues speak with one voice on the serious situation in that part of the world instead of misleading us by a succession of muddled and contradictory statements?
    Mr. Bottomley: That is unfortunate language to use. I was under the impression that there was unanimity on the part of the Government and the Opposition in giving support to our Commonwealth partner, Malaysia.
    Mr. Sandys: Has the right hon. Gentleman not missed the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) who obviously was referring to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Minister of Defence for the Army, tried to minimise and belittle the threat to Malaysia? May we take it from the right hon. Gentleman that he will support the Government of Malayisa in insisting that Indonesian forces be withdrawn from Malaysia's territory before there can be mediation?
    Mr. Bottomley: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not go further and say that the Deputy Secretary of State for Defence stated the position of the Government correctly and that that was noted by the Malaysian Government themselves. As for support for Malaysia in resisting the threat from Indonesia, I have stated before at this Dispatch Box quite clearly that the Government stand firm in their desire to do all they can.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend understand that we welcome any help that can be afforded by both Australia and New Zealand whenever Britain finds itself in an emergency and that we prefer the Commonwealth on our side rather than some countries of the Six, supported on the other side of the House?
    Mr. Ennals: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side of the House welcome the statement which he has made this afternoon? May I ask whether my right hon. Friend would proceed further with the possibilities of mediation, whether by Pakistan or some other country, which might lead to a peaceful settlement of this very disturbing dispute?
    Mr. Bottomley: Certainly it is the intention to try and secure mediation, but the first requirement is that Indonesia should stop committing aggression.

  MINISTRY OF POWER

    North Sea (Oil and Gas)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Power whether the licences he grants to applicants to drill for oil or gas in the North Sea are limited in topographical area and in time.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. Frederick Lee): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend realise that if these licences are given they may have an adverse effect on fishing in the North Sea? Will he take care to ensure that fishing interests are protected in any licence which he may give?
    Mr. Lee: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Power if he is aware of the

    193
    danger to the breeding and fertility of fish in the North Sea resulting from the escape of effluvia from the drillings for oil and gas which are about to take place there under licence from him and what steps he plans to take to protect the fish shoals from that danger.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Minister of Power what estimate he has made of the damage to fishing in the North Sea following the granting of licences for the underwater exploration for oil.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Morris): The available evidence suggests that the risks are negligible. Licensees are required to take all steps practicable to prevent the escape of oil or gas into the sea.
    Mr. Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware of the need to protect the fishing shoals in the North Sea? Is he aware that some of them have already been driven south as a result of these operations?
    Mr. Morris: On this issue of the risk of damage, as my hon. and learned Friend is aware, the operations affect only a fraction of the area of the North Sea. If my hon. and learned Friend disagrees with me that the risks are negligible, I shall be interested in any evidence which he can produce.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Has the hon. Gentleman any indication from the oil-drilling processes already in operation in the North Sea of damage to fish stock from this method? Will he use his influence with the companies concerned to see that they are aware of the serious concern felt about this by fishermen in the North Sea?
    Mr. Morris: I am not aware of any damage. As the hon. Member knows, licensees are required not to interfere unjustifiably with the fishing area or with the conservation of the living resources of the sea.
    Mr. Ridley: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that drilling and exploration goes on in many other parts of the world and that there is no evidence whatsoever from the rest of the world of any damage to fishing or fishing interests?
    Mr. Morris: That is my information.

    HUMAN RIGHTS
    Mr. Higginsasked the Prime Minister what decision has been reached by Her Majesty's Government regarding the recognition of the competence of the European Commission on Human Rights to receive petitions within the terms of Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; and if he will now declare, pursuant to Article 46 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, that he recognises as compulsory, ipso facto and without special agreement, the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights on all matters concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): As I told the House on 22nd December, the Government are looking into the whole matter. This remains the position.
    Mr. Higgins: While thanking the Prime Minister for that Answer, may I ask whether he could give the House an indication when we are likely to hear of the results of these deliberations, particularly in view of the fact that last Thursday, in answer to a Question on human rights, he indicated that the Government were doing everything possible to set an example to other countries in this field?
    The Prime Minister: In all parts of the House we all feel strongly about this, but there are tremendously difficult problems in giving effect to some of the Articles. We want to get as quickly as possible to a position which all of us can defend in the world.

    PRIME MINISTER AND DR. ERHARD (TALKS)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Prime Minister if he will urge upon the West German Chancellor in his forthcoming discussions the need for a new approach to the German Democratic Republic in order to reduce East-West tension.
    Mr. Parkasked the Prime Minister if, in his discussions with the

    195
    West German Chancellor, he will investigate the possibilities of a joint approach to the German Democratic Republic in order to expedite a solution of disputed issues in Central Europe.
    Mr. Ensorasked the Prime Minister whether in order to reduce East-West tension, he will discuss with the West German Chancellor the necessity of a new approach to the problem of the German Democratic Republic.
    The Prime Minister: I cannot anticipate what will be discussed in my talks with the Chancellor which will be confidential.
    Mrs. Short: Has my right hon. Friend had his attention drawn to proposals from certain West German sources that the detestable Iron Curtain should be replaced by an even more terrifying proposal of a multi-megaton curtain by the sowing of nuclear atomic mines along the frontier between the D.D.R. and West Germany? Does my right hon. Friend not think that it is time that we had a more reasonable approach to this whole problem, in the interests of the reduction of East-West tension? Would he not therefore consider suggesting to the West German Government that they should end their revanchiste attitude?
    The Prime Minister: I think that all of us would agree that the proposal, which is certainly not an official West German Government proposal, for a minefield along the demarkation line would be a most deplorable thing. Equally deplorable is any minefield or any mines sowed on the other side of the Iron Curtain. I am sure that the sooner we can all agree to get not only minefields but barbed wire and walls removed the better.
    Mr. Park: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the general approach referred to is to carry with it any hopes of success it must involve proposals for the creation of a non-nuclear zone in Central Europe as a first step towards ultimate disengagement? Is he further aware that any proposals for any additional nuclear organisation in Central Europe will make such a settlement difficult to achieve?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the whole House has accepted and will con-
    196
    tinue to accept the proposition that the problems in this part of the world will not be solved until we can get a reunified Germany on the basis of a democratic election of a Government of a united Germany. I think that all of us feel that this, which will require enormous patience and will take quite a considerable time, will be achieved only when we manage to get a progressive détente between East and West on a whole range of questions. We shall not get that détente by giving away any positions of strength which we occupy today—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—but—and I hope to get as loudly cheered—equally we shall not get progress until we can reassure those on both sides of the Iron Curtain not only about their fears arising out of past history but their fears of their future. That is why some of the suggestions put forward from all parts of the House on the removal of causes of tension, and especially the danger of the proliferation of nuclear weapons, are absolutely vital if we are to achieve this objective.
    Mr. Rankin: When it comes to escalation in terror weapons, would my right hon. Friend agree that it is difficult to compare barbed wire with megaton bombs?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. There are megaton bombs and multi-megaton bombs on both sides of the Iron Curtain. It will be the objective of all of us to see that they are removed on both sides of the Curtain simultaneously.
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Prime Minister if he will include in his postponed talks with the Chancellor of West Germany the problem of the prosecution of Nazi war criminals under the London agreement.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The London agreement covered the prosecution of major war criminals; the question of lesser offences is a matter for the Federal German Government.
    Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the London agreement carries with it no limitation in time, and is he aware also that the Minister of Justice in West Germany recently said that we shall have to learn to live with our criminals, our murderers? When he meets the Chancellor shortly, will my right hon.

    197
    Friend remind him of the worldwide concern at these proposals to end the prosecution of Nazi war criminals?
    The Prime Minister: I think that succesive Governments in this country, beginning with the immediate post-war Government, have done everything in their power to secure fulfilment of what was envisaged by the London agreement. There are outstanding problems, as we all recognise, probably as regards lesser criminals. Only recently, the West German Government appealed to all individuals and all organisations in any part of the world to bring forward quickly evidence of any war crimes which need to be dealt with under the agreed procedure. Under the Constitution of West Germany, with the 20-year statute of limitations, the time is getting near when further proceedings cannot be instituted, but it been indicated that, if evidence is produced, it might be necessary to extend the time, and I refer here to the revelance of the important letter from the German Chancellor to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Ennals) sent in the last 24 hours in reply to a letter which my hon. Friend had sent on behalf of a number of hon. Members.
    Mr. Longden: Will the Prime Minister also raise with the German Chancellor the question of the indemnification of Stateless victims of Nazism which has been pursued for a long time by the High Commissioner for Refugees and others, but so far without success?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that there is a problem here, but I had to begin by saying that I could not indicate what would be raised in the talks with the German Chancellor.

    COMMONWEALTH PRIMARY PRODUCE (GUARANTEED MARKETS)
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morganasked the Prime Minister what proposals he has for entering into long-term contracts and commodity agreements providing guaranteed markets for Commonwealth primary produce at stable prices.
    Mr. Doddsasked the Prime Minister, in view of the considerable benefits that accrued to the people of this and Commonwealth countries by the
    198
    action of previous Governments in 1945–51 in negotiating long-term contracts and commodity agreements providing guaranteed markets for Commonwealth primary produce at stable prices, what consideration has been given to doing so again on as large a scale as possible.
    Mr. Murrayasked the Prime Minister what consideration has been given or will be given to entering into long-term contracts and commodity agreements with a view to guaranteed markets for Commonwealth primary produce at stable prices.
    Mr. Ensorasked the Prime Minister whether he will discuss with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers the questions of long-term contracts and commodity agreements, which could provide for sound Commonwealth markets for primary produce at fair and stable prices.
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about negotiating long-term contracts with Commonwealth countries.
    The Prime Minister: I am anxious to explore such arrangements with Commonwealth countries, and I hope that the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting will provide a suitable opportunity.
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: What particular commodities had the right hon. Gentleman in mind when he approved this passage in his party manifesto, and, if he is so anxious to obtain agreement, why have not conversations already started?
    The Prime Minister: I did not approve that passage in the party manifesto. I wrote it. It has been the policy of this party for many years, both when we were in Government before and when we put it forward from that bench year after year as we saw the then Government dismantling our arrangements for trade with the Commonwealth. It will not be easy in the case of every commodity to revive this, but I feel that, provided that we are prepared to give a market for more Commonwealth primary produce and provided that we are prepared to do whatever is necessary in British industry to meet the requirements of Commonwealth countries for the goods which they want, this will be of mutual benefit to both Commonwealth countries and our export trade.
    Mr. Murray: In view of the undoubted success of this system during the last Labour Government and its undoubted value not only to the Commonwealth but to the British housewife, will my right hon. Friend give urgent consideration to its reintroduction?
    The Prime Minister: It is not as easy now to revert to a system once it has been scrapped and speculative markets have been set up, but I agree with my hon. Friend in that as a result of the—speaking from memory—52 long-term contracts which we had for Commonwealth primary commodities, including foodstuffs, our trade with the Commonwealth, export and import, was higher, as a proportion of our total trade, than at any time in our history, whether before or since.
    Mr. Dodds: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the wretched record of the party opposite, it is a source of amazement that anyone should rise from the ranks opposite to raise this matter except in the spirit of abject repentance? Is it not a fact that the benefits which we received not only while the Labour Government were in office but for many years afterwards were maintained despite the fact that, on every conceivable occasion, the party opposite, while in Opposition, attacked them and, when in power, tried to wreck them?
    Mr. Prior: Is the Prime Minister aware that long-term commodity agreements resulted in the British public having little consumer choice in the years just after the war, and will he give an undertaking that no agreement entered into with Commonwealth countries will prejudice the future of British agriculture?
    The Prime Minister: The lack of consumer choice during and after the war was due to the lack of supply of essential foodstuffs and raw materials, and one result of developing long-term contracts which gave assurance to Commonwealth producers was to increase supplies above the level of what they would otherwise have been, and this continued for many years afterwards. As regards competition by Commonwealth imports with British agriculture, I give that assurance to the hon. Gentleman. What we had to fight for two or three years was not the Commonwealth versus British agriculture but proposals by right hon. Members
    200
    opposite which would have destroyed the whole basis of our Commonwealth trade and British agriculture at the same time.
    Mr. Ensor: In view of the agricultural agreements which have just been concluded among the Common Market countries, is not the need for discussions with the Commonwealth now urgent?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the whole House wants to do everything within its power to break down the growing and dangerous economic division of Europe, but I think that the House would equally agree that the agricultural policy recently agreed in Brussels would mean that, if we were to adhere to that kind of policy, on the lines which some right hon. Members opposite then advocated and still advocate, the result would be total disruption of our trade with the Commonwealth due to the fact that we should now have to impose a levy approaching 100 per cent. on all imports of Commonwealth agricultural products.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If the Prime Minister wrote this sentence in the manifesto, is it not rather strange that he has done no preparatory work with the Commonwealth Governments on this matter up to now, as I understand to be the case? The right hon. Gentleman is always casting aspersions on our policy with respect to the Commonwealth, but was he not guilty of an inaccuracy only a few days ago when he said that, at the last Prime Ministers' Conference, we did not deal with these matters of trade? I have the communiqué here, and there is at least half a page of it which deals in detail with these matters.
    The Prime Minister: In the first place, we have been getting on with the particular policy to which I have referred. I was not guilty of any inaccuracy. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the exchanges which we had across the Floor at the time when he presented the communiqufé to the House, he will find that on all the issues we proposed about trade matters—not about development, not about the quite valuable Commonwealth Foundation, but about measures to get Commonwealth countries to buy more from Britain and for us to buy more from the Commonwealth—in the communiqué, in what he said then in

    201
    the House and in what happened at the conference itself, nothing was done at all.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I must not read out the communiqué, I suppose, but there are at least 30 lines here which deal with nothing else but the prospects of improving trade between the Commonwealth countries and this country.
    The Prime Minister: I have read the communiqué very carefully. There were 30 lines of cliché about the desire to improve Commonwealth trade. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to tell me of a single proposal put forward by the Government then for improving our imports of Commonwealth goods or, for that matter, for working out any arrangements under which they would give preference to British exports to Commonwealth countries.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Speaker: We have enough trouble getting through Questions to Ministers without having questions put by Ministers to the Opposition.
    Mr. Sandys: The Prime Minister criticised the efforts made by the previous Government to try to get into the Common Market. Has he not become increasingly aware, especially with the aircraft industry, which we are to discuss this afternoon, of the absolute necessity for Britain to get closer to Europe?
    The Prime Minister: What I criticised, as the whole of my party did in a vote recorded on 8th November, 1962, were the terms on which right hon. Gentlemen opposite proposed to go into the Common Market, terms which have meant the disruption of all our trade with the Commonwealth.

RHODESIA (MINISTERS' VISIT)
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. WALL: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his discussions with the Prime Minister of Rhodesia.
Mr. WINGFIELD DIGBY: To ask the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he proposes to visit
202
Rhodesia; and what conditions he proposes to attach to his visit.
Mr. ROWLAND: To ask the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a further statement on the progress he has made towards initiating talks with the Government of Rhodesia.
Mr. LEADBITTER: To ask the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what proposals he now has to seek the co-operation of the Government of Rhodesia with a view to making progress towards agreement on that country's constitutional problems.
Mr. JAMES JOHNSON: To ask the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if it is his intention to visit Southern Rhodesia; and whether he still attaches any conditions to such a visit.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, I will now answer Question No. Q16 and also Questions Nos. 9, 12, 15 and 25, put down to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.
My correspondence with the Prime Minister of Rhodesia remains confidential. I can, however, inform the House that when I met him in London 10 days ago I suggested that my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor should visit Rhodesia to have discussions with the Rhodesian Government and to meet a representative cross-section of opinion.
The Rhodesian Government have agreed to the visit, which is expected to last about 10 days. My colleagues will be seeing any persons they wish who are not in prison for criminal offences. They expect to arrive in Salisbury about 22nd February.
Mr. Wall: I welcome the Prime Minister's statement, but why has it taken so long to accept Mr. Ian Smith's invitation, which was first extended in November? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that the Secretary of State will meet African chiefs as well as African politicians?
The Prime Minister: As the House knows, there have been continuous exchanges between Mr. Smith and myself. I have repeatedly extended to him an invitation to visit London so that

203
these matters could be discussed. He did not accept those invitations, for reasons which seemed right and proper to him. We were certainly not prepared to accept some of the conditions placed on a visit by my right hon. Friend, as proposed by the Rhodesian Government.
However, Mr. Smith did visit London, as we all know, because of Sir Winston Churchill's funeral, which gave an opportunity for an extended discussion of an hour and a half. Out of that discussion this proposal has come. I ought to inform the House that part of the time mentioned by the hon. Gentleman was taken up with a proposal which we put forward and which, I think, would have been helpful. It was for senior Members of the House, of all parties, and possibly Members of another place, to visit Rhodesia and to report to the House on the problems which we all face. This was rejected by Mr. Smith. I am sorry that it was rejected, for it would have been a good idea. However, it then took some time to put forward and get the final result.
Mr. Digby: I welcome this rather belated visit, but can we be told why it is necessary for two Cabinet Ministers to go instead of one, and how long they are to stay?
The Prime Minister: I think that the) will stay for 10 days or so. Quite frankly, I would have wished, because of the peculiarly difficult problems there, affecting the whole Commonwealth and not only ourselves, that we could have sent a Commonwealth mission of senior statesmen from different Commonwealth countries. This was not acceptable and our proposal for a British Parliamentary mission was not acceptable.
In these circumstances, and in view of the vital importance to Rhodesia, ourselves and the whole Commonwealth of the issues which at present lie unresolved, and which seem almost as irreconcilable as they have been at any time, we thought it right that two of my colleagues, my noble friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, should go, especially in view of the desire of the whole House, I am sure, that the opinions of all sections of African opinion, as well as European opinion, should be taken.
Mr. Rowland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will give considerable satisfaction to members of the two main African political parties in Rhodesia? May I congratulate him on having been able to establish that a mission from this country will be able to meet them?
The Prime Minister: I am sorry that I failed to answer a second question by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). I am sure that my noble Friend and my right hon. Friend will wish to make arrangements to meet representatives of the chiefs. Of course, the views of the chiefs were taken at the indaba, but, in addition, my noble Friend and my right hon. Friend—this is something which has been insisted on by both Front Benches in the House—will want to take a more widespread sample of African opinion, because in no country, not even in Britain, is it true that the views of the chiefs represent the views of the whole of the population.
Mr. Grimond: I welcome this greatly desired change in atmosphere and I wholly agree that it was no good sending anyone to Rhodesia until representatives of African opinion as well as the Government could be seen. However, may I ask the Prime Minister about the distinction made between those in prison for criminal offences and others? Can he give an assurance that this does not rule out any of the representatives of a considerable bulk of African opinion and will not prevent the delegation from seeing the Africans who clearly ought to be seen if the delegation is to get a comprehensive view of the situation?
The Prime Minister: We would not have put forward the idea, or agreed to it, unless we felt that all sections of opinion in Rhodesia could be met and their views taken by my right hon. Friends. The distinction to which I referred, and which is agreed with the Rhodesian Government, is between those who are in prison for criminal offences, for example, involved in violence—although even there we recognise that their laws are not always the same as some of our laws—and where a political leader is in detention or in a restricted area not as a result of a criminal conviction.

205
In those cases, my right hon. Friends will be able to meet those concerned. I am quite satisfied that, although at any rate one important political leader will be ruled out because he is in prison on a criminal charge, representatives of his organisation and of African opinion generally will be freely seen by my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Sandys: Does what the Prime Minister has said mean that the Rhodesian Government have lifted some restrictions which they previously imposed on the freedom of discussion by the Commonwealth Secretary, who had previously wanted to go to Rhodesia when he was in Zambia? If so, what is the change?
The Prime Minister: It is not that it has removed restrictions. At the time my right hon. Friend was in Zambia, when this matter was discussed, the leaders of the two main African parties were in prison on criminal charges—Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Sithole. While in conditions of restriction, Mr. Nkomo is not in prison on a criminal charge and it will, therefore, be possible for my right hon. Friends to see Mr. Nkomo. While they will not be able to see Mr. Sithole, who is still in prison, they will be able to see lieutenants of Mr. Sithole and to get a fair picture of African opinion.

QUESTION TO MINISTER
Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. Have you had any request, Mr. Speaker, from the Minister of Power for your permission to answer a Question relating to the coal industry?
I ask this because it is widely expected that the right hon. Gentleman is to make a very important statement on the future of this industry this afternoon and, if that is the case, it would be an unpardonable discourtesy to the House if it were not made to the House.
Mr. Speaker: I have not had such a request.

SPORTS FACILITIES BILL (WITHDRAWAL)
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement arising from the withdrawal of
206
the Sports Facilities Bill by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, who has given such notice at the Table, duly minuted.
The Government appreciate the position in which the Football Associations and the Football Leagues find themselves financially and understand why such bodies desire to secure adequate payments from those who use football matches for betting purposes.
I have to inform the House, however, that the Government, with much regret, could not have accepted the principle of the Sports Facilities Bill. There were basic objections to the Bill in that it conferred upon a largely independent body an uncontrolled right to regulate betting and raise revenue from it which would then be applied without the need for Government approval. This would have amounted, virtually, to an invasion of the province of the Government.
Moreover, football betting—unlike horserace betting—is a field where the Exchequer already levies a substantial duty—25 per cent. of the turnover. It has been represented from time to time that this is the most that can be levied on this industry. The House will recall that the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer decided in his last Budget to reduce the level of the duty on pool betting from 33 to 25 per cent.
The extension, at that time, of this duty to fixed-odds betting has come in for criticism as being too heavy a burden for the industry. The Government could not look with favour on a proposal to give a new body monopoly powers to impose what would have amounted to a compulsory levy in a field in which the Exchequer itself already looks for a substantial amount of revenue.
Moreover, the Bill would have given wider powers to the proposed Sports Facilities Board than those given to the Horserace Totalisator Board or the Horserace Betting Levy Board.
The Government recognise, however, that the matter cannot be left there. The principal object of the Bill was to remedy the deteriorating financial position of football. The Government are of the opinion that this merits a comprehensive inquiry into the future of football and the problems which beset it. They have not yet decided what form this inquiry

207
should take, but I shall be discussing the problem shortly with the several football authorities.
One of the objects—
Mr. Neil Marten: On a point of order. Is not the inordinate length of this statement an abuse of the proceedings of the House, particularly when an important debate is to follow?
Mr. Speaker: It is not one of my responsibilities to control the length of statements. What the hon. Gentleman said is not a point of order.
Mr. Howell: With respect, Mr. Speaker, it was vitally important that a statement should be made about this Bill, which had all-party support and which was lost because the House could not sit due to the death of Sir Winston Churchill, and particularly about the World Cup, with which I am now dealing.
One of the objects underlying the introduction of the Bill was to enable the very important World Cup games of 1966 to be staged in a suitable manner. Undoubtedly, this will involve heavy expenditure on improvement of existing facilities for accommodation of spectators and the proper reception of overseas visitors at some grounds and also on providing adequate facilities for television, radio and the Press. The Government are prepared to provide some financial help towards essential preparations for having the 1966 World Cup games in this country if detailed examination shows that an acceptable case can be made out for a contribution from public funds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: On a point of order. Is not this a matter of great public interest, and is it not fortunate that we have a Government who are prepared to treat it as such?
Mr. Speaker: I quite understand the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not understand why they raise a point of order.
Mr. Howell: As I was about to say, I shall be consulting the football authorities at once on the steps to be taken to establish what measure of Government help would be appropriate. I intend to visit all the grounds concerned to secure
208
first-hand knowledge of the problems to be dealt with.
Mr. Hogg: While I understand that there were perfectly acceptable reasons why we could not have had this very long statement more than about 10 minutes ago, may I ask whether it is really necessary for the Minister to make a statement of such inordinate length to explain that the Government have made up their mind about only one thing, which is to turn down the all-party Bill? How many more comprehensive reviews and inquiries are we to have from the hon. Gentleman's Department? Last week he set up an advisory Sports Council. Would not this matter have been within the terms of reference of that body? Can we understand anything about this statement except that no decision has been arrived at about anything?
Mr. Howell: I am grateful that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in the House today and was in the House last week, but it is not clear to me that he understands a word said either today or last week. Had he done so, he would have known that the Sports Council which I set up last week is concerned specifically with amateur sport and has nothing to do with the World Cup. Further, he would have acknowledged that in my statement I specifically said that the Government intended to do two things: first, to offer an inquiry into football; and, secondly, as I have just announced, to give aid to the World Cup.
Mr. Harry Howarth: As the Member responsible for the promotion of the Sports Facilities Bill, and therefore, presumably, for some of the din this afternoon, may I thank my hon. Friend for the second part of his statement, which will be welcomed by the sponsors of the Bill on both sides of the House? May I also say that the statement meets the objectives which it was sought to meet by the introduction of the Bill?
Would my hon. Friend agree that since the Bill was published an agreement has been signed by the Pools Promoters Association and the Football Association for a payment of £75,000 a year to assist football?
Finally, may I ask my hon. Friend, who I know recognises the urgency of setting up approved facilities in connection with

209
the World Cup series, whether he will say how urgent he considers this matter to be and what he proposes to do about it?
Mr. Howell: It is clearly a very urgent matter, because if works of a capital nature are to be ready for hundreds of thousands of overseas visitors next year they must be started immediately. Therefore, my tours of these grounds will begin this weekend.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN
The following Members took and subscribed the Oath, or made the Affirmation required by Law:
Right Hon. Anthony Perrinot Lysberg Barber for Altrincham and Sale.
Michael Aubrey Hamilton, esquire, for Salisbury.
Geoffrey Johnson Smith, esquire, for East Grinstead.

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

RAILWAY CLOSURES
3.51 p.m.
Sir Alexander Spearman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable the Minister of Transport to rescind his consent to a closure of any station or of railway passenger services on any line.
I know that an important debate is to follow and I will detain the House for only a small part of the 10 minutes which are usually taken up on these occasions.
The purpose of my proposed Bill is to enable the Government to honour the written pledge made by the Prime Minister to my constituents on 15th September. During the election, and after the former Minister of Transport had consented to the closure of the Whitby-Scarborough and Whitby-Malton lines, the Prime Minister wrote to the chairman of the Scarborough and Whitby Labour Party. That letter pledged that a Labour Government would halt these particular closures while the new regional authorities prepared transport plans for their areas. That letter was published in the local paper, the Whitby Gazette, on 25th September, and I have with me a copy if anyone wants me to read it.
Now the Prime Minister states that the Government do not have the power to do this. His actual words to the House on 22nd December were as follows:
"Under the terms of the 1962 Act we could not halt the closure which had already been decided."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd December, 1964; Vol. 704, c. 1046.]
It may be said that anyone expecting or hoping to become Prime Minister should not make a pledge unless he had, or intended to take, the power to enable him to carry it out. I am not, however, saying that the Prime Minister has broken this particular pledge—he has not broken it yet; but time is short. These lines are due to close on 8th March.
Last month, the Prime Minister's secretary wrote, on his instructions, to my constituents, a letter which was published in the local paper on 21st January. I want to quote one sentence from it:
"This decision, made by the former Minister of Transport in his concluding days of office, is a matter of great regret to us, for we would have wished, but for the 1962 Act, to stop these closures pending a broad review of transport problems which we are undertaking."

211
I suggest to the Prime Minister that there is a simple way out: he can accept my proposed Bill, which would enable him to do what he says he wants to do.
I hope that the Government will welcome the Bill. Indeed, I am quite sure that some hon. Members opposite will do so. One of them, in fact, has asked to have his name on the Bill. I ask the Government to welcome it. I ask them to provide time to see it through all its stages. Then, the Prime Minister can fulfil the pledge which he gave on 15th September so clearly, so precisely and so unconditionally.
I have only one thing more to say. I realise—
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: On a point of order—
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: Sit down.
Mr. Speaker: Interventions are not allowed on proceedings under this Standing Order.
Sir A. Spearman: I realise that except for those of us who are directly concerned, the Whitby railways are a comparatively small matter, but for a Prime Minister to make a positive pledge and fail to fulfil it is not a small matter for any of us who believe in democratic government.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir A. Spearman, Mr. Alison, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Kitson, Mr. Longbottom, Mr. Popplewell, Mr. Ramsden, and Mr. Turton.

RAILWAY CLOSURES
Bill to enable the Minister of Transport to rescind his consent to a closure of any station or of railway passenger services on any line, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 19th February and to be printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [5TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

  AERO-SPACE INDUSTRIES
  3.58 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House regrets the Government's recent handling of the problems of the aero-space industries; urges Her Majesty's Government to reconsider their present policies towards these industries, which appear likely to cause grave damage and to result ultimately in almost total dependence on the United States of America; and further urges that every opportunity be taken of increased co-operation with our European allies."
  The debate upon which we are about to embark raises some grave matters and is of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. It raises matters which on any computation touch the life and livelihood of thousands of our fellow citizens. It touches the bases of technology—and I welcome the fact that the Minister of Technology is present—of defence and finance and, in a sense, of foreign policy as well.
  I have had enough experience in the Ministry of Aviation and in the Ministry of Defence to know the almost exquisite complexity of problems of this character and I am not one to say that they are easy of solution. I think that it may help if I say at the outset that there are some things which I am not seeking to assert in this debate. I am not asserting that these are easy problems, capable of a facile solution. I know too well that that is not so. I certainly do not say that no one should ever buy a foreign aircraft because I know as well as right hon. Gentlemen opposite that there are such occasions. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Phantom."] I am seeking to be as helpful as I can. I certainly do not say that the size of the aircraft industry is sacrosanct, nor would the industry assert that, nor indeed, I think,

  213
  any industry in the country; nor would I say that never in any circumstances should a project be cancelled.
  What I shall say is something about the handling of the problems of this industry during the last three months. The Government's handling of the industry has gravely exacerbated the problems with which it was faced. If the Government cancelled all three of the major projects which have been discussed recently this would effectively put an end to our aircraft industry as we know it at present. If they cancelled the two projects which they have in mind, it would be the end of Hawker Aviation as a great firm contributing to major design of aircraft in this country.
  I put it with all the emphasis that I can to right hon. Gentlemen opposite that to cancel British production over so wide a field and to give the orders to the Americans would be the gravest technological blunder that the Government could commit.
  I want to say a few words about the background, because I think that it is necessary, in order to understand these problems, to know something of their back ground. Our aircraft industry is symptomatic of the problems of many of our industries. That is to say, it is complex, it is increasingly costly in the projects that it undertakes, it requires very large accretions of capital to carry on, and, if it is to be successful, it requires an ever-widening market for the sale of its products—and this is something which is growing in similarity throughout British industry at present.
  The relative cheapness of the American aircraft which is often quoted is not because the Americans are cleverer than us. It is because if one has an initial order for 800 aircraft, that is a very different thing indeed from having an initial order of 80. It is as simple as that as to how one spreads one's overheads.
  I therefore start from the assumption, which I think is realistic, and even favourable to the Minister of Aviation, that one cannot make all the aircraft here. One will buy over the years some aircraft from the United States of America. I took initial steps towards the
  214
  ordering of Phantoms for the Royal Navy, and played a major part in the ordering of the Polaris missile, which was a wonderful commercial bargain for the United Kingdom. It saved about £1,000 million in research and development. In that respect, the Nassau Agreement was certainly a very satisfactory one. We shall make others in cooperation with Europe.
  Perhaps I might say a word—it is easier said than done today—about co-operative ventures. It is not so easy to get agreement about an aircraft even in one's own country, and once one goes out into the international field one has to get an agreement on the operational requirements, which means that one has to get the air forces of the French, the Italians and the Germans to agree with one's own as to when the aircraft is to come into service. There are all the inevitable and natural pressures which go on in industry all over the Continent, which have to be taken into consideration. Then, of course, one has to enter into an agreement from which neither side can run out, because if either does the other would be left completely in the air.
  But these things must be attempted, and the previous Government did attempt them, and the record is rather a proud one. There were the RB162 vertical take-off engine made in co-operation with the French, the stand-off bomb which we make at present with the British aircraft industry and the French aircraft industry combining, and the variable-sweep jet trainer which was under negotiation with France for many months before the change of Government. All these are examples.
  Perhaps I might take one of the earliest and perhaps the best examples of the problem in this field—E.L.D.O., the European Launcher Development Organisation. I very well remember spending a great deal of time in Europe seeking to get, by all means open to us, agreement in Germany, Italy, France, Belgium and the Scandinavian countries, if we could get it, to pool the technological effort which is required if we are to stay in really advanced technology at all. I remember the attacks often made upon me in this country and by the Labour Party. I remember the jeers at me as a commercial traveller and the

  215
  rest. However, I believe that the establishment of this joint technological effort in heavy satellite launchers will pay an enormous dividend to this country and Europe in the years to come.
  I believe that it is right that we should seek on a collective basis of that kind to ensure—I say this not in any anti-American sense, but in the friendliest of spirits—that the Americans do not have a complete monopoly in that field. That project is, I hope, going forward, though it will require constant drive by the Government to keep it going forward. These things do not just run on their own, it is a constant effort and struggle to keep them going. I hope that the studies for advanced propulsion which were planned will be going on, too.
  The second major effort was the Concord. Our first offer was to the Americans. We offered to go into partnership with them on the supersonic transport. We offered to share with them the possibility of doing a Mach 2 transport, or if at the end of the project study they wanted to go to the Mach 3, to try to do that. We were unable to do that—or, rather, they were. The offer was made in writing and it was made verbally. This illustrates an important problem in aeronautics. It is very difficult for the American Government to undertake the type of co-operation which we are doing with the Continent of Europe. This is not a reflection on the Americans at all. It is part of their set-up, the strength of their aircraft industry, the way these things are established and run over there.
  So, in the event, we went into partnership with the French, and, after a long negotiation, successfully concluded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery), we reached an agreement which, I think, was one of the most exciting technological breakthroughs in this field that has ever happened—a really valuable contribution to combined effort in a very advanced technological field.
  I must tell the Government that, of all the things they have done, one that shocked me most was in the early stages when they wrote that off as a mere prestige project. They said that they wanted to
  216
  "release sources for more productive purposes by cutting out expenditure on some items of low economic priority, such as 'prestige projects'. The Government have already communicated to the French Government their wish to re-examine urgently the Concord project."
  I must tell the Prime Minister that I think that the man who wrote those words had not begun to understand what the modern world is about. He had not even glimpsed the technological adventure that was awaiting him only 20 miles away across the Channel.
  These men were co-operating over a vast area. They were willing to expand further and further. They were planning to go ahead with a variable wing project and —something which my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North had been initiating—with a swept-wing fighter. All that was placed at stake by one broad sneer about prestige projects. I admit that it was aimed at the Conservative Government, but it missed its mark and hit our best partners and allies on the Continent. It struck a considerable blow at confidence.
  I hope that, whatever the Minister of Aviation says or does not say, he will say that he recognises the need for co-operation in Europe on technological problems of this kind. The Concord, E.L.D.O. the swept-wing fighter and the rest all provide an immense area of opportunity and hope for the young men of this country going into science and technology. Now, the Concord is to go on. "Wilson capitulates", as the French newspapers put it. It is no satisfaction to us. We do not mind his capitulating here but we do not like him to be in the position of capitulating abroad.
  I hope that, on these other projects, the Government will think much harder and longer than they did when they talked about the Concord. There have been, and still are, very grave rumours current about the Government's plans for the aircraft industry. That is why the House will welcome this debate as an opportunity for the Government to state frankly what their plans are. Those rumours have been spread by a series of Press conferences held by the Secretary of State for Defence, in which he thought aloud. We have no objection to his thinking aloud, or thinking at all. It is not in the spirit

  217
  of criticism that I say this. It is good for the right hon. Gentleman to see the Press. I remember, however, the bitter criticisms which were launched against the Conservative Administration—particularly against my predecessor—for holding Press conferences in the Defence Department. But that is not an improper thing to do; indeed, it is a good thing.
  What I must blame the Defence Secretary for is his blaming the Press for what it printed afterwards. What, otherwise, is the purpose of a Press conference? The Press kept it off the record with one exception. That was a phrase of unexampled intellectual arrogance. It is the sort of phrase that will go down to posterity along with other things the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends have said.
  The Defence Secretary has made it clear that the Government want to do a large-scale deal with the Americans, scrapping three British projects—and buying the TFX, the Phantom and the C130. They would buy American instead. These rumours of a large deal to "go American" in the aircraft industry have persisted ever since the Prime Minister returned from Washington. From the moment the Prime Minister came back, study committees have been at work in the Defence Department and they were called upon to make a special study of the C130. Press conferences were called and in the aircraft industry—because these things are known—everyone knew that a package deal was on.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): If the right hon. Gentleman will look up HANSARD of about a fortnight before I went to Washington, he will see that I told the House then that a study of these defence projects had already begun.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: That rather bears out what I am saying. It is one thing to study defence problems. It is another to go to America and offer three prize projects of the British aircraft industry and ask to buy American aircraft in their place. The account that the Defence Secretary gave to the Press was, I think, accurately reproduced by the Press.
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): While we are talking about accuracy, is not the right hon.
  218
  Gentleman aware—any newspaper man who was present at the conference will confirm this—that I made no reference to any aircraft, with one exception? This was to deny the story in that day's Daily Express that the Government had decided to cancel the TSR2.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: There is not the slightest doubt that, from the moment the Prime Minister returned from Washington and from the time of the Defence Secretary's Press conference, stories of a massive deal with the Americans were current in this country. But the Defence Secretary will have a chance of saying what his real intentions are.
  I have some questions to ask the Government. I want to take each of these projects separately. If all these planes are cancelled, it is plain that we shall see the end of design capacity in this country. It is clear—and I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he denies it, to say so—that if we take away the P1154 and the HS681 from Hawker Siddeley we will do such damage to its design staff that, for all practicable purposes, it will be unlikely to design another major aircraft.
  I want to consider the problem in human terms as well. What about the men concerned? A great deal has been said about figures. I want to give the figures as I understand them to be. If I am wrong, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will correct me. I understand that there will be a run down at Hawkers anyway, apart from the cancellations, of 4,000 workers. I understand that these cancellations will involve a run-down of approximately another 8,000 and that 2,000 must be added. This last-named figure cannot be attributed to either one or the other cause, but is concerned with overheads applicable to both. This makes a total of 14,000.
  These figures indicate that the Hawker labour force was declining anyway, or was about to decline before the Prime Minister made his statement on aircraft policy. I say to the Prime Minister that it is far better that he should state the figures publicly to the House. Men are entitled to know what is in prospect for them. If the Government disagree with the figures I have given, I hope that they will say so and state what their figures are. They have facilities which are not

  219
  open to me and we should be told frankly and fully so that the aircraft workers and their families know the future and, however difficult it may be, can make the best plans in preparation.
  The cutting of these projects is a vast operation. It will be a dramatic and very painful one if it is to be carried through. Whatever happens, it will not leave the industry as is was before. It is not, surely, intended to. I want to ask the Government what their long-term plans are. They have often told us that what is required is central direction, a clear strategic outline of what the Government propose.
  Again, rumours are widespread as to what the intentions in Whitehall are. They include talk of a cut, over a period, of 60,000 men. Some say that the industry is to be reduced to about 1½ times the size of the French industry. Apparently that is a good size that has been worked out by someone. That would mean a cut of between 60,000 men and 100,000 men over the period. What is the intention? We are anxious to have an answer. I certainly do not press this unreasonably. The future of thousands of families is involved.
  Indeed, the whole career structure for boys is involved, together with the question of whether or not they go into the industry. All hon. Members have had letters from parents about their sons. We are entitled to ask what the long-term plans are. Is it really the intention of the Government, as they have put it crudely, to cut this industry down to size? How can anybody be surprised if, in the first year, 10,000, 14,000, or 15,000 men are bound to go if that is the long-term plan for the industry?
  Nor should we forget the other facets of this industry, because the assembly of aircraft is not just the making of the shells. There is the whole engine industry, about which I shall say a few words in a moment. There is also the components industry. We are entitled in this debate to hear what the Government think is to happen to the engine and component industries.
  I am rather puzzled by some of the things that I hear said by the Government. When these figures were first published, there were shrill cries of pain from the First Secretary of State. He
  220
  said that it was all right because other projects were coming in and these workers need not worry. He said that the statement had been made much too soon, and that something else was to be made in their place. What? We ought to be told, because we want to judge the cost. We want to know whether the cost is in the savings which the Prime Minister put forward. We want to know whether they are economically more valuable than the two years' lead which we have in vertical take-off. Is it a prefabricated bingo hall? Or is it another aircraft? If it is, when was the operational requirement thought out? These are matters which we should like to hear about this afternoon. In other words, we would like to be told the plan for the aircraft industry.
  Now I turn to the projects. Everything in the Prime Minister's statement about costs and time scale is deeply suspect, and I shall explain why in the course of my remarks. I wish to consider, first, the HS681. This aircraft was designed not at the whim of Hawkers, but to meet a specific operational requirement drawn up by the air staff, and the whole question of the range, the radius of action, the take-off potential, and so on, was considered with the greatest care by the military chiefs of staff before the military requirement was approved, and it had a particular relation to our world-wide rôle.
  The Prime Minister says that the C130 is cheaper. It takes between 3,000 and 4,000 yards of solid concrete to get it into the air, so no wonder it is cheaper. It falls far short of the operational requirement in every respect. For years it has consistently been rejected by the air staff. It is utterly unrelated to the rôle which they specify. It is obsolete. It has no conceivable stretch in it, and it is an utterly different aircraft. Obviously, in those circumstances it would be cheaper.
  The Government have a right to change the rôle. There is no doubt but that they can switch rôles. They can accept, as they must have done here, a considerable degradation of the operational requirement, an operational requirement critical to our rôle in South-East Asia. They can also, if they like, talk about the time scale, but what has happened during the last three months to alter the thinking about the time scale?

  221
  It was fully known to the advisers of the Government three months ago, and the HS681 was based on that. If something has happened since then, we are entitled to know what it is.
  What sort of C130 is being ordered? Is it being redesigned? If so, what is its delivery date? We are entitled to know that. Is it to be re-engined? I ask that, because the First Secretary of State did not know the answer to that question when he was asked it the other day. Is it to have a new British engine, or a new American one? Will Lockheeds have to rejig to build the new form of C130? Those questions are critical to the time scale. Unless we have an answer we cannot compare like with like.
  Even if there was a time lag, even if there was a gap, it would be the most extraordinary solution in the case of this aircraft to go back and buy American. After all, the Argosy is still in production. The production line is running, and there is nothing to prevent these aircraft being produced for this purpose. If, because of a time gap of 18 months, we did the greatest possible damage to the aircraft industry, that would be a most extraordinary solution.
  The truth is that this has nothing to do with the time scale. The reason is money. If the Government think that they can do this more cheaply, it would be better for them to say so, to say frankly that it is part of their policy of cutting down the aircraft industry. We know that there is a strong lobby asking for this, and it would be better to say so and face this quite clearly.
  I press the Prime Minister further on this matter. If the HS681 is out, and he is prepared to accept a degraded operational requirement, have British firms been offered a chance to quote against that degraded requirement? Has any British firm been asked whether it could meet, on roughly the same time scale, and at anything like comparable cost, the C130's operational performance? If not, I would have thought that this was a monstrous way of treating our aircraft industry.
  The fact is that both Hawkers and Shorts have an alternative, and they both wish to put up their alternatives to match the C130. Are they to be given the chance of doing that? One day
  222
  after the Prime Minister made his statement Hawkers was asked to give the Ministry the specifications of the HS802. Why did the Ministry of Aviation wait until the after the Prime Minister's statement before asking for these specifications? Was it that the Ministry had forgotten to ask? What is wrong with the HS802, or, for that matter, with Shorts' solution to this?
  The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. George Brown): What is it?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman has been talking about it for hours in the Cabinet. He ought to know what it is.
  The HS802 is a transport aircraft with the body of the HS681, and the wings of the Comet. It has a performance below that of the HS681, but it is 100 miles an hour faster than the C130, and I believe that it ought to be considered. Will it be considered, or are we contractually committed to the Americans on the C130? We must have an answer to that, because if we are, the investigations which even now are going on into this potential alternative, and which ought to go on on the Shorts' one too, are meaningless.
  I therefore ask the specific question: are we, or are we not, contractually committed? I am not convinced that it is right to order the United States alternative until we have had a serious look at what the British industry can put forward. That deals with the question of transport aircraft.
  I now turn to the P1154. There have been two great break-throughs in aeronautics since the days of the Wright Brothers—one in variable geometry, or sweep, and the other in variable thrust. People may say that we should have done more on both. We certainly would have spent a great deal more money if we had. In variable sweep we were in consultation with the French on a variable sweep fighter. In variable thrust we were and still are, two years ahead of the Americans. As has been said:
  "Where we have sometimes fallen down is in our failure to give our scientists their heads and still more our failure to apply the results of scientific discovery in our industrial processes."
  That was the Prime Minister.

  223
  If ever there was a moment when we should use the results of our industrial and technological lead, this is it. Here is the test of the right hon. Gentleman. This is not just his word before an election. This is the test of what the Government means. This is not the easy stuff that he talked about on the B.B.C.; this is the test whether he meant to back British technology or not.
  The Prime Minister: In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman say why his Government rejected the great advance for which our scientists were responsible in variable geometry, and sent them packing to work for the Americans?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: If the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It is a fair question, and I shall answer it. The Prime Minister is quite entitled to say that this country should have done more on variable sweep. He may even be right about that, but is it an answer, if one has not done enough—[Interruption.] I have never known anybody get so excited as the Economic Secretary. Is the Prime Minister's argument that if we have not done enough on variable sweep we should, therefore, sacrifice our lead on variable thrust? If so, it is a lunatic conception of the Prime Minister's.
  I return to the question of the P1154. The time scale here is a problem. The P1154 is a complex and sophisticated aircraft. The Hunter is an ageing aircraft, although very useful. It is doing a brilliant job. I put this argument with all the force at my command to our advisers, and I put all the arguments about the time scale, and, knowing them in every detail, they still took the view that the combination of vertical take-oft the supersonic flight was so essential to them that they must insist on going forward with that project. If something has altered since then, the Secretary of State should say so, but that was the position that I knew. That was the advice that I had, and the decision was taken with the fullest knowledge about the time scale and everything else.
  A powerful case could be made for the P1154 and the HS681. To cancel both, especially at a time when the future of the TSR2 is still uncertain, is surely an act of considerable unwisdom. If savings are vital—if it is really necessary
  224
  to cut the budget in this way—my view is that the HS802 ought to be considered. It is certainly better than the C130. To go American without ever giving proper consideration either to the Belfast solution or to the cheaper Hawker solution—both of which would represent substantial savings on the HS681—would be a course of action which could not conceivably be justified.
  This brings me to the TSR2. The pledges given by the Government in respect of this aircraft are pretty specific, even if we read the small type. "'Your Jobs are Guaranteed Under Labour,' Wilson tells TSR2 workers"—"Labour Will Not Cancel the TSR2"—"Labour's Plan … Will Expand our Highly Skilled Aircraft Engineering Teams". I wonder whether the Government really do intend to expand them.
  The Prime Minister: Since the right hon. Gentleman is quoting an issue of the Daily Express that I recognise, will he read from that same front page the words which that newspaper actually attributed to me and which I said in Preston? They are given a little lower down the page. The newspaper had the honesty to refer to them, even if the right hon. Gentleman has not. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will read it out.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: All I have is "Healey's Plan to Save £800 Million". [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] The right hon. Gentleman can read it if he wants to. Let him find it.
  The Prime Minister: Since the right hon. Gentleman cannot read, I will do it for him. This is what I said in Preston, as quoted on the page from which the right hon. Gentleman has just read:
  "Our position on TSR2 is exactly the same as the Government's. If it works, and does what is expected of it, and at reasonable cost, we shall want it—though not for a nuclear role. We shall want it for its original tactical and reconnaissance role."
  Why did not the right hon. Gentleman read that out?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman will not find that even in the small print of the pamphlet. The right hon. Gentleman says that he will save £250 million by cancelling the TSR2 and switching to the TFX. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): The House has enjoyed itself enough. We are engaged in a very serious debate. I hope that hon. Members will now allow the debate to proceed.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. If a Front Bench speaker quotes, quite fraudulently and deceptively—[HON MEMBERS: "Oh."]—from a speech in a newspaper, when he has the newspaper and the speech in front of him, ought not he to expect a certain amount of protest from the other side of the House?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would have thought that the simple answer to that is that he has had it.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: May I now come to the figure of £250 million? On what is that calculated? Is it calculated on the TFX1 or the TFX2? What price has been offered by the Americans? Unless a price has been offered the figure is, of course, absolutely meaningless. Is the offer a fixed price for an aircraft the development of which is not yet finished? If it is a fixed price, is it a dumped price, that is to say, does it bear any relation to the cost of the aircraft; for it is, of course, well-known that the cost of the TFXs are themselves escalating. It is very doubtful whether the naval version will ever fly or come into operation.
  Is a cost comparison of this kind in any way valid? I doubt whether it is really practicable to compare costs quoted by the British industry against costs quoted by the American Government. The United States probably has offered us a most attractive package deal. It would pay the Americans to give us the aircraft in order to put us out of business. There are many men in the aircraft industry in America who would love to see the end of Hawkers, or the end of the British Aircraft Corporation.
  What are the consequences if we get out of the business? It is not only a question of military procurement, it is also, of course, the civil job as well. There would not have been a VC10, there would never have been a Viscount, if there had not been military business to base these things on. If we step out—
  Mr. John Rankin: The right hon. Gentleman has said that if it were not for the military side, there would never have been a Viscount. Is not it the case that the Viscount is the only civil aircraft which is not derived from a military aircraft?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I do hope—I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question—that the House will seek to understand what I am saying on this matter. The other day the Minister of Technology said it would be much nicer to make freighters than bombers. As a statement, I am not quarrelling with that. What I am saying—I ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he replies, to deal with it—is that if we are to end military procurement effectively in this country there will not be designs from which to make civil aircraft of any kind at all. Unless it is understood by the Government that the threat they are levelling at military procurement is, at the same time, levelled at the civil industry, they have not understood the damage that they are doing.
  I want to mention one other thing at which it is levelled—the engine industry. Does anybody think that we shall go on selling aero-engines to the world if we cut out these great projects? The right hon. Gentleman probably thinks so, but he is wrong about this as he is wrong about so many other things. He probably still believes that we could eke out some kind of existence making American models over here. Perhaps for the first round we would be allowed to put in British engines, but do hon. Members think that the Americans would go on buying British engines and that the engine companies could be kept going without British aircraft into which to put their engines? If the right hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe almost anything.
  We should lose the civil industry. We are threatening the engine industry. We are, indeed, threatening the possibilities of co-operation in Europe. Think what is our worth if we have got rid of some of our best designers. Here we face a grave situation. We are faced with the possibility of expenditure ranging between 1,000 million and 2,000 million dollars across the exchanges.
  We are faced with a serious degradation of operational requirements. We

  227
  are faced with the virtual end of the aircraft industry and, with it, in a large measure, the engine and component industries. We are faced with a threat to the civil industry as well. I recognise some of the Government's problems, but I must say that we require far more specific evidence and advice than we have got from them so far before they take this step.
  A White Paper ought to be published, setting out in detail the comparative costs so that they may be examined by experts before decisions are taken which go to the very root of British technology; which put at stake the future and the livelihood of thousands of young men in this country and which, perhaps, will deal a fatal blow at an important area of co-operation on the Continent of Europe.
  4.46 p.m.
  The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Roy Jenkins): The right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) began in a moderate and even gracious mood by telling us three of the things that he would not claim. He would not claim, he said, that a project should never be cancelled. That was perhaps as well, for the previous Government cancelled 26, at a cost of £300 million.
  The right hon. Gentleman said he would not claim that we must never buy foreign aircraft. That was perhaps as well, because he placed the Phantom order. He would not claim, he said—he said all these things as if they were gracious concessions to this side of the House—that there was something sacrosanct about the size of the industry, which, again, was as well, because it ran down by no less than 13 per cent. under his own Administration.
  During the course of what I have to say I think that I shall be able to answer a large number of the questions which the right hon. Gentleman put to me. The others, where they fall more in his field of responsibility, will be answered by my right hon. Friend when he winds up the debate.
  I wish to apply myself—I shall be able to answer the questions in the course of doing so—to the main burden of the Amendment and of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, which is that the blame for the undeniable problems of the aircraft industry rests upon the
  228
  recent policies of the Government. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that is not so and I shall endeavour to show the House why it is not so. The problems were all there well before October and were hidden only by a combination of the carelessness about public money of the right hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) and the breezy salesmanship of the right hon. Member for Monmouth himself. If I may say so without offence, they operated rather like a pair of motor dealers—one in the back of the shop over-trading with other people's money, and the other in the front of the shop trying to explain away the mileage readings on the speedometers.
  The uncertainty was there, too. Anyone capable of looking fact s in the face—and there are plenty of people on both sides of the aircraft industry capable of looking facts in the face—needed no newspaper stories to make them nervous. They knew that no responsible Government could allow the industry—despite its great achievements in the past—to go on as it has been doing recently—
  Mr. F. V. Corfield rose—
  Mr. Jenkins: No. I cannot give way.
  What is the essence of the industry's problem? First, it is dependent upon public money as is no other manufacturing British industry. This year my Ministry is paying about £210 million on its own account, largely for research and development contracts, and £325 million on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, largely for production contracts.
  These are, by any standards, huge sums of money. They do not all go to the aircraft industry. Some goes to the electronic industries and other associated trades, but the amount which goes to the aircraft industry itself is equal to an annual sum of £1,250—£1,350 if the spendings of the public airline corporations are included—from public funds for every one of the 270,000 people employed in the industry.
  Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans)rose—
  Mr. Jenkins: I should like to go a little further and then I shall give way to the hon. Member.

  229
  The sums involved are big, not only in relation to those at the receiving end, but also in relation to those who have to do the paying. The TSR2 programme, for example, even if there is no further increase in cost, would require an average contribution of £15 from every man, woman and child in the country, £50 or so from the average family.
  From these circumstances, two things follow. The sums of money are so large as to make major impacts upon the level of taxation and upon the Government's ability to undertake other vital expenditure; and the industry is inevitably and peculiarly linked to Government decisions. No Government can insulate the aircraft industry from occasional periods of uncertainty, unless they are prepared to abdicate both control over public spending and their own essential responsibility for military procurement.
  Mr. Goodhew rose—
  Mr. Jenkins: I shall give way at the end of this point.
  Mr. Goodhew: The Minister made a specific point about the aircraft industry being dependent upon public money; but is this surprising, as it is the Government who are the main customer all the time?
  Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that the hon. Member need have striven quite so hard to get me to give way so that he might make that comment.
  The second of the 1958 this has deteriorated. It has fallen from over 30 per cent. of industry's problems relates to its export performance. Each year since the industry's output to about 20 per cent. This process has inevitably made still more extreme the industry's dependence upon public funds, to which I have already referred. It has also called more sharply in question the industry's use of resources in relation to its performance. In 1964, it earned 2½ per cent. of our foreign exchange. It provided 2½ per cent. of our exports. But it employed 3 per cent. of manufacturing labour and absorbed about 25 per cent. of our national research and development expenditure, as well as employing 10 per cent. of our most highly qualified industrial scientists and technologists, including 25 per cent. of all the mathematicians in industry. In 1964, the French industry, employing one-third of our manpower,
  230
  achieved exports only fractionally lower, although it is fair to say that there were some British components in those French exports.
  The export prospects for the future are, I am glad to say, a good deal better. In 1965, excluding guided weapons, exports should rise to £150 million. The industry says that they will go up to £180 million. I hope that it is right, but no one can have dealings with the aircraft industry without realising that there is an important distinction to be drawn between hope and achievement. We should never underestimate the difficulty of selling aircraft abroad. There is another point. The improvement, if it comes, will be almost entirely on the civil side, and thanks very largely to the BAC111. The Government will do everything they can to make this very good aeroplane as attractive as possible to customers.
  However, on the military side—which is 70 per cent. of the industry—the export prospects are dismal. Canberras and Hunters did very well; 184 of the one and 544 of the other were sold abroad, but no comparable orders have been attracted for the present generation of combat aircraft, and none of the three highly controversial current projects—the TSR2, the P1154 and the HS681—has shown any serious prospect of improving the export picture.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Are the guided missiles included in that?
  Mr. Jenkins: If the hon. Baronet would listen, he would know that I said that they were excluded.
  This brings me to the third of the problems with which the Government and the industry are confronted. The previous Administration bequeathed to us these three major projects—the "three prize projects" as the right hon. Member for Monmouth called them. I took down his words when he used them. The future of the industry looked heavily dependent upon them, and the future of one airframe firm quite excessively dependent—both for its own health and that of the country—upon one of them.
  The three projects that were bequeathed to us had three characteristics in common. They were very expensive; they showed, particularly in the case of the P1154 and the HS681, every

  231
  sign of going into service dangerously late for the R.A.F. requirement they were intended to fulfil—I shall go into this in some detail—and they were geared to a British market almost exclusively.
  I shall deal, first, with the question of their expense. The first proposition is that no one should be in any doubt at all that if we had continued with all three projects—I take it that the implication of the Amendment is that we should have done so—the inescapable result, unless we were to slash our other commitments everywhere else—and if we were to do that what purpose would the project serve?—would have been an increase in our defence expenditure, not only in absolute terms but as a proportion of the national income. At 7 per cent., we are already above all our major allies except the United States. But had we gone ahead with all three projects we would, by the late 1960s, have inevitably been driven well above it, and driven, not by the exigencies of the international situation, but by the commitments to the British aircraft industry which were bequeathed to us.
  This is an appreciation based solely on our present estimates of cost. Can anybody say that these estimates are too pessimistic? On the contrary, the much more probable hypothesis is that they would have proved a good deal too optimistic. A few weeks ago, the Government were attacked for believing that the total costs of the TSR2 programme for about 150 aircraft might be as much as £750 million. I am now engaged in a difficult negotiation—aided, I believe, by the full good will of the companies concerned—to get a guaranteed price which would keep escalation within striking distance even of this astronomical price. Yet the P1154 and the HS681, because at a much earlier stage of development, would have been much more subject to future escalation than the TSR2 is now. In this field the most pessimistic estimates for the future have a nasty habit of turning out to be too optimistic.
  Sir Cyril Osborne: Can the Minister tell the House how much public money he hopes to save from this vast expenditure which he has put before us?
  Mr. Jenkins: Not at this stage in my argument. I will proceed with the argu-
  232
  ment which I am trying to set out, I hope in a fairly logical order.
  I turn to the question of the time of availability. The right hon. Member for Monmouth said that he did not think that this was a factor at all. I should like to give him some simple figures which, if necessary, my right hon. Friend will amplify this evening. The P1154 was intended, as he knows very well, and as the House knows, as a replacement for the Hunter. But the Hunter ought certainly to go out of service by 1968–69. The P1154 could not possibly have been in service before 1970–71. It might well have been later.
  The HS681 was intended as a replacement for the Beverley and the Hastings. The original staff target date was 1966–67. In mid-1964 this was amended to 1968–69. The HS681 was unlikely to have been in full service in 1971; 1972 or even 1973 might have been a more realistic estimate. The TSR2, as a Canberra replacement, offers at least a good possibility of being ready as soon as the American alternative. That is one substantial reason why the option has been kept open. But even here the prospect is for an unfilled gap of at least a year.
  The plain fact is, therefore, that even if price did not enter the picture at all, we should have had to make stop-gap American purchases if the R.A.F. were to be kept effectively in the skies in the late 1960s.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman comparing the TFX Mark II with the TSR2? He has said that he is speaking of comparable aircraft and, in the view of most people who have studied the matter, it is the TFX Mark II which is comparable.
  Mr. Jenkins: I am making the comparison with the Mark II, but the hon. Gentleman will have noted that I made no time points about the TSR2 as against the TFX. That was the one time point which I did not make. His interjection, therefore, while interesting, was strictly irrelevant to my argument.
  I turn to the third point—that these three projects were geared only to a British market. The Opposition Amendment talks of "taking every opportunity to increase co-operation with our European allies". That is admirable. It is entirely in accordance with my own views,

  233
  and I shall have more to say about this in a few minutes. But what did they achieve in relation to these military aircraft? What collaboration with our European allies was there in any of the projects? What export prospects were there? I am unaware of any.
  By far the best chance in this respect lies with the P1127, the plane which was neglected by the previous Administration, but which is being currently tested by a tripartite—German-American-British—evaluation squadron. This is the plane for which we propose—the previous Government did not—to give a firm and large R.A.F. order and for which there is a real prospect of sales to at least one of our European allies. We shall welcome the suggestions of our European allies, of which Germany is the one most concerned here, and their collaboration in the development work which has to be done.
  The TSR2, on the other hand, is as firmly geared to an exclusively British market as is a week's holiday at a Butlin's holiday camp. But it is a good deal less good value for money. This is not so much the fault of the contractors—although I think that they had been led to believe that they were dealing with a customer with a bottomless purse—as of the previous Government, which ploughed on regardless. The differences between the price of this plane and that of the TFX—and here at least I agree with the right hon. Member for Monmouth—are a function primarily not of a difference in efficiency between B.A.C. and General Dynamics, but of a difference in the length of the runs. TFX has the prospect of an order approaching 2,000, TSR2 of less than a tenth of that number. The effect on the spread of research and development costs is dramatic.
  The lesson of this is that, whatever decision we ultimately take about TSR2, we must never get into this position again, and we must never again place a British aircraft firm in this position. As the Prime Minister told the House last week, the TSR2 will cost approximately 25 times as much as the Canberra, the plane it is designed to replace. What, in the next generation of planes, will be the cost of the TSR2 replacement? One thing is certain: it will be a cost that this country on its own cannot possibly sustain.
  234
  Let us not, therefore, have a totally misplaced chauvinism about aircraft procurement. Whatever decisions we had taken in the past weeks, and whatever decisions we may take in the next few months, we are at the end of the road so far as exclusive British manufacture of complicated weapons systems for an exclusive British market is concerned. We can afford to make the products only if others will buy them. The corollary is that we must be prepared to buy some of the products of others. An all-British industry equipping an R.A.F. flying all-British planes is out, whether we like it or not.
  These, then, are the central problems of the aircraft industry today. They were not created by the present Government. When I took on my present office I had not the slightest doubt that they were there; and I have not the slightest doubt, either, that it was my duty and that of the Government not to hide them but to bring them to the surface, to face them, and to try to solve them.
  Where, then, does the solution lie? To many of the longer-term problems of the industry we must look to the Plowden Committee, which I hope will report in the autumn, to provide us with the answers. This is a most distinguished and valuable Committee—even after the enforced resignation of my hon. Friend the new Minister of State for Economic Affairs, for whom I hope to announce a replacement in the course of a few days—and I know that Lord Plowden and his colleagues are getting quickly to work.
  There is no question about the value of this Committee's work being superseded by current decisions. The Committee was never asked to take these decisions; it would have been quite inappropriate. Indeed, when I announced the appointment of the Committee, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) asked for, and received from me, an assurance that decisions on important projects would not be held up to wait for its report. I myself referred to these decisions as fixed points for the Committee's deliberations. So there is no question of pre-empting its work. But I shall attempt today to deal with the shorter term, and if, occasionally, I stray further into the future, what I say will be subject to reappraisal in the light of the Plowden recommendations.

  235
  In the shorter term, some American purchases are inevitable. This is dictated not only by the need to prevent our defence costs rising, but also by the still more compelling need to provide vital equipment for the R.A.F. in the next four or five years. These purchases are miles from meaning the end of the British aircraft industry. By themselves, they do not even mean that it will necessarily be substantially reduced in size. There is a big Comet order coming in, to which very little attention has been paid.
  The reduction, and this figure is not challenged by Hawker Siddeley, in the size of the company's labour force by the end of this year, as a result of the decisions we have already announced, is 7,700, but its labour force will rise during the subsequent two years, and I think that there is no evidence to show that by the end of 1967, on these decisions, the industry will be smaller than it is at present.
  Lord Balniel: The Comet is made in my constituency. Can the right hon. Gentleman say definitely how many Comets will be ordered, and whether this will involve design work or is purely production work?
  Mr. Jenkins: There will be design and production work. It is a substantial order—
  Lord Balniel: How many?
  Mr. Jenkins: —but it is not normal, at this stage, to give figures. My right hon. Friend will, if he can, deal with the matter further later. All I can say at the moment is that it is a substantial order.
  I was saying that the industry will not necessarily be any smaller at the end of 1967 than it is now. I say, frankly, that I do not necessarily regard this as a desirable result. There may be a good deal of wasteful use of labour. As the right hon. Member for Monmouth said, there is nothing sacrosanct about the present numbers employed in the industry. They have fluctuated a good deal in the past. At the beginning of the Korean war it was only two-thirds of the present number. Other countries, it must be noted, manage quite well with a relatively much smaller demand
  236
  on labour. The achievement of the French industry, with its 90,000 labour force, I have already mentioned. Even the Americans, with their vast military expenditure, their huge home market for civil aircraft, and their dominant position in the civil export trade—manage with an industry which employs only 620,000 people. They have a population three and a half times ours. In aircraft, they employ only two and one-third times as many.
  In this country today one of out greatest shortages is skilled labour. If we are to improve our economic performance we just cannot allow that most vital national resource to be used other than to the best possible advantage. I am not convinced that this is so in the aircraft industry today. But there is no point in releasing labour unless it is to be quickly reabsorbed in more productive work. In any changes we shall, therefore, have the fullest regard to where and how far that is possible. We are determined not to leave skilled labour lying idle. If retraining is necessary it will be energetically provided. The aircraft industry is spread fairly widely over the country. Much, but not all of it, is in areas of very full employment. If redundancies are necessary we shall look to the firms to consult fully with us—they live, after all, on public money—and concentrate these redundancies in the most labour-scarce areas.
  There is, however, one unit in the industry which exists in an area which is far from labour-scarce. That is Short Bros., at Belfast. Twenty per cent. of the HS681 work was to be subcontracted there. This was a tempting consideration in favour of that plane. Yet it would have been nonsense to have continued a highly expensive project, for which there was no real military requirement, because 20 per cent. of the work upon it would have seeped through to a difficult employment area.
  We looked carefully at using the Belfast freighter, a much more direct contribution to the employment problem in Northern Ireland, as an alternative. This, unfortunately, had to be excluded after the most careful consideration both on the ground of a vast cost differential and because of essential unsuitability for the rôle proposed.

  237
  I may say that we have looked equally carefully, although necessarily more quickly, at the imaginative last-minute Hawker Siddeley proposal for the HS 802, a Comet wing with a HS 681 fuselage, which was submitted very recently. Here again, there is a considerable capital cost differential, though not as big as with the Belfast, the prospect of higher operating charges, and a two-year delay in availability. In these circumstances, with great regret, and primarily on account of the urgent needs of the R.A.F., we are not able to go back on the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last Tuesday about the purchase of the C130. It is not a question of contractual commitments, but of having looked carefully and urgently at this proposal and not being able, with regret, to accept it.
  Mr. Angus Maude: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the two-year gap in availability to which he referred takes account of the necessity to upgrade the engine of the C130E and, also, if necessary, for Lockheed to rejig its production?
  Mr. Jenkins: Yes, and we think that there will still be a two-year gap at the beginning of the period of delivery, and a four-year gap before the last transport would be provided.
  The problem of Shorts, therefore, remains. Redundancy will not occur there at once. There was to be no rapid buildup of work on the HS 681 until early 1966. But from then onwards we face a lack of work. In the long run—and I have discussed this with a representative of the Northern Ireland Government, with the Northern Ireland hon. Members here, who were good enough to come and see me, with Short's management and with representatives of Short's workers—the Government believe that the best future for Shorts might be largely outside the aircraft industry.
  Aircraft is a volatile business. Single decisions have a big effect. A firm depending largely on sub-contract work in the industry, yet absolutely vital to the employment picture of a particular area, is not really an a happy position. It too often has to beg for its living. That is why my right hon. Friend the First Secretary has announced that a team of
  238
  consultants, supported by his Department, will make a special investigation. Diversification, accompanied by a good injection of capital, might well be the answer,
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Jenkins: I must continue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Machine tools."] I think I heard hon. Members opposite mentioning machine tools. There is a large export demand for them, a demand which British industry is not fulfilling at present. However, in the meantime, the firm needs some further aircraft work to tide over the intermediate years. We believe that that can and should be provided. A substantial part of the work on the American planes can be done in this country, and we will put our own engines in the Phantom and possibly into the C130, too. We will provide our own reconnaissance pods for the Phantom, and we intend, if price and delivery dates are right, to do a sizeable part of the airframe manufacture as well. This airframe manufacture could provide work for up to 7,500 people by the end of 1967. Part of this work might be suitable for Shorts, at least to tide over the transition to other activities.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be a severe gap, running, I am told, to 1,000 people next year, 1966? Can anything be done to bring this work forward?
  Mr. Jenkins: I have that very much in mind, and we shall apply ourselves as much as we can to it.
  There is one other aspect of the employment problem about which I should like to say a word, and that is the problem of design staff, some of whom may be more specialised than most others who work in the industry. There are 14,000 design staff employed by the four main firms, of whom 2,000 may be affected by the changes announced. That does not eliminate the problem, but it puts it in proportion. Perhaps I may add that the number that would be affected if the TSR2 were not to go ahead would be another 1,500 to 1,700.
  Furthermore, that does not allow for the new work on the strike trainer and other research and development projects with which I shall deal later, and which

  239
  we propose to pursue. There is a problem for the design staff, and we are looking at alternative means of employment, but on these figures there is no question of destroying, or coming near to destroying, our design capability. I must remind the House that even design teams are not usefully employed in the industry unless they are designing planes for which there is a real demand.
  I turn from employment to projects which, geared to its resources, can offer the industry a successful rôle in the future. We are determined that as far as possible these shall be on a collaborative basis with our allies. That is the only way to escape in the future a repetition of the mistakes of the past.
  With whom should we collaborate? Broadly, the alternatives are provided by the United States and by Western Europe—notably France, because she has much the largest industry. But they are not mutually exclusive. The Americans are our major ally. We are necessarily closely linked with them in defence matters and, unless hon. Members are proposing to turn tail on the alliance, we should surely all welcome effective collaborative work across the Atlantic. I am able to make the following announcement, which has been agreed by both Governments.
  "The United Kingdom and the United States Governments are planning to expand the existing programme of cooperation in defence research and development. A most interesting and important project being considered would arrange for the joint development of an advanced lift engine for vertical and short take-off aircraft. The project would combine the United Kingdom's considerable experience in the V/STOL engine field with the results of the United States programmes for advanced light-weight engine technology. There are many other important fields for joint research and development now being explored, including other aspects of V/STOL technology, anti-submarine warfare, tactical air defence missiles, Army Ordnance and Field Army Communications."
  With the French, we have the incentive of two industries that have a high degree of mutual interest in collaboration, and which are in many respects complementary. Neither industry can be self-suffi-
  240
  cient without great strain on its resources; both have much to contribute in skill and resources. Already this has led to joint programmes in weapons development, but there is scope for a great extension. It is for this reason that the Prime Minister has already announced the Government's intention of joining with France, subject to satisfactory arrangements, in the study of light strike trainer aircraft.
  Both countries need them—the French rather earlier than we do. Discussions have already taken place to align national requirements, and we are proposing now to place studies with British industry to be undertaken in partnership with French industry. This is a project full of promise in which we shall hope to be able to exploit the British variable geometry concept; and if we can reconcile requirements and dates, as I am sure we can, there is promise of valuable and fruitful collaboration and a big international market that can be exploited by the powerful resources of the French and British industries.
  We are also studying with France the possibility of collaboration on an airborne-early-warning aircraft; and with France and Holland a new shipborne guided weapon. In civil aviation, too, we believe that we can work closely together.
  Apart from Concord, there is much current discussion of an aerobus which would provide cheap travel for larger numbers. I believe that something more flexible than the huge plane the Americans are planning, something much more of a bus in the normal sense of the word, is required. This should have a particular attraction for the European air traffic market. This may be yet another field in which co-operation with the French can be mutually advantageous. I hope shortly to discuss these matters with the French. I am happy to say that M. Jacquet, the French Minister of Transport, is coming to London, at my invitation, early next week.
  These developments will, I believe, offer the British aircraft industry a worthwhile future based on realism and foresight, and the opportunity of making, or helping to make, planes for which there is a real demand both at home and abroad. That, if I may speak for a moment to those engaged in the industry—for whose fears about redundancy

  241
  we have great sympathy—is the only secure basis for the future. No industry can live securely or healthily by forcing its products upon unwilling customers, and this applies just as much if the customer is the Government as if it is a whole series of private individuals.
  Yet some hon. Members opposite talk as though the correct rôle of the Government was to be not the customer, but the prisoner of the aircraft industry—forced always to buy to keep the industry at a given size, and unable to end a project that is going wrong. That way lies total immobility of British industry, and a level of defence costs that will strangle the possibilities of social advance.
  Provided that skills are not wasted, I do not believe that it is what those who work in the industry want—
  Sir C. Osborne: They want jobs.
  Mr. Jenkins: That is exactly the point I am making. I hope that it is not what the aircraft companies want, either.
  Preside at Eisenhower was not a great phrase-maker, but one phrase of his which remains in most of our minds was spoken when, at the end of his period of office, he warned the American nation against the dangers of
  "… unwarranted influence by military-industrial complexes."
  We are not going down that road, and I hope that the aircraft companies do not want us to do so.
  That is why, whatever the pressures, we must make our defence decisions in what appear to us to be the best interests of the nation as a whole, and stick to them. These decisions, I believe, will give the R.A.F. the planes it needs at the right time; will ease pressure on the Budget; will offer the aircraft industry a thoroughly worth-while future; will redeploy some valuable manpower, and will give us a big push towards closer collaboration both with our European and our American allies.
  5.28 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Amery: It is a very good rule when one has a weak case to go over to the attack, and I was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman maintaining the traditions of the Ministry of Aviation in, at least, that respect. I am sure that he will be the first to agree with me that these are extremely complex and
  242
  difficult issues, on which it is not easy to come to a simple or direct conclusion. I have dealt with these arguments for the last four years, and although I came to certain conclusions I am bound to say that the answers were not particularly easy to arrive at. This is because the problems are in themselves very intricate technically—
  Mr. A. Woodburn: On a point of order. In order that we may understand the position in this debate, is the right hon. Gentleman speaking as another Front Bench speaker for the Opposition coming in in the middle of the debate, or is he now removed from the Opposition Front Bench?
  Mr. Amery: Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman on that point. As he may know, my main concern now is with colonial matters, but as I have been rather closely associated with these issues for the last four years, I thought that it might be appropriate for me to say a few words from the back benches.
  As I was saying, these matters are difficult in themselves. They are also rather difficult to handle in terms of relations with the House of Commons, with the public and with the Press. I sometimes used to be taken to task by the Labour Party for what it called "leaks" of information to the Press. When I contrast the trickle of guidance which I sometimes thought it wise to give with the buckets full of official dope which the Minister of Defence has dished out to the Press, like Warren Hastings I am astonished at my own moderation. I think that the right hon. Gentleman went too far in his guidance to the Press, but I hope that his colleagues will be charitable to him. It is not easy to get these things right.
  The decisions to cancel the P1154 and the HS681 and to keep the TSR2 under suspended sentence of death are in themselves grave enough. But they are much graver when considered in the perspective of the indications we have had so far from the Government about their policy towards the aircraft industry. I want to look back just a little at the steps they took before they announced these decisions—the steps they took over the first 100 days. Within a very few days of taking office we had the so-called "Brown Paper" and the attack on the prestige

  243
  projects and on the Concord. This was long before there was any time for the new Minister of Aviation to express a serious opinion on these matters. A few weeks later, again long before the Minister of Aviation had had time to go round the factories or to consult seriously the leaders of industry, we were told that there was to be a review by the Plowden Committee of the whole structure of the industry. It was suddenly assumed, without full inquiry by the Minister, or his colleagues, that things were seriously wrong. The Minister of Defence told us at about the same time that he was to review all our projects with a view to major pruning, particularly in respect of advanced aircraft projects. Following on this, guidance was given to the Press which supported the general opinions of the Government, attacking and denigrating the industry as much as possible.
  The first point I want to make, then, is that the decisions announced by the Prime Minister are decisions taken by a Government who have already shown violent prejudice against the industry.
  I turn for a few moments to the two projects which are to be cancelled, the P1154 and the HS681. I understand—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that cancellation orders have already been given to the companies. In 1957 the Government of the day undertook a major reorientation of our strategy. They decided to cut out National Service but yet maintain virtually the same commitments worldwide. The way they proposed to do this was by putting behind the more limited, though better trained, manpower greater machine power in terms of weapons and of mobility and flexibility. In particular, we determined to exploit the great lead which the British industry had in short take-off and vertical takeoff. The P1154, as the House knows, has vertical take-off and supersonic capability. It has a range and pay load which match the stringent requirement laid down by the Staffs. The HS681 had a pay load to support Staff plans for the intervention of substantial forces, if necessary against opposition—an opposed landing. It had the range related to certain bases which we believe we shall dispose of in the 1970s. It had a short take-off requirement of 1,700 ft.
  244
  We have been told that these two projects have to be cancelled on two grounds. The primary ground laid down by the Prime Minister was one of operational availability. I want to deal with that first, because I think that the Minister of Aviation—I am sure it was unintentional—was rather misleading in what he said on this score. I take the P1154 first. It is true, as he said, that it was originally intended that the Hunter aircraft should be phased out in 1968. But as early as 1963 the Staffs had already recommended that it could be kept in service until 1969 or 1970 or thereabouts—that is to say, at least a year later than the date given by the right hon. Gentleman. The end of 1969 was the earliest confidential policy date that I ever saw for the introduction of the P1154. In practice, its introduction would necessarily have been to some extent later, because, as the House will realise, all the aircraft of one type are not phased out one day and all the others brought in the same day. The phasing out goes on over several years, and nobody can say with precision that six months or a year one way or the other will lead to the grounding of the remaining aircraft. Of course, there may have been developments such as metal fatigue or something about which I do not know since 16th October. If so, we should like to hear about it.
  I can confirm what my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) said earlier. Whenever we suggested to the Staffs, largely on grounds of expenditure but also on grounds of time, that there might be a case for the relaxing of the requirement we were always advised—I am bound to say that I was always convinced by their advice—that it would have been wrong to do so. I am not trying to shelter behind professional advice. I accept my share of responsibility for accepting that advice. I believe that it was sound advice. I believe that it was honestly given.
  It must be remembered also that the Hunter replacement is not the only egg in the basket. If there were to be a few months' gap—I do not accept that there would be, but if there were to be—we have other strike aircraft in our power. They would not be the most suitable for the purpose, but both the Buccaneer and

  245
  the TSR2 could do a great deal in this respect.
  I come to the Hawker Siddeley 681, The Hastings, Beverley and Argosy fleets at present discharge the function of the tactical freight. The Hastings will have to be phased out fairly soon. My memory of these matters is that there would still be 30 or more Beverleys in service after 1970. That is quite a substantial number. The Argosies can go on to the mid-1970s. The right hon. Gentleman told us that it would be necessary to phase them out and introduce a new aircraft in 1968–69. The 681 was never expected before 1970 and the bracket for the re-phasing of the transport force that I lived with for four years was between 1968 and 1973.
  I give these facts to the House for what they are worth. We would be very ill-advised to be panicked into thinking that six months or a year one way or another is decisive in a matter of this kind. Aircraft can be maintained in service over very considerable lengths of time. It is all a question of the way in which they are flown, of the strain put upon them, and of the repairs and overhaul. One of the great strengths of the R.A.F. has been its ability to maintain its aircraft in service.
  I turn to the question of cost. We have been told by the Prime Minister that the savings by cancelling these two projects will be some £300 million. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth in thinking that these figures are suspect. Do they take account of the recovery to the Treasury of direct and indirect taxation on the wages of those working on the projects? It must be remembered that wages are much the biggest element in the building of aircraft, because these are projects where skill much more than raw materials is the essential component. Do these figures take account of the practice of the United States to charge less for the original aircraft and more for spares than we usually do? Do they take account of the fact that, because it is proposed to introduce obsolescent or more old-fashioned aircraft—the C130 and the Phantom instead of the HS681 and the P1154—we shall have to begin to spend on replacements several years earlier than we should otherwise have had to do?
  However, let us accept that there will be some saving. What is the sacrifice
  246
  we are making for that saving? The Government are buying the C130 which needs a 4,000 ft. prepared runway. The right hon. Gentleman says that we may be able to put a British engine into it. I hope we can, but if we do it it will come into service much later. We examined the C130 years ago, of course. It is cheaper. It is cheap at almost any price but we will not get the performance we want out of it. What about the Phantom? It is an admirable aeroplane—I have flown it myself—but it is tied to a very long concrete runway.
  What about the P1127? It is a remarkable aircraft and the first vertical take-off aircraft of its kind, but the House must face the fact that as it exists now and as it is likely to be developed in the next few years it cannot become an operational aircraft in the real sense of the term. Its range is very short, it has no vertical take-off with the full bomb payload even with a 22,000 lb. thrust. I hope that the Germans will be persuaded to join with us, but the views of the German General Staff, as I know them, is that this project would be of interest to them only for evaluation and development purposes. I am told that the R.A.F. has only accepted the idea provided that there can be Phantom cover for the P1127, but if one cannot operate a vertical take-off aircraft unless one has long takeoff aircraft overhead one loses all the flexibility. This proposal threatens the whole mobility and striking force of the R.A.F.
  Mr. Robert Howarth: I am impressed by the point the right hon. Gentleman makes about the Phantom needing more length of runway or take-off. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister responsible for ordering the Phantom as a Sea Vixen replacement.
  Mr. Amery: I am glad that the hon. Member has made that point. The reason why the naval Staff were prepared to accept the cheaper aircraft was that the Navy takes its runway with it. The aircraft carrier deck with a catapult is like a long airstrip and it is taken wherever the Navy goes. The Navy, therefore, does not need a vertical take-off aircraft. The R.A.F., if it is to operate aircraft near the combat area and

  247
  at the same time be safe from attack on the ground, wants vertical take-off. That is why the Phantom was not acceptable to R.A.F. strategy. This is why the R.A.F. insisted on vertical take-off and has accepted the subsonic P1127, which is not a combat aircraft, only on condition that there was a long take-off aircraft overhead. But if one flies the two together the mobility of forces must be greatly reduced.
  I think that the comment which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Aviation made on the TSR2 had an ominous ring about it. It sounded as though they were digging the grave of the project. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that everybody accepts that the need for this aircraft is unquestionable and that there is no question of non-availability with it, in the sense that the American project is not as far advanced as our own and indeed seems to be in some difficulty at present.
  The TRS2 programme has time-wise a pretty good record. It is little more than a year behind schedule, which is pretty good for an aircraft of such complexity. Reports on the trials which I have heard since 16th October have been pretty encouraging. My right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) took the Prime Minister to task for the words which he used. The Prime Minister, before his rather sudden sally out of the Chamber, read out the words "at a reasonable cost" which he had used earlier. It is quite true that those weasel words were used, but they were not underlined for the benefit of my constituents or those of the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon). They were hidden away in his speech and were not referred to at all in the leaflet.
  When the Prime Minister talked about "at a reasonable cost" I wonder what he meant, because in a speech at the Mansion House six months before his speech at Preston I had indicated that the development cost would be in the region of £250 million. I saw the other day that the Prime Minister had put the cost at only £50 million higher than that. I also indicated that the production costs would be something over £2 million a unit. The Prime Minister put them at around £3 million and I understand that they are slightly less at present.
  248
  The Prime Minister claimed that we would save £250 million altogether if we cancelled the TSR2, but we must look at the broader implications of this. If we cancel the TSR2 and the other two projects there is an enormous blow to the balance of payments. We should be loading the equivalent of £55 million a year over 10 years on the balance of payments. Hawker Siddeleys has already received what is virtually a death blow, and I doubt that it will be ever able to produce a significant aircraft again. The cancellation of the TSR2 and its effects on the B.A.C. would be much the same. It would be an illusion to believe that the aircraft engine industry or the equipment industry, brilliant as they are, could live without the airframe industry. Already in this debate the Minister has had to tell the House that it is his job to take out Shorts and cut its throat.
  The consequences to the economy of all this will be grave. At present the British aircraft industry supplies 90 per cent. of our civil and military requirements. According to the Minister we spend about £300 million a year on production. This is an import saving. If we did not have this industry and we wanted to go on operating aircraft we would have to buy the aircraft from abroad. The industry also exports about £100 million worth a year, and if the Government had not stopped it exporting to South Africa it would do better still.
  The Minister says that the export record is a dismal one. I do not think that that is acceptable comment. For an industry which produces £300 million worth for the Government to export £100 million worth does not seem to me to be bad. Admittedly the record used to be higher. This was at a time when the Canberras and the Hunters were new aircraft. If we had only waited a little to see what would happen to the new aircraft which we were bringing into service we might have had export orders for them. One does not normally get export orders for aircraft which are under development. People wait and see whether they can fly. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the industry being feather-bedded and a subsidy from the Government of £1,300 a year per worker employed. I am surprised that it is not more because a skilled worker in the industry is not paid much below £1,000.

  249
  It is pretty clear that this debate is not just about projects cancelled but about the future of the industry. The right hon. Gentleman said that the decisions taken are not fundamental and that there is the Comet order and perhaps other orders coming along. The fact is that the Government have struck at the only advanced projects of the industry—the Concord, the TSR2, the P1154 and the HS681. Out of four they have killed two, and the TSR2 is under suspended sentence. Only one project has survived.
  There is a view that we ought to reduce the size of the industry and specialise in the manufacture of short-range and intermediate-range transport aircraft. This is a view advanced by The Economist and the most damaging thing that I can say about the Minister of Aviation is that we all know that at one time he was tipped as editor of The Economist.
  I have studied this matter pretty carefully. We cannot solve the problems of the industry by reducing its size in this way. If we are to have breaks-through in development and design, our designers must swim in a big pool. It is not an accident that we developed a vertical take-off aircraft. It was because Bristol and Rolls-Royce were operating with a wide range of engine developments. Designers are today in disarray. They have lost confidence because they remember the speeches made by the party opposite when it was in Opposition and see what has happened since. Designers of the TSR2 are leaving my constituency. They are going abroad and they will not come back.
  We—the Conservative Government—rejected the idea of specialisation. We believe that Britain must remain in the front rank of aero-space development and production right across the board. We produced what I think was a sound programme, both civil and military. But, of course, we recognised just as clearly as the party opposite, and long before, the need for partners.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about partnership with the United States. He knows what has happened. My right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) tried it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) tried it. Lord Watkinson tried it. I have tried it in my own way. Our
  250
  experience of co-operation with the Americans has shown that one cannot get serious joint development projects going with them, and I should have thought that the Government knew this better than anybody else, for this reason. When they decided to order the C130 and the Phantom, they had in their hands the best possible counter for asking the Americans for some degree of reciprocity.
  If there was any chance of reciprocity at all, they could have said to the Americans, "We want to buy these aircraft from you. What will you buy from us?". But I have seen no sign that they did anything of the kind, and I am sure that they would have been the first to tell us if there had been any hope of such an agreement. The truth is that the United States does not need partners in this business. It has an immense overspill of production, and it is this overspill of production which builds up the technological offensive against our own advanced technology and that of the whole of Europe. The right hon. Gentleman must not be surprised if some of us at times think that President Johnson took his right hon. Friend by the arm and made plain to him that if Britain was to borrow a great deal of money from the United States it must not spend it on building up too much competitive effort.
  Co-operation with France is quite a different story. We have a record—certainly over the four years when I was associated with these matters—of which we can be proud. The E.L.D.O. was the first great joint project. Then there was the Concord. After that the missile for the TSR2, and the Mirage, which was greatly criticised by the party opposite at the time. For about 12 months, I was in negotiation with the French about the fighter-trainer, which, I understand, was shelved when the party opposite came into office, but which, I am glad to learn, is now to be revived. I was a little surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he hoped that work on this would go forward, "subject to negotiation," and "we could harmonise the requirement." We had pretty well harmonised it. By October, we were very near signature. I do not know what difficulties have arisen since, but I am glad to hear that it is to go forward.

  251
  We all want to see co-operation with Europe, but there are certain practical difficutlies. Our airlines and the European airlines, and our forces and the European armed forces, are already largely re-equipped or re-equipping. One cannot change the programmes which have been decided already. What we must do is catch the tide when there are further changes, and this is why the French Minister of Defence agreed with my right hon. Friend and myself that there would be no firm operational requirement issued by either of our staffs until there had first been an attempt to harmonise. But, of course, if one is to catch the tide when the next opportunity comes, at the end of this decade or the beginning of the next, one has to keep in business.
  We all agree that no one can reasonably say that one must never cancel a project. No one can reasonably say that we must never buy foreign. As my right hon. Friend said, we decided to order the Phanton in certain special circumstances. But it is a sound principle of common law that a man is supposed to have intended the consequences of his actions. As I have said, the Government have attacked the only four major development projects on which we were at work. They have taken decisions and expressed opinions which, in my view, suggest that they wish to abandon Britain's leading rôle in aviation. They have a "little England" approach to this matter.
  From what I have heard from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Aviation, I do not believe that the root of the matter is in them. They do not recognise the extent of the American technological offensive. They do not recognise the vital need for Britain to remain an independent Power in terms of aero-space development. They do not realise the vital need for Europe, if we are to build up the European industry, for there to be a strong British industry around which the development can be built.
  A few weeks ago the Prime Minister appealed for a revival of the Dunkirk spirit. I do not know how much he knows of the Dunkirk spirit, but my interpretation of it was a readiness on the part of this country to make sacrifices, to keep Britain's independence and influence in
  252
  the world. If the Government had come to the House and said that because of the mounting costs we would have to postpone some desirable reform or even increase taxation so that the aircraft industry could be kept going, they would have met with a ready response. What we will not accept, and what the people of this country will not accept, is a policy of surrender.
  5.55 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: I enter this part of the political stratosphere with considerable apprehension. My record in these matters is that I failed to qualify for my pilot's licence, I never took off as a glider pilot, and I never did anything as an ack-ack gunner. My only reason for intervening in a debate which I am completely incapable of understanding in any of its technicalities is that, after my 20 happy years as Member for Oldham, West, 6,000 of my constituents are at this moment demonstrating against the decisions which have been made.
  I propose to try to put the matter quite fairly. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation made, I thought, a very fine speech. He said many things which comforted me and one or two, I regret to say, which did not, but at least he enabled me to dispense with some of the criticisms which I should otherwise have made.
  In 1950, the large urban district of Chadderton was added, unsolicited, to my constituency. Admittedly, that large urban district is in a conurbation and, of course, there are other industries round it, but within that homogeneous part of my constituency there is only one big source of highly paid employment. I refer to the Hawker Siddeley factory, which we used to know as A. V. Roe, employing several thousand men who have acquired a good deal of esprit de corps in their work.
  They are proud of what they did during the war. They are proud of the legends of the Lancaster and the Manchester, proud of the old stories—we have heard them all before—about the night-shift falling out on Berlin the first time the bomb doors opened, and so on. They are proud of much hard work together.
  In some respects, they have always been extremely critical of the management, though not on personal grounds.

  253
  The present managing director, Air Chief Marshal Sir Harry Broadhurst, is a man with a legendary record in the Royal Air Force, a very fine man, un homme sans peur sans reproche. But they criticise the methods of management, and they pass resolutions month after month asking for nationalisation of the industry.
  I came into this particular series of episodes and disasters at about Christmas, 1963, when two or three deputations came to see me. One came from people in the local computer industry, who complained about the terrible neglect, under a Tory Government, of the British computer industry, which owed so much to the genius of Manchester, to the technical knowledge of Ferranti, and so on, but which had been allowed to lapse. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for many assurances about the computer industry, which will give new hope to it.
  Others said that they came from A. V. Roe and were Labour supporters. They said, "We want to know why we should vote for you at the next election, because all the rumours are that Labour will cut expenditure on war planes". I said, "I hope they do. I am sorry about this, but, apart from the fact that you are Labour supporters, I have never understood why any armaments worker voted Hale".
  I am opposed to defence expenditure. I call myself a pacifist in theory, although I quite accept that while British troops are in the field they must have the best possible means of defence. This is always a dichotomy, but one which I have clearly and simply settled for myself; I know where I stand on the matter and I do not have any doubts. I told them that I would certainly urge a Labour Government to cut expenditure on defence. They told me that that was what they expected me to say, and they added, "But we have to go and talk to the boys; would you like to come?" I said that I would be delighted, but that I should first find out more about the position.
  We had many discussions and in Liverpool, about last Whitsuntide, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister addressed a private meeting of Labour M.P.s and Labour candidates from the North and North-West, a meeting which I had the pleasure of attending. I must say at once, and without hesitation or
  254
  doubt, that during the course of a very long speech at that meeting no undertaking of any kind was given by the Prime Minister that he would not cut defence expenditure, or would not cut expenditure on aeroplanes; and he was quite implict that in the discussions going on about Polaris and the Concord and the TSR2 the Government were alarmed about rising costs, and so on.
  The Prime Minister gave two undertakings. I know that with his memory he will willingly be able to give his words to the House perhaps more accurately than I can, but we shall not in the least quarrel about the words. His first undertaking was in relation to contracts like the Polaris, and it was that they would not be ruthlessly cancelled without consideration until some alternative form of employment or use of resources was found. The second was in relation to the aircraft industry and it was that a Labour Government would give first priority to the maintenance of full employment in an industry affected by Labour policy and that Labour would promise to maintain full employment in the aircraft industry at the factory, in other words, not necessarily on aircraft, but on other things. That was quite clear.
  It is quite clear that, fully remembering that promise, my right hon. Friend has already initiated proposals for the consideration of alternatives. I told all this to my constituents. They heard it somewhat dubiously and said that they wanted more information. I had many discussions with my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), who was then the Minister-designate who might have this responsibility and who is an old friend who comes from the area and who has always been very good. We discussed alternatives; we discussed the possibilities of civilian transport; we damned the last Government about the VC10 and we damned the last Government about allowing so much civil aviation development work to go to Holland and for doing so little to help the civil aviation industry. We did not get complete satisfaction.
  Then came the General Election. In Oldham, this takes a slightly different form from normal. I was told that at this election I should not have any visiting speakers, because mine was a safe seat, although it is precisely the same geographically as it was in 1950—not a

  255
  yard has been put on and not a yard has been taken off, although we have lost several thousand younger men in the drift to the South, which has been hitting Oldham for a long, long time.
  I have omitted to mention that there is another important source of employment in the textile machinery making works of Platts, which is on the borders of Chadderton and employs some Chadderton people. I am happy to say that that firm is doing well. On the other hand, any contraction in the aircraft industry affects the electronic firms in Oldham, West, another problem which we have to face.
  In an election in Oldham, West, I make one brief speech, saying that, if anyone wants to vote Tory, what's-his-name is quite a good bloke and I recommend him. I say that without any marked enthusiasm and then at the end I congratulate him on being a good loser. In between I wander around with the "missus" and Harry Evans, chatting to old friends and going into back streets and always trying to avoid politics, because I am never happy about politics, having an agnosticism about most forms of politics and always regarding it as a slightly unpleasant and slightly controversial subject which should be avoided if possible. However, the shop stewards of A. V. Roe have never taken that view.
  I finished by addressing a meeting of workers just after the monsoon had started, so that in drenching rain I was addressing hundreds of people who were there to listen to me and to support me, although I shall never know why. Now they are demonstrating against a decision and are bitterly complaining about the Lockheed 130, and they have every right to complain that they have not had all the information which they ought to have had and that there has not been an opportunity for consultation and discussion.
  It is not part of my job to defend aviation employers, except to the extent that they continue to employ people. I believe that there has been a lack of fairness. All my information comes from the workers. I have no sources of important information. The right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) quite fairly said that Hawker Siddeley designed the HS681 to the re-
  256
  quirements of the authorities. They designed a brilliant and exceptional plane with new attributes of which they were proud.
  It was a very expensive plane, but it was precisely to the requirements of the military advisers who were saying that we must have the smallest take-off ever, short of vertical take-off, and that we must have a braking system of a quite exceptional kind which would allow us to operate from a very small area, as though, instead of fearing the possibility of some trouble with the vast Soviet Union, or China, we were contemplating the possibility of a war with Liechtenstein. This was the design fulfilled and the men were proud of it.
  The workers complained that we were constantly told about delays. There was the tragedy of the delay over the Britannia, and we have heard the story all over again. On whose part is the delay? When I investigated the last complaint of this kind at the Chadderton works, I found that about 2,000 alterations had been made to the original plans laid down by these anonymous people who advise the Government and who are responsible for purchasing and ordering and planning. These alterations included new seats for the lavatories, a screw here, a knob there, but also some substantial alterations, including to the layout of the cabin, which itself was one of the great delaying factors.
  The other thing which they say is this, "This is a great British industry. It has to compete with the U.S.A., and competing with the U.S.A., however efficient the industry may be, is a matter of the greatest difficulty". We know that the United States aircraft industry can dictate political terms. We know that it can virtually dominate certain markets, whatever we do. Therefore, on the face of it, the decision about the Lockheed 130 needs very real justification.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will forgive me for saying, in his absence, that I never much liked the business about the 100 days. The first 100 days was a fairly shabby episode. Perhaps it was a little sad. It was never a question that the last of the Bourbons would send Marshal Hogg to intercept my right hon. Friend between Rugby and Crewe. It is quite

  257
  true that my right hon. Friend arrived on the Tuileries before the Bourbons had departed. It was sad perhaps that the Emperor suffered from piles on the morning of Waterloo and had difficulty in riding. No doubt the jeep has got over that for the future.
  But tie glory of the 100 days was the flight of the eagle. That was a supreme achievement, whether one regards the Emperor as a bad man, or a great man, or however one regards him. My French is bad—I apologise for it—but he wrote in immortal words: La victoire marchera a pas de charge. Those were the words which touched the heart of the muddled Marshal Ney. He said that the Bourbons never wrote like that, even with a box of matches. He said: "This goes straight to the soldier's heart"—L'aigle, avec les couleurs rationales, volera de clocher en clocher jusqu'aux tours de Notre Dame. Every writer has said that it cannot be adequately translated. The nearest is, "An elderly American turbo-prop carrying the tattered Union Jack from precipice to precipice and back." It is not the flight of the eagle, at any rate. It is said, this decision was taken, provisionally at any rate, at the very early stage, because, we are told, Sir Solly Zuckerman was flying to Lockheeds in about November. Was Hawker Siddeley given any intimation of this? Was Hawker Siddeley told? I am not disputing figures. I am asking which figure we are using. We are entitled to some information on that. On the HS681, Hawker Siddeley was talking in terms of £200 million. I think that it was the Observer's correspondent who said that as likely as not it would be £375 million before it was finished. My right hon. Friend says that we can get the Lockheed for one-third. One-third of what—the big figure or the smaller figure? Surely this is material. This was at a time—[Interruption.] This is a serious matter for 6,000 workers, with this record behind them. We used to say, "The Tories talk about transferring jobs as though there was nothing in it". They say, "The skilled man working at Chadderton can get a job on the other side of Manchester. His wife may be working at Ferraiti". But he has a house, and he has on mortgage, and he is paying quite a sum in interest.
  258
  I think that the only thing on which everyone agrees is that the Lockheed is wholly incomparable to the HS681.
  Mr. David Price: Has the hon. Gentleman any figures to show whether the price of the C130, offered to Her Majesty's Government, includes any element of development cost? My guess is that at this stage of its life it is being offered to this country at a dumped price.
  Mr. Hale: If the hon. Gentleman proposes that the management should give all these facts to the shop stewards, I would support him. The more we know on the floor, the better—and the happier we would be.
  This decision was taken at a time when we were putting a substantial tax on imports and going round explaining it to other countries. It is sad to think that we found ourselves forced to spend on the Lockheed £66 million or £125 million, as the case may be—one-third of A, or one-third of B. This is a grave matter. It means that many thousands of workers must be employed on making goods for export to America to balance those imports.
  My right hon. Friend has been very fair. If I had wished to be rude to him, I should have been. I feel strongly about this. He made a very able and helpful speech and gave many assurances which will he appreciated. I am coming, unhappily, to the assurance which he did not give.
  The next thing which happened was that Hawker Siddeley said, "If you want an aircraft like the Lockheed, we can produce one better and cheaper—the HS802. We will use the fuselage of the HS681 and the old and tried Comet wings, which are by far the best part left of that aircraft. We can have this aircraft in production by 1968". This is where the workers come in again. They say that all Governments keep on saying, "The real trouble about the British aircraft industry is that it never keeps its contracts. If it says that it will deliver by 1968, we shall not get delivery before 1970 or 1971".
  The workers say and I do not know the answer to this; I shall be glad to have it—" Why cannot these chaps be made to sign contracts which are

  259
  contracts?" In contracts for the building of immense housing estates there are certain contingency clauses for variations in wages, the effect of strikes, and so on. But the houses must be built, and at a price. I know that the matter which we are discussing is one of great complexity, but why could we not build an aircraft—and this is what Hawker Siddeley says it is willing to do—
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: In everything that I said about the HS802 I was assuming that the promise about delivery dates, which, I agree, Hawker Siddeley were willing to back to a very great extent, would be kept. But even if it was kept, there was a gap of two years on the first delivery and a gap of four years on the last delivery compared with the C130.M
  Mr. Hale: I did not hear every word of that, but I think that I understood the sense of it. I am obliged to my right hon. Friend.
  What is said now is: Why 100 Lock-heeds? I understood my right hon. Friend to say that, with luck, some work on the Lockheeds might be done in this country. It did not sound like a very definite promise, but, coming from him. I take it that it meant something. That is something to be going on with. But why 100 Lockheeds? There will not be a simultaneous delivery of 100 Lockheeds. In his statement, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that it was anticipated that over 10 years there would be a saving of £300 million. If we really do need some Lockheeds now, why not buy 20 and say that Hawker Siddeley can produce the HS802 if it is prepared to guarantee delivery at a price for the other 80 that will not be coming through from Lockheed by then?
  I have many friends on the Daily Express, which is a brilliantly written paper, but I watch its political observations with the same dubiety that I look at requests to finance the rescue of the missing heir from the Spanish prison. It said, however, that, while there was a possibility of Chadderton suffering, a township which was becoming dormant in the distant United States of America would have a Lockheed factory reopened to make these aircraft for Britain. If that be true, it does not look like a case of excessive speed.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. Member asks why this has been done. Surely, the reason is that if what he wants done were done his right hon. Friend would not achieve his objective of getting the factory closed down.
  Mr. Hale: That is nonsense. It was a slightly presumptuous interruption, because I can tell the hon. Member that whatever he says it will not satisfy my shop stewards, who want to know what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have to say.
  I have intervened with great reluctance. I have intervened with feeling, because in my election campaigns I usually keep away from controversy. I am not very bright and not very adroit and I much prefer to talk to friends. One thing which I said at the last election was that in 25 years, in Oldham, no one has ever said that I have broken a promise to the electors. No one, I believe, has ever accused me of breaking an engagement. I went out once with a double fracture of the wrist and once with a fracture of the ankle, which is still screwed together—with, I could perhaps say, a turbo-prop arrangement. I was proud of it. I have committed many follies and some crimes, but I have tried to be honest.
  What do I say now? I know—I am not over-exaggerating—that the suggestion is that the first impact will fall upon the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), who has been so active in this matter. I know that it has been said that we still have 12 to 15 months' work for most of the staff at Chadderton. It is, however, being said, and my right hon. Friend the Minister has virtually confirmed it, that the drawing staff, some of them from Woodford and some from Chadderton, are going now and that the design draughtsmen, the heart and core of the firm, the people without whose genius there is nothing left, may be going.
  What is our answer to them? Where is their work at the factory which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has promised them? I know that my right hon. Friend is absolutely sincere about this and that he will do his best. I know that he will make a supreme effort to carry out that promise, as he always does. I have known him intimately for a long

  261
  time and my respect for him is as great as ever it was. At the same time, I am accountable for the dishonoured cheque that I gave to the electors. I am concerned about it. They are generous people. What they will, say, being kindly people, is that Hale was more a fool than a knave, and it may be that that is the truth.
  Mr. Robert Howarth: I wonder whether my hon. Friend appreciates that the factories to which he is referring were, I understand, faced with problems of a run-down of design work long before the announcement of these recent decisions by the Government. The Vulcan was berg terminated and Hawker Siddeley, I understand, had already made allowance for the fact that, apart from possible redundancies arising from recent Government action, the firm was faced with having to take out about 8,000 of its personnel.
  Mr. Hale: If the hon. Member is referring to Baginton about which I know nothing he may be right, but that is quite untrue of Chadderton. It is quite untrue, on the statements which the workers have made and on statements published in the Oldham Chronicle and by Hawker Siddeley. They have not tried to agitate about Chadderton. They have, in fact, rather tried to minimise the shock. Woodford and Chadderton have their drawing staff. For the moment they have 15 months' work and 20 per cent. of the HS681, whether it was 20 per cent. of either £200 million or £375 million, was to be done at Chadderton.
  As I have said, my electors are kindly generous people and they will say, I suppose, that Hale was more of a fool than a knave. On reflection, after 20 years in politics, one could have a worse epitaph than that.
  6.26 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: All of us who have heard the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) will appreciate the strong feelings which he and his constituents hold and the great work that the factory of which he has spoken has done throughout the recent history of the Royal Air Force.
  I am sure that many hon. Members will agree with the hon. Member that the speech and the explanations which
  262
  have so far been given by the Minister of Aviation are not satisfactory and that the least that could he done is for a White Paper to be published by the Government, explaining why they are doing these things and giving facts and figures so that people like the hon. Member's constituents can be properly informed.
  At the moment, the House has not been informed. Much as we admire the Minister of Aviation, his speech today fell far below the level of events and far below the seriousness of the situation which faces the country.
  The Minister spoke about a gap in the supply of aircraft for the Royal Air Force, and I will detail that presently. What I would say now is that if his policy is pursued there may or there may not be a gap at this moment, but there will be a void of the most hideous sort in the 1970s and total oblivion in the late 1970s and 1980s. That is the sort of policy that we see being put forward.
  The Minister advanced two main contentions for the change in the policy for aircraft for the Royal Air Force which my right hon. Friends and I pursued when we were in office. The first was the question of cuts in defence expenditure. The Minister asked how the people could face a cost of £15 per head for the TSR2. If the Government had the guts to ask the people, I think that they would be prepared to spend the £15. I believe that people realise that if this country is to remain with power at all it must remain an air power or nothing.
  The Minister talked about finance and Government expenditure on defence. I think that this demonstrates the typical approach of the Government during these 100 days. It is the approach which does not put first things first. The right hon. Gentleman, his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and the Minister of Defence, who is not here at the moment, must realise that the only way to reduce defence expenditure is to reduce defence commitments. All that the right hon. Gentleman is doing is tinkering with ironmongery which will save £30 million during each of the next 10 years of a defence bill of about £2,000 million, while, at the same time, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence talk more and more boldly of our defence

  263
  rôle east of Suez, which undoubtedly is the most expensive we can undertake. This is typical of the approach of the Government.
  The Government have appointed a wretched committee consisting of Lord Plowden and other distinguished persons, but they have already taken the decisions for them. What are the members of this committee meant to do, when three or four major projects have been taken out of the aircraft industry? Are they expected to drink beer on the hearse? Are they supposed to do a little ritual dance around the corpse of the aviation industry? What is the function of these distinguished people? Is it to reorganise an industry which is about to be destroyed by these decisions? This is typical of the approach to government by the right hon. Gentleman of 100 days.
  I liked the outburst of the hon. Member for Oldham, West in French. It was fine, but, as he said, at the end of the period Napoleon suffered from certain complaints. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite are suffering from the complaint of not being able to make up their minds, and, when they do, of making them up in the wrong direction. This, doubtless, comes from ploughing through the great morass of Tory muddle that was left behind. Doubtless, these few fumbling footsteps, first to the left and then to the right, followed by disorder, order, and counter-order, are due to the fact that they inherited this problem, but, as far as I can see, the policy which they put forward this afternoon will lead to oblivion for the aircraft industry.
  I should like to deal with a few of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman, and, first, with the question of finance. The First Secretary of State has said that by the end of 1970 the cross national product will have risen by 25 per cent. I have looked at the figures. During this period the cost of aircraft will rise by far less than this increase of 25 per cent. in the gross national product. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of the gap which will, or which could, appear between the delivery of the aircraft which we order and the moving into obsolescence of the Hunter and other aircraft, especially the Canberra transport aircraft.
  I believe that the Minister of Defence will try to make some startling revelations
  264
  this evening. I believe that he will try to prove that everything is falling to pieces round his head. Like the boy in Casabianca, he stands on the burning bridge of the Ministry of Defence. With aircraft crashing to the right of him, crashing to the left of him, there he is, the supreme man of destiny, able to do all.
  But I, too, have looked at what is likely to happen. I have found that if there is a gap, or any danger of a gap—and I assure the House that as the Minister responsible for the Air Force I was conscious of this danger and I was constantly in touch with my right hon. Friend about it—it can easily be bridged, but if we do not bridge it with our own resources we will be asking the Royal Air Force and the country to invest in aircraft of the second order and second category.
  We will find that by 1972 we will look silly with some of these Lockheed aircraft which were designed in 1956. We will look silly when we have to deploy our forces in the Far East with aircraft like the Phantom which was flying in the 'sixties. Because of the imagined gap, we are to equip the Royal Air Force with foreign aircraft which, in a few years' time, will be out of date. This is the fact which the country should know, and which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should understand.
  I believe that the greatest advance which has been made in these matters is the advance in what is called vertical take-off and short take-off aircraft. This applies particularly to this rôle about which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have talked so much, the rôle of the British—and a great rôle it is—east of Suez. The fulfilment of this rôle depends on the full utilisation not of a few large airfields, but of the thousands of Dakota strips in that area. If we do not have VTOL and STOL aircraft we will have to make infinitely greater use of Phantoms to replace these aircraft. It is impossible for the Phantom to use anything but a long runway. It will be impossible to use this aircraft over the battlefield, because the take-off area will be so far back, and, what is more, it will be difficult to disperse these planes.
  There will be great advances during the next few years—and we have made some with the French—in weapon design

  265
  for attack from aircraft to the ground. This is one of the most advanced weapons in the world, which I hope is not being cancelled. However fast the aircraft, however swift the duck, it is a dead duck if it is sitting on an airfield. We must be able to disperse our aircraft.
  Looking into the 'seventies—and our aircraft have to last a long time; we cannot change them every three or four years—there are two dangers to the aircraft which does not have a vertical take-off capacity. One is the new type of weapon, and the other is the possible introduction of new types of explosive which are being played with at the moment in various parts of the world.
  What do the Government propose to do? On the excuse of economy, and on the excuse that there may be a gap of a few months here, or a month there, they propose to introduce to the Royal Air Force aircraft which are essentially of the second class. We have heard about the Lockheed. The Phantom will be out of date by the middle 'seventies. These are the sort of things being put forward as part of a grand Socialist plan for reforming the aircraft industry and for making it more effective.
  I was amazed at what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon about the one aircraft which he believed was of value for export, the P1127. I am amazed that the Government should suggest giving the Royal Air Force an aircraft which, remarkable though it is, from a military point of view is a toy, unable to carry any weapons, unable to have a great range, and unable to fly above over sonic speed. It is the type of aircraft which I would never have dreamt of offering the air staff, and it is well known that the air staffs of nearly every country in Western Europe rejected it.
  The truth of the matter is that if this aircraft is to be accepted a great deal of work will have to be done on it. It will have to be re-engined. The thrust of the engine will not go high enough. It will mean a new engine, a new design, aid more expense, and I believe that the Government would be safer to stick to the P1154.
  The great problem today is not aircraft, but t the weapon systems which our aircraft can carry. This is the whole problem, and to talk of aircraft without
  266
  sufficient power, and without sufficient range, is a waste of time, yet this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman said that this aircraft had valuable export capabilities.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft). I am not a chauvinist, believing that we should buy only British aircraft, but what I do believe is that we should support the right type and the best type of British manufacture. This is precisely what I contend the Government have not done. They propose to go ahead with the P1127 and then to produce for Coastal Command a form of Comet aircraft which is out of date and old-fashioned, and which has no conceivable chance of development. This is probably the most nonsensical decision that any Government have ever taken.
  What is this aircraft to do? It is purely to fill Hawker Siddeley's books so that that company has some employment. It is a policy that does not pursue any known political objective, except merely to provide employment. The Government have shown a typical piecemeal approach to the whole problem. This is part of the defence problem, and of the much wider economic problem, but they, by what they are doing today, are merely making it certain that the United States will achieve air monopoly.
  We have seen what happens when American aircraft are bought. My relations with the American Air Force, and the relations of the Royal Air Force with the American Air Force, have never been better, but behind it is the problem of American industry—the fact that one in eight of its workers in the United States is employed on rocketry and weaponry, and so forth. Those who have been to the west coast of America know that it is not the film stars which are important there any longer but the Shooting Stars, and the rest.
  We have seen what has happened when we have taken American aircraft. The German and the Belgian general staffs have seen what happened in connection with the 104. As my right hon. Friend said, "The first model is given to you, but, by heaven, you pay for the spare parts." We have seen this happen before, and it is what is being proposed now. It could mean that our military projects

  267
  would be mainly of American manufacture. At one point it was even suggested by the right hon. Gentleman that the C130 should be semi-manufactured in Northern Ireland. Could anything be more ludicrous or ridiculous?
  It is no good the right hon. Gentleman talking about the great new research organisation that is being set up in the United States. It is no good his talking about American co-operation. The Americans do not need to co-operate; they dominate. Why should they bother about co-operating, with their gigantic industry? We seem to be going to give our lift engine secrets to the Americans. That is the latest stroke of this brilliant Minister. If a European aircraft industry is to be built up, the only firm rock on which it can be built is the British aviation industry. If we destroy this we will destroy the future of West European aviation.
  I do not wish in any way to be hostile to the United States, but I say that we must have our power in Europe as they have theirs in the West. What we have had from the Government tonight is a terrifying confession of failure, muddle and misrepresentation. What they are putting before the public is their determination to cut the throat of the British aviation industry.
  One final question: what do the Government intend to do about the TSR2? As the New Statesman said in a very good article this week, it is shameful that they cannot make up their mind. It is shameful when the facts are in front of them. I suspect, and the country suspects, that when the storm has died down the Government will cut the TSR2's throat. Before this debate is over we want a straight answer to that question, and also to the question whether any proposal has been put forward by Mr. McNamara and General Dynamics about a special cut price or special low interest rates or hire-purchase terms. We want to know whether the British industry is being told, "Compete with these terms or get out," because this is as effective a way of killing the industry as if someone had been hired from Murder Incorporated—and the baby-faced killer on the Front Bench opposite is the man.
  6.47 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Snow: I do not complain that the three
  268
  speeches from hon. Members opposite to which we have listened have all come from ex-Ministers in the previous Administration. To some extent I realise that their speeches are apologies for the muddle to which my right hon. Friend has just referred—the muddle with which we were confronted, and the situation which we must tidy up in some way. When we were asked what was to be done with the skilled talents of those workers who might find themselves out of a job, I could not help being reminded of a television programme that I saw last night in which several workers from Coventry gave their views of the present situation.
  I do not represent Coventry, but I could not help feeling extreme sympathy for one man who said that he was 55 years of age—an age which I shall attain this month—and that it was unreal and unfair for him to be expected to learn a new skill, or to find employment in a new industry, at his age. We have talked sincerely and logically about the need to find other forms of skilled employment in those industries which justify a change in their structure because of the economic situation of the country. In my belief this will be the first test of our ability to carry out this policy. I was rather interested in an observation made by the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft), when he said that this industry must depend upon the purchasing by the Government of their aircraft requirements, and that that was its fundamental economic basis. I took him to mean by that that he did not think that the element of civil aviation could ever be more than important. He did not think that it could be a dominating influence in the economy of the industry.
  This may be true at present, and it could continue to be true, but it is very wrong to assume that it inevitably will remain true. I want to talk a little about the civil aviation aspect of industry, and I make no apology for doing so. So far, although the two Front Bench speakers touched upon the subject of civil aviation, speakers have concentrated on the Government's action in connection with the defence programme. That is logical, and it would be surprising if hon. Members had not taken that line. But we should examine in greater detail the question of civil aviation requirements.

  269
  Like many other hon. Members, I have been reading the interesting articles which have appeared in The Guardian during the last week or two. I cannot help feeling that whoever is informing The Guardian—and I strongly suspect that it is S.B.A.C.—has adopted a curiously defensive attitude about the potential export market for this industry and, therefore, the structure of the industry itself. Rather wrily, I have been looking at some correspondence which appeared in The Times in 1957, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) drew my attention, in which it was suggested by the then president of the society that the pattern of defence requirements lies more in the
  "natural evolution of independent alliances between companies with common interests, than in the dry and formal concepts of international regrouping."
  I realise that he was there talking about the defence pattern, but, as history has now shown, or subsequent events have demonstrated, the pattern of civilian aviation requirements has followed what some of us in 1957 thought would be the case, that is to say inter-Governmental co-operation.
  Last night I saw a reference in a paper to an important speech made by a trade union leader about the potential of China. I am not going to bore the House with my personal views about the possible development of trade with China except to say that there are big export markets where, somehow or other, our aircraft manufacturers appear not to be having, a great success. To some extent this is not to be wondered at when one recalls that help for the export trade was singularly not forthcoming from the previous Administration. I wonder whether hon. Members remember what occurred at the time of the loss of a most important civil aeroplane order on offer from the Japanese two years ago. At that critical moment, when every single weapon at the disposal of this nation should have been deployed in an attempt to secure that order, the previous Administration withdrew the air attaché in Tokio.
  It may well be said that the Japanese market is a relatively limited one, and that is questionable. What is not questionable is the developing pattern of de-
  270
  mand for civil aeroplanes in the Far East. New routes are likely to be opened up to connect Europe, through Russia and China, with Japan and there will be routes across the Pacific. I believe that this will result in a demand from people who will start to travel long distances as the economies of their countries improve. All this demonstrates that there is a tremendous future for the right sort of aeroplane for those routes. Yet we read, at monotonously frequent intervals, that we have failed to secure important orders.
  The last case occurred a few days ago when it was put out, I believe by American commercial concerns, that we had not secured an order in the Argentine. Are we doing all we should to bring home to those nations who wish to buy aircraft that their balance of trade with this country leaves a great deal to be desired, that at least they have a moral duty to examine that question most carefully and not to subject themselves always to high-pressure American salesmanship? They should see whether they can rectify the balance of trade with this country.
  In South America the Venezuelans export to this country three times what we export to their country. In Chile the figure is the same. Brazil exports to this country £3 million worth to every £2 million worth that we export to Brazil. The figure in respect of Uruguay is three to one against us and in the Argentine it is three to one against us. There are other countries where the ratio is far worse. Yet in every country it is rare to find that British commercial aircraft are operating. I went through the international air guide this morning to see what aircraft are being used. Sometimes there is a reference to Viscounts, but more often, practically always, one finds that it is American aircraft which are being used.
  It is no use for people to say that these countries do not need to sell their primary products to us. The Argentine is a case in point. That country would not like to give up its export market in this country for meat. Why cannot our salesmanship be more impressive? An earlier Plowden Committee Report referred to the need to instil into our ambassadors abroad the need to exert as much effort as possible in respect of commerce. Yet the previous Administration, as I have

  271
  said, dispensed with the air attaché at a very important nerve centre of the Far East aviation potential. We can see that there is a growing demand—at least so I am informed by companies and commercial people in the Far East who should know their job—for people of a very senior type at political level who can secure an entry to the departments of foreign governments and approach Ministers at the point where decisions are made.
  I was interested in a speech made by the right hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery). As a matter of fact, I did not think that the right hon. Gentleman would dare to show his face in this Chamber this afternoon. I make no apology for referring to him now when he is not in the Chamber. When one realises the criticism levelled against this Government in their endeavour to secure economies in the aviation industry I must say that the right hon. Gentleman is the last person who I should think would speak in this debate. There was Ferranti, and all that exemplifies. There is the wastage which has gone on in the industry and which has not recoiled to the benefit of the workers. On the contrary, they have been led up the path by the previous Administration.
  I want to touch on the potential of China. I am informed that technicians from this country have been worried and concerned about the present state of Chinese technical knowledge regarding the maintenance of aircraft and engines. I believe that the future of our civil aviation industry may rest first in establishing important aero engineering maintenance units in the vicinity of that country where the potential is very high indeed and where, despite what has been said to the contrary, there is no shortage of sterling. I think that engineering production established near China would pay handsomely by giving the sort of technical aid which the country needs.
  I believe, secondly, that many aircraft companies in this country might be well advised to adopt a more progressive attitude about having "know-how" agreements signed with other countries. This is being done by at least one American company in South America, in Chile, and it is certainly being done between America and Japan where there is an
  272
  agreement between the Mitsubishi Corporation and Lockheed. They could, I suggest, be phrased in such a way that we could increase our exports, build up good will and collaborate with the countries concerned. I think that in Japan itself the potential is not likely to be lasting. I believe that the Japanese are capable of producing everything they want, but the new lines of communication in the Far East present us with a very big potential.
  Another thing I have against the right hon. Member for Preston is that the whole history of his attitude—
  Mr. Peter Mahon: Say "the right hon. Member for Preston, North".
  Mr. Snow: The right hon. Member for Preston, North—I apologise to my hon. Friend.
  Regarding the whole policy for which he was responsible in connection with B.O.A.C., it is the considered view of many people in business in the Far East and, so far as I know elsewhere as well, that our great aircraft passenger-carrying corporation should be a sort of State demonstrator of what our private industry is capable of achieving. But the decision of B.O.A.C. not to buy the VC10 was, in my judgment, a wrong decision. Hon. Members of this House are, for the most part, amateurs. I think that we must assume that such an important decision was not taken lightly. The fact is that B.U.A. have bought the VC10 and the VC10 itself appears to be attracting better payloads than the Boeing 707. This is a success story. Had it not been for the policy of the previous Government, as put forward in this House day after day by the right hon. Member for Preston, North, and had it been given a chance, B.O.A.C. could have done a much more worthwhile job to sell British aircraft abroad. We never got down to brass tacks about the instructions which had been sent to that corporation.
  There is another aspect of sales abroad which needs some attention. I refer to the electronic content of these commercial planes. As I understand it, the BAC111 is equipped with American electronic equipment. That is a deliberate policy, because it was felt, probably quite rightly, that it would make that aircraft

  273
  that much more saleable in North America. Conversely, other British aircraft are fitted with British electronic equipment, and therefore attract a hostile attitude from America when we try to sell them to countries of, shall we say, a marginal political type.
  What has happened to the British electronic industry? I think that this is a matter of great importance to the aviation industry. Can we not stand on our own feet in this matter? Can we not see that our export potential is not jeopardised by our being forced, in many cases, to use American electronic equipment? I believe that many of our military aircraft are far too sophisticated to attract potential buyers among the smaller non-aircraft producing countries. I believe that we should look at that for marshalling our resources of aircraft.
  I should like to mention one aspect of civil aviation which never seems to get enough attention. That is the small aircraft. I am told by people in the industry outside the company concerned that the Beagle aircraft is a winner. Yet what steps are being taken by the industry to try to push that aircraft in the overseas market? It needs help at Government level. It needs people of sufficiently high calibre to assist the normal salesmen of these aircraft companies to make sales to Governments who are the major buyers of such light aircraft. It seems to me that we are missing out here in a very worth-while market. When I was listening to the accusations levelled against the Government by Opposition speakers, I could not help wondering how they reconciled their record over the past 13 years with the degenerating position of our aircraft exports.
  Giving figures in dollars for comparative purposes, in 1964 the United States is estimated to have exported 1,270 million dollars' worth, France 270 million, the Netherlands, using practically only one aircraft for their export endeavour, 250 million, Italy 80 million and ourselves 280 million. Bearing in mind the extraordinarily favourable position in which we were in the 'fifties in the export market, it seems that our aviation industry has fallen down on the job. Why is it that we have failed to get these export markets? I do not believe that our aircraft are not as good as American aircraft, but I believe that,
  274
  somewhere along the line, our selling methods fail. For this reason, I sincerely hope that the potential for aviation will be recognised by the industry itself.
  Reverting for a minute to South America, one line operating in Brazil links 140 towns and townships. There is a tremendous internal demand in some of these countries, and it is increasing all the time. Other Governments all over the world are beginning to achieve increased sales of passenger occupancy of their aircraft because there are more people financially in a position to travel. I believe that the right hon. Member for Monmouth was not right when he so confidently said that the industry inevitably depended upon service exports. I believe that we can and should look towards the potential of the civil aviation market during the next six, seven or eight years.
  7.8 p.m.
  Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: May I, at the outset, make a correction to a question of mine in the House on 1st February, when the Minister of Defence made his statement about metal fatigue in the Valiant wings. I misunderstood what he said because of the noise in the House and put a supplementary question to him, and I regret having done that. I thought he said that the Victor and the Vulcan would be affected, but he said that they would not be affected. I have written to the Minister and I should like to place that on record.
  The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) should inform himself better on one or two aspects of civil aviation. He said that B.O.A.C. ought to buy VC10s. They have bought a number of VC10s. It was the hon. Member's party who, last summer, denigrated this aircraft and criticised my right hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not so."] The hon. Gentleman must look to HANSARD. It is on record. We said at the time that the VC10, given the opportunity to come into service, would prove a remarkable aeroplane. The Chairman of B.O.A.C. wanted to cancel the lot, and he was backed by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, not all of them, but most of them. At any rate, we are glad to have it from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth that the VC10 is now doing better than the Boeing. The Super VC10 will start on

  275
  the Atlantic route on 1st April, and I have no doubt that we shall see a fine performance. I am told that it is flying ten hours a day and that it has reached almost the daily utilisation of the Boeing 707, which the latter took about four years to achieve.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the Beagle aircraft should have had Government support. I do not know whether he is aware of the fact, but a substantial order was placed by the former Government for the Beagle aircraft. The aircraft were flown out to Australia a week or two ago. It is now up to the firm to sell its wares to other countries.
  Mr. Snow: If I do not answer every point which the hon. and gallant Gentleman raises, it is not because I agree with everything he says. All I am saying is that the right hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) never came clean as to what political instructions had been given to B.O.A.C.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: No one could have done more for the British aircraft industry than my right hon. Friend. He may have overdone it in some ways, but he did a great deal for the industry, and that is recognised today. It is normal for anyone who follows an hon. Member to refer to his speech. The hon. Gentleman should not be too sensitive about the points I make. He has been here long enough.
  The Minister of Aviation made great play today with the fact that there is to be an order placed for a number of Comets, estimated at about 50 or rather more, with the Hawker Siddeley group for Coastal Command. He said that would cover production and design. While allowing a certain number of modifications, where would the design work come in on an aircraft built nearly ten years ago? I do not see how more than a handful of design staff could be used in producing the Comets for Coastal Command. Would not the better thing for Coastal Command be to buy the French Brequet? If we have to place orders abroad, we should give the French an order. The French have been buying British equipment for years. Every Caravelle sold has Rolls Royce Avon engines and a number of hydraulics and other equipment.
  276
  I refer to the placing of orders with the United States. We shall get nothing back from the United States in the way of orders. They will take the pickings from here, but they will give no orders. I should have preferred placing a foreign order with the French for their Brequets and carrying on with the HS681, to which I referred.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about the diversification of Short Brothers. The problem of Belfast has worried many of us who have been there to see for ourselves. The costs there are high because of the sea separating Ulster from this country; components have to be shipped or flown back. But how can we diversify a factory into the production of machine tools, as has been suggested, in hangar buildings about the height of this Chamber? These matters must be looked into in great detail in assessing what the plant is suitable for, but we should not tell the workers in Belfast that machine tools could be made in the existing factory. If the Government provide sufficient money to put up suitable plant, all well and good, but it is not easy to utilise existing aircraft premises for other forms of manufacturing. Handley Page have found that out in north London.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: I am surprised to hear the hon. Member say that. I was a toolmaker in Castle Bromwich in 1945 where we were producing Spitfires. In less than 12 months we turned over to producing motor cars.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Member is going back 20 years. Striking progress has been made since then. In 1945 the competition was not as keen as it is today, when everything must be produced at competitive prices.
  The Minister said this afternoon that there are about 14,000 design staff engaged in the industry and that 2,000 would be affected by the decisions already taken on the 681 and the 1154, and that if TSR2 were cancelled 1,500 to 1,700 would be affected. If all three aircraft were cancelled, what would the remaining 10,000 design staff do in the industry? It would be a phenomenal number of design staff to have available when there is no major project in the industry. We want further information about that.
  Mr. Norman Atkinson: Does the hon. Member for Knutsford—[Laughter.] I must apologise for that. Does the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) agree that, following the manufacture of aircraft, Fairey Aviation have manufactured both machine tools and nuclear engineering components in the same place where they produced aircraft?
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I accept the hon. Member's apology. I am blamed for many things. The hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) is a constituent of mine—and a very good one, too.
  I know the factory to which the hon. Member referred. Fairey sold out their aircraft business to Westlands. They have a very scientific organisation near Hounslow, and they are using old buildings—although not all of them are old. It can be done, but these are not the type of buildings which Messrs. Short Brothers have at Belfast.
  I want to warn the House about this so-called co-operation with the United States. We are told there is a possibility that the Americans will take the vertical lift engine. I am sure that they will. It was admitted in Washington only last week that Britain is at least two years ahead in this project, that the Americans have spent 10 to 20 times more than we have spent on it, and that they are at least two years behind us. Of course they will take it; that is the very thing that Americans do.
  Here I blame my right hon. Friend, who placed the prototype order for the Phantom. Why go to America? I do not disagree with the decision, but why say that we will place an order without doing some horse trading and getting an order in return? If the Government place quite a large order for the Phantom aircraft, they must insist on a substantial order being placed in this country.
  But the Americans do not do that. There is a tremendous lobbying taking place over there. They go further than that. They go out of their way to prevent the Germans or any other country from specifying British aircraft for N.A.T.O. I have tried to warn the House about this over many years. I admire the Americans and like them in many ways, but they are out to kill
  278
  the aero-space industry in Europe, and the electronics industry, too. Make no mistake about it. That is their intention, and this is the first step towards completing their plan. I ask hon. Members to be very careful in their approach to this problem.
  The first mistake which this Government made—almost the first thing they did when they came into office—was about the Concord. When the Concord project was debated originally—some time ago—the Labour Party did not at that time vote against it. No one would have complained if, on coming into office, they had quietly gone about evaluating this aeroplane to find out what the economics were, the possibility of sales, how accurate the specifications would be and whether the project could be improved in payload in the years ahead. But not a bit of it. They mentioned it in the Queen's Speech and made announcements that the project would he cancelled, and they asserted that it was only a prestige project. That was the clumsiest thing that has happened in this Parliament.
  I should like to read out the words used by the Prime Minister on television on 26th October. He had had 11 days to "look at the books" by that time.
  "Where we've sometimes fallen down is in our failure to give our scientists their heads and still more our failure to apply the results of scientific discovery in our industrial processes. Too often, you know, British discoveries have been developed overseas leaving us to pay royalties to their developers or, worse still, to import their products, or ask them to set up manufacturing subsidiaries in this country."
  If the Concord project had been cancelled, we should have found ourselves buying supersonic aircraft from the United States in the next ten years. B.O.A.C. would have had to have them.
  Look what happened about the Concord. The Minister had to go to Paris. He is one of the Ministers who has been pro-Europe in recent years. He had to go there to do the negotiation. But it was left to Mr. Clive Jenkins of the union and his counterpart in the French union to trip backwards and forwards, and we had the two unions carrying on the negotiations on behalf of the Government. It was a miserable affair. And then the Government had to climb down. It damaged British-French relations—there is no doubt about that.

  279
  Fortunately, there are indications that they are improving. General de Gaulle has spoken to the Prime Minister, and fortunately there is an improvement in that direction. It is very important for us to string along with the French; make no mistake about that. I quite agree that the Concord programme needs very careful watching and very careful costing so that we know the cost as it progresses. I am convinced that the payload of this aircraft will increase in the years ahead. I am convinced of that from talks which I have had with the technical people involved.
  I should like to tell the House what the Americans have said about the Concord. It is interesting that the Americans will probably build their own supersonic aircraft because they see the British and French aircraft going ahead. Mr. Robert Hotz, editor of the American magazine Aviation Week and Space Technology—they do not often say complimentary things about British or European aviation—wrote:
  "The Concord programme is the sharp tip of Britain's spearhead technology, pushing the state of the art across a wide spectrum of products, industrial processes and management techniques. To blunt this spearhead now appears to us an act of incredible folly. To justify Concord cancellation on economic grounds is a tragedy of penny-wise, pound-foolish philosophy."
  That goes for many things which have happened in the last three-and-a-half months. In October the Government took over a difficult balance of payments situation, but the situation was by no means impossible, for half the deficit was from overseas investment. By their methods since then they have lost confidence abroad, and they have also lost the confidence of the British public. They have shown that in recent week, not only in the by-elections, but in the Gallup polls as well.
  There is no doubt that the merging of firms in the aircraft industry five or six years ago was helpful to the industry. Larger projects were able to be tackled with greater teams of scientists, and so on. However, the weakness has been in recent years in the Ministry of Aviation itself. In saying that, I am not blaming the officials in the Ministry, because the advance in technology in this industry has been so rapid that it is impossible for men, however qualified
  280
  10 or 15 years ago, to keep pace with the progress of the industry. That was brought out clearly over the Ferranti business, when the Minister was quite incapable of costing or of keeping in touch with the project. I hope that, even at this stage, the Minister will seriously consider appointing outside cost accountants as consultants and place them in the factories to watch the projects—that is, if we have any projects left.
  I have no doubt that the industry could be skimmed, as it were. Probably 20,000 to 25,000 members of its labour force could be saved, and I dare say that even the motor car industry could save some labour and thus help the economy, possibly by the labour saved being used in the machine tool and other industries.
  Unfortunately, we have in the past faced up to the problems of the two air Corporations so that whenever they have wanted an aeroplane it has been tailored to suit their requirements, whether the VC10 or the Trident. However, when we have come to sell those aircraft to foreign buyers, we have often found that they are not suitable because of range and other difficulties.
  That happened with the Trident. Had the Mark II been in existence an order would probably have been obtained from Japan. As it was, such an order was lost. Consider the BAC111, an altogether different proposition; an aircraft which has been designed to meet world requirements. The industry is selling it well in spite of American competition.
  The TSR2 is in abeyance for a few months, we are told, but after the Minister's speech today I am not at all reassured by his remarks about this aircraft. I had the feeling that he was preparing us for the worst so that when the political climate gets a bit better—though I doubt whether that will happen—the Prime Minister will be able to say, "We have got over the 681 and the 1154, now let us scrap this one". I hope that that will not happen, because the tests on it are going extremely well. The airframe is probably a year behind the original date, but the electronic equipment, which represents rather more than one-third of the whole specification, has been built and tried out in a series

  281
  of Canberras, has proved highly successful and has done its work well.
  Anyone who saw the TSR2 on television last night, flying almost at ground level and at quite high speeds—remembering that it was about its twelfth flight—must have been impressed by this remarkable plane. The specification for the TSR2 and its requirement east of Suez dictates that it should be a long-range aircraft and that it must have great accuracy of bombing. One assumes that only high explosive weapons would be used, for which great accuracy would be required to destroy all targets, even in bad weather, and remit the information back to base.
  It has been said that the air marshals have ganged up against the TSR2 in favour of the TFX, but my information is different. I have been given to understand that when they were asked whether they would rather take 30 or 40 TSR2s or the full complement of 140 TFXs, they naturally said they wanted the TFXs. That is what I am told. In this connection, it should not be forgotten that the specification has hardly changed since it was originally written in 1957 or 1958. And do not let it be thought that the nuclear rôle of the TSR2 has cost us Bach a great deal of money, for in reality it represents a bonus, if it is required. It is a tactical strike aircraft, and a small and less sophisticated aircraft would not have the range to do the job or have the same accuracy in bombing.
  We are told that the TFX Mark II is probably the replacement, although it is not fully designed or costed. I recall taking part in a television programme on this subject about a year ago when the present Minister of Defence made great play of the fact that the TSR2 would cost £1,000 million. Based on the figures given by the present Prime Minister recently, that figure was probably only about £250 million in excess. At that time the Australians were here and were considering whether or not to buy the TSR2. The Australians thought that if the Labour Party gained power they might take action over the TSR2 and, being uncertain about the future of the aircraft, they did not order it.
  The party opposite did a great disservice to the British aircraft industry on that occasion and, while the President of
  282
  the Board of Trade seems to find my remarks on this subject amusing, I hope he realises that we are speaking of an industry which employs a great number of people.
  The TFX is an inferior aircraft, certainly the Mark I, compared with the TSR2. Having said that, let us consider the arithmetic in the Prime Minister's statement. He said that it would cost £750 million to develop and produce about 140 aircraft, that £300 million had already been spent on research and development, and it was admitted later, during Question Time, that £150 million would be the cancellation charges. That comes to £450 million, leaving £300 million to make up the figure given by the Prime Minister. I had hoped that the Minister of Aviation would have told us more about this. Since he is in his place, is he now prepared to comment on the figures? I will willingly give way if he wishes to intervene. It seems that he will not. He should, because the country has a right to know. I have been quoting the Prime Minister's figures and have shown that £300 million is the sum remaining.
  Having accounted for the research, development and cancellation charges, £300 million would be left to buy TFXs. I am told that the price to the Australians of the TFX is just over £2 million each; that is, for the Mark I. That would cost £280 million. On the figures we have we know that that would mean a saving of probably £20 million to the Government. What a price to pay to kill this great industry in Britain.
  I am alarmed that the Government are not going ahead with this aircraft. Why cannot they tell us, if a satisfactory fixed price can be brought about with BAC, that they will continue with it? Do they not have a duty to do so? Do they not have a duty to the designers and the workers, not only in the industry as a whole but to those whose work has made a tremendous impact on the design world, designing probably the most difficult aircraft ever to be built?
  As I said, the TFX Mark II is not yet designed. Indeed, it would pay the Americans to give the TFX to Britain, the whole lot, for we would have to buy spares and so on and, from the moment of acquiring those aircraft, we would forever after be in the clutches of the

  283
  American aircraft industry. I believe that that is their deliberate policy.
  Further, if these cancellations take place aircraft like the BAC III cannot be sold at their present price. There would have to be increases. Naturally, when aircraft of this type are going through the works, with military orders accompanying them, the overheads are met by the various aircraft involved. They all take their share. Obviously the overheads would be increased if these cancellations take place and it would be impossible to produce the VC10 or the BAC III. The Concord power plant would thus cost more because it is the same breed—if not the same, certainly extremely similar—as the Olympus and the TSR2. There is a complication there.
  My experience some years ago in the aircraft industry was that we can only retain our top men by getting them interested in exciting projects. They are not content to be transferred to Massey-Ferguson to bring out a new type of tractor at Coventry. They want to work on the very latest thing, just as the chemists do in their line. We shall lose these men to the United States—it has been bad enough in the past, but it will be far worse if the present policy is pursued.
  The Minister was far less than fair about the industry's exports. Since 1950 it has exported products worth £1,360 million. The figure was down last year because many deliveries were taking place for the home market—there was the VC10—but this year they are estimated at between £180 million and £190 million, as, against the Minister's figure of £150 million. The Minister went out of his way to give the worst possible interpretation. His figures are based on deliveries taking place in the next few months, and I do not see why he had to go out of his way to belittle the industry's efforts—
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: I felt is necessary to put the matter in perspective. I said, which is no more than the truth, that the industry's exports had fallen steadily each year since 1958, but that there was a prospect of an improvement. I said that our estimates were of an improvement to £150 million, and that the industry estimated the figure to be £180 million.
  284
  I hoped that the latter result would be achieved, but it is rash to say in mid-February that a hope is the same as an achievement.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: If the costing of the Ferranti apparatus by the Ministry is anything to go by, I would rather take the industry's figure of £180 million. I do not think that the Minister was present when I said that his Ministry would have to get help on its costings if he was to straighten out these affairs—
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is it not possible that the reason for this disparity in the figures is that the lack of confidence in the British industry created by the Government's activities with regard to the TSR2 and the Concord have jeopardised some of the orders that the industry expected to get, of which the best example is a £15 million order for the BAC111, which was almost signed up?
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I can give another example. Representatives of the Douglas Aircraft Company are in Australia trying to sell the DC9 against the BAC111, and it is reported that they say, "Why buy British aircraft? You will not be able to get spares in a few years' time"—all the result of what has happened since last October. Members of the party opposite have done us untold damage overseas. They must know, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade must know, how difficult it is today to sell anything abroad. It is competitive, and it is very hard work. There is no fun in exports. It is a tremendous job. I hope that the Government will take note of the difficulties of competing with the Americans. Vickers are very successfully getting orders for the BAC111. They need all the help they can get—not hindrance.
  The Plowden Committee is to make recommendations, quite rightly, after these major decisions are taken, but there was no mention in its terms of reference of the requirements of British civil aviation. Can we be told whether the terms of reference included anything relating to British civil aviation?
  There will undoubtedly be great redundancy, and I want to refer to the P1154 and the HS681. Britain has a lead of at least two years with the P1154 vertical take-off aircraft. It is estimated

  285
  by the United States that the Phantom delivery date is 1968. It has to be fitted with a Rolls Royce Spey engine, but the engine, in the form to be expected, is not yet built. I question very much whether the aircraft will arrive in 1968—with all the new modifications that are being made and a virtually new engine being built. Even the modifications for the Fleet Air Arm Phantoms will be considerable, and very costly.
  The HS681 is due for delivery in 1970. It has been prepared for take-off with a load of 40,000 lb. of military equipment from a 1.500 ft. unprepared jungle strip. The C130 is a ten-year old turbine propeller aircraft which can take off from a prepared 4,000 ft. strip. I remember being approached by Lockheeds early in the last Parliament. I was asked whether I, with other Parliamentarians, would go to America with my wife at the company's expense, to look at its products. I will not say who went, but I know that about ten Members from each side of the House went across there with their wives and had a fine "jolly" for a week or so at the expense of Lockheeds. I think that it is very regrettable.
  I never thought that Lockheeds would succeed in selling this old aeroplane to the Royal Air Force. It is unforgivable to have bought that aircraft. If there had been something more modern, it would have been one thing, but I do not think that hon. Members opposite can possibly accept the decision to buy this old aeroplane, nor do I think that the workers in the aircraft industry can accept it. The Government have not heard the last of that.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Is my hon. Friend aware that this aircraft will carry only about two-thirds of the load of the Belfast, which is also at present flying?
  Sir A. V. Harvey: We have been told this afternoon that the Belfast project is too expensive. I do not know the cost, but I do know that the Hawker Siddeley alternative—the HS802—is, if I may correct what was said a little earlier, rather more expensive than the C130, as would be expected with a new design, but not all that much. It has a longer range than the C130, and could be delivered in 1967 or 1968, as I hear someone say.
  286
  It was asked earlier: if we are in a jam, why not hire a limited number of aircraft? I remember suggesting many years ago to the Conservative Government, when we were short of transport aircraft, that they should buy 20 Globe-masters at that time to see them through. Let the Government do something like that, but do not let them give up the complete future of design in our British aircraft industry. The country will not forgive them if they go ahead with this plan.
  Rumour has it that when the Prime Minister went to the United States last December—and we are never told what is discussed between leaders of nations—Mr. Lyndon Johnson said to the Prime Minister, "You have economic difficulties in Britain. If you want finance you must cut out these rather exciting ventures in the aircraft industry, such as vertical take-off, and so on. We will take care of that for you." I hope that there will not be a sell-out to the United States for the sake of any long-term loan. I would rather seek taxation increase, or see us going short of anything.
  I remember the loan of 1946 which the Government of the day had. I did not object to them borrowing the money, but the terms were harsh. We will be paying it back for another thirty years, and we know that that Labour Government frittered the money away in eighteen months. We have to help ourselves. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to have second thoughts about the projects he seeks to cancel. If he cancels one, at least let him keep the other going at Hawker Siddeleys. To do otherwise will kill the design team.
  This is a very important debate, and I ask the Minister of Defence to reassure the House tonight about this great British aircraft industry. Of course it has made mistakes, but so has the American aircraft industry—there are many ventures of the American industry sitting in hangars as uncompleted prototypes. Fortunately, we have made no more mistakes than the United States. Let us pay credit to this great industry, and to those who work in it. Let us try to improve on it, use the skill and technology of which we heard so much from the party opposite last October, and so keep the industry alive.
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Edelman: The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) is a considerable technical expert in aviation. The doubts he has raised will have deepened anxieties on both sides of the House. Indeed, I say at the outset that I wish that this debate could have been conducted on a non-partisan basis, because this affects the future of a great national industry.
  The men who have been filling the Lobbies today—the aircraft workers who have marched in long files—have not needed the inspiration of an aircraft lobby to make them march. They have not needed, as has been suggested in one Sunday newspaper, the prompting of a group of aircraft manufacturers to encourage them to express their anxieties about their jobs. They are concerned about their jobs. They are legitimately concerned about their future.
  If the activities of any lobby had to be investigated in this connection, I should have thought that it would have been more proper to investigate the activities of the American lobby, on which the hon. Member for Macclesfield touched, to see what influences are being brought to bear on politicians and, indeed, on the British public and on the Press.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Edelman: No.
  Dr. Bray: My hon. Friend is casting aspersions on Members of the House.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Two hon. Members must not be on their feet at once
  Mr. Edelman: Then I will give way.
  Dr. Bray: My hon. Friend has suggested that Members of the House are in some way under the influence of the American aircraft lobby. Can he produce any shadow of justification for that statement?
  Mr. Edelman: I do not need to do any more than to speak of the activities of the Lockheed Company, which were referred to by the hon. Member for Macclesfield. That company arranged a very expensive trip to the United States, not to discourage anyone from liking
  288
  American aircraft, but, on the contrary, to promote the sale of American aircraft. That is a perfectly proper statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "When was this?"] The hon. Member for Macclesfield referred to the trip which took place a few years ago. It is well known. It needs no further elaboration.
  I do not want to be diverted from my main theme. I have mentioned that there is a powerful American aircraft lobby, and no one can deny that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.") It is perfectly clear. I must say that I for my part found no joy in the announcement my right hon. Friend made this afternoon that there is to be a joint development of the vertical lift engine. Again, the hon. Member for Macclesfield is right: we are handing to the Americans on a plate our most advanced project. Instead of developing our own highly advanced technological project and then in the future perhaps allowing the Americans to buy it or to develop it under licence, thus recouping our investment costs, we are to go in for this completely spurious joint development project in which we, who are two years in advance of the Americans technically, are allegedly to co-operate with them, whereas, in my view, the Americans will have the benefit of our experience and will get it very cheaply. I feel some anxiety about this. I feel anxiety for the workers in my own constituency, who are greatly distressed by the prognosis for the industry.
  I did not feel particularly edified by the exchange of statistics which was bandied between the Hawker Siddeley company and the First Secretary. It seemed to me that the statement issued by the management of Hawkers was premature, probably exaggerated, and in any case harsh. The fact remains, however, that in my own constituency of Coventry there are at least 5,000 aircraft workers whose jobs are at risk. In case anyone wants to challenge me on this point, I will quote from the announcement made by the divisional director and general manager. Speaking of the HS681, he said this:
  "If this project is rejected then there appears to be little hope of avoiding a rundown of employment at Baginton"—
  a factory employing nearly 5,000 men—
  "that will terminate with the closing of the factory. In this connection talks have already

  289
  started so that the run-down can be achieved with the minimum hardship to people who have served the company faithfully and well."
  If we are to do away with the HS681 and buy C130s as a so-called stop-gap, one is entitled to ask—stop-gap for what? What air freighter will there be in the 1970s? Will there be one of British design? I doubt it. It will certainly not be made at Baginton. If the HS681, also a modification of the HS681, is disposed of, the design teams will disperse. The technical men will seek other jobs. I am not sure that they will find them, but they will certainly seek them. However, if there is any future intention of resuscitatng the British aircraft industry, either locally in Coventry, or, in my view, generally, there will be the gravest problems. There will be enormous difficulties about recreating the labour force and design staffs which will have been dispersed.
  May I quote once again the example of Coventry? I promise to do so only this once. My concern in the matter is not simply a constituency or a parochial one. I am concerned about the future of the British aircraft industry as such, which I regard as being the great technological pacemaker of the whole of our engineering industry. If we do anything in our own generation which will result in this great industry being run down, we shall all bear a great responsibility before the history of our own country. In Coventry, the situation is this. Although there are nearly 5,000 men with their jobs at risk, there are only 280 engineering vacancies for skilled men. I have known the workers of Coventry very closely for 20 years. They are legitimately anxious. They are concerned about employment. However, from my conversations with them in this connection I can say that they are not concerned only about their own employment. They are patriotically concerned about the future of an industry which they regard as being essential, not only to the national economy, but to the national defence.
  Mr. A. R. Wise: I ask for this intervention only because I gather that I have no chance whatever of catching the eye of the Chair.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot rise to an intervention to make a speech.
  Mr. Wise: I do not intend to make a speech. I am only asking the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) if he would remind the House, because I believe it would be apposite, that the officials at the Coventry Employment Exchange, with whom I know he has had consultations, have said that it will take four years to clean up the difficulty over these redundancies.
  Mr. Edelman: I can neither confirm nor deny what the hon. Gentleman says. All I know that there is a grave problem in the Coventry area. It is useless for hon. Members of whatever party to say glibly that Coventry is an area of high employment. The fact is that there are relatively few vacancies and that there will be a serious employment problem in the area if the Baginton factory closes.
  I turn to an associated point. In Coventry last year the Aeronautical Department of the Coventry College of Technology was opened. It cost £100,000 to build and equip. Today, there is great difficulty in finding enough students to fill the vacancies which exist. Indeed, I am told by the principal that after great effort it has been possible to get only half the number of students for whom there are vacancies. This great college is closely linked with the Hawker Siddeley works. There are students on release for sandwich courses who come from the factory and go into the aeronautical department to improve their own technical knowledge. Not only them, but also young people who, in the past, would willingly have entered the aircraft industry, feeling that this was a pacemaker and a leading industry for the future, today are reluctant to do so, because they believe that there is no future in it. They are understandably anxious.
  Having said that, let me say that I believe that my right hon. Friend was absolutely right to order as soon as possible an inquiry into the aircraft industry. It is something which I myself have urged for many years. In my view, the aircraft industry has used the Exchequer as a sort of milch cow. It has extracted from the Treasury vast resources which were, in the event, unrequited. Any Labour Minister of Aviation would have had to institute an inquiry.
  One of the great problems in this matter is the fantastic escalation of costs.

  291
  The expression "escalation of costs" has become a sort of cliché, a catchword, but no one has so far tried to probe why there is in this industry such an escalation of costs. The answer must surely be related to the technique of procurement, which is such that, even with, or perhaps because of, the Zuckermann system of procurement, the effect is that great factory shops stand equipped with men, technicians and machines waiting for orders.
  Things are largely started as projects, continued from one month to another, and there is always the expectation that a major order will come along, but the result is that one has these factories standing equipped with technicians, machinery and management but producing no effective result simply because of a lack of decision in the Ministry of Aviation or the Ministry of Defence.
  In speaking of the escalation of costs, may I say, in parenthesis, that it would be well if my right hon. Friend were to examine his own Ministry to see whether some changes could be made there. I am told that there are over 100 senior principal scientific officers, each drawing a salary of about £3,000 a year. We have very few projects going. I wonder what they are doing. I think that this is a potential economy worth investigating. I understand, also—my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—that although the industry employs, roughly, 250,000 men, the Ministry of Aviation itself has 40,000 employees. If this is true, it seems a fantastic overhead and something which would be worth investigating.
  I mention these facts because it is clear that, if there had to be an investigation, the order of batting should have been the investigation first and then the results emerging from it. We do not hang a man first and then put him on trial to see whether he was really guilty.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: Perhaps I may be permitted to tell my hon. Friend that, although the permanent staff of my Ministry number approximately the figure which he gave, this is no way related to the work of the Ministry in relation to the aircraft industry. The 40,000 include the whole staff of London Airport, for instance.
  Mr. Edelman: I still cannot help feeling that it is a figure which, superficially at least, deserves investigation.
  But, if my right hon. Friend will forgive me, I had gone on from that point and was about to say that I warmly welcome the establishment of the Plowden Committee. I believe that an investigation should take place, but, on the other hand, I am entitled to ask whether the Plowden Committee will have any job to do. What my right hon. Friend took as the fixed points of the aircraft industry are the four projects, the Concord, the TSR2, P1154 and the HS681. They are more than fixed points. They represent the future pattern of the aircraft industry. If at this stage it is decided to cancel major projects, one is not, if I may reject my right hon. Friend's word, preempting but one is determining the future shape of the industry.
  All that Plowden will have to do will be to deal with certain left-over remnants and try to re-create them into a pattern. In other words, he will have not a real function, but merely a job of salvage. This would be the negation of a real investigation, and he should be described not as one asked to carry out an investigation but as one asked to do something of a post-mortem.
  I cannot help feeling that, in total, though salutary in certain respects, the debate which has taken place not only here but throughout the country, on television, in the Press, and so on, has not in other respects done the aircraft industry, the aircraft workers or Britain as a whole any good. My right hon. Friend said something to the effect—I think that these were his words, or I may be paraphrasing them—that the export prospects of the TSR2 are a "dead duck". I must say that I am not surprised. After all the local denigration which has gone on about the project, who would want to touch it at this stage with a barge pole? For my own part, having watched its progress with other members of the Parliamentary aviation group, and having gone to Weybridge, so to speak, at our own invitation, I must say that, when the TSR2 does go into production—it has done some remarkable trial flights, which are a credit to British aviation—those who have expressed doubts about it may well change their minds. So far from its export performance being negligible, I

  293
  think that, when we finally examine the costs for the TFX2 and the price of that is established, many people not only here but abroad may want to buy the TSR2 in preference to any of its competitors.
  Reverting to the employment situation, I have one regret which, perhaps, I ought to express. I wish that at an earlier stage the trade unions had been brought into the discussion and consideration of these products. It is admirable that the Prime Minister should invite the leaders of the aircraft industry to Chequers to entertain them at dinner and discuss with them the future of their industry, but the people primarily involved are the workers in the industry, and the reason why there is today a ferment of anxiety among the workers is simply that they have not been brought into the picture earlier.
  It may well be that, had they been brought into the picture earlier, they might conceivably have taken a view different from the one which I hold, but I still believe that, in an issue of this kind, it is vital that the men actually concerned with the projects should be brought into the picture and given a chance to express their view.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Is it too late to ask the unions to use their influence with the Government to reverse their silly decision? I am quite certain that the Concord decision was reversed because of pressure from the unions, as my hon Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) said. At the beginning of December, I was at the Sud-Aviation factory, at Toulouse, and people there asked me whether the Concord would be cancelled. I replied that it would not be, because the unions would bring pressure to bear to have the decision reversed. I think that this could happen again.
  Mr. Edelman: I can deal quite briefly with the question of the Concord. I am on record as having said at the outset that, when the Concord project was described in the Economic White Paper as a "prestige" project, using that word in a pejorative sense, I was taken aback because I could not help feeling that, in the field of civil aviation at least, the Concord supersonic aircraft was one of our most advanced technological pro-
  294
  jects and something of which this country should be proud.
  When I heard my right hon. Friend say, in announcing the Government's decision to proceed with the Concord, that we should now be going ahead with it because he had felt that we ought to give ear to the French arguments, I could not help feeling that it might have been better had he, at a much earlier stage, decided to go ahead after giving ear to the British arguments, which were equal and comparable to those of the French.
  I have been to France and talked with the French trade unions. I saw their faith in the project. I have been in contact with some of the French and British technicians concerned with the Concord. All I can say is that here was a great and inspiring project. It certainly should have been carefully accounted for and kept under close control, and my right hon. Friend was perfectly right to make sure that the rising costs of the project were carefully looked into and steps taken to hold them down.
  Having said that, it seems to me that after all the anguish and after all the heartache caused by the original description of the Concord as a prestige product, to go back to square one is to engage in a lot of theory and a lot of activity all to no end. I will say today that in 10 years we shall look back on the decision to go ahead with the Concord as one of the great and vital technological decisions of our times.
  I have always been ardently in favour of an Anglo-French co-operation in aviation and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) recalled a joint letter which he and I sent to The Times in 1957 urging that there should be a kind of functional co-operation with France in aircraft projects.
  Mr. David Webster: The hon. Gentleman has referred to a continuation of the Concord project, but my understanding is that we still have only two prototypes agreed on. Is that correct?
  Mr. Edelman: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to go into that in any detail. It is sufficient that we can

  295
  all welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to proceed with the project, as he has announced.
  I merely say that the decision to go ahead with the Concord sets the pattern and the style of our future co-operation. We, with a great aero-engine industry, and the French, with their much smaller industry but with their great adaptability, have enormous room for co-operation, this kind of functional co-operation between our two countries. In that way, if we are determined to have it, we can have the embryo of a European air industry which would be able to look the Americans in the face.
  I want now to turn to what is perhaps the most significant part of my remarks, for I want now to discuss the HS68I, because it is this aircraft which most directly concerns my own constituency. There has been announced the decision to buy the C130 in preference to waiting for the HS681, if I may put it that way. The specification of the C130 has already been decided. It is a relatively slow turbo-prop. The HS681 is designed to give it a speed of 100 knots faster than the C130. The C130 is an obsolescent aircraft. It is an aircraft which requires a long take-off and an aircraft which has virtually nothing at all in common with the OR351, which was the original project.
  It is facile to say that because it is possible to buy cheaper aircraft abroad we ought, therefore, promptly to get out of the aircraft industry. It is very easy to say that because aircraft are costly—and they are very costly—we ought, therefore, to buy the fag end of an American production run simply because the Americans are prepared to sell us an aircraft which they ought to give away That is very tempting, but we ought to consider what is the ultimate cost. I could go through the whole range of the invisible loss which we would endure—the loss of employment, the dispersal of technicians, the loss of "know-how", the loss of the ability to proceed with technological activity on the frontiers of knowledge.
  All those things are elements which the accountants and statisticians do not put into their books, but, nevertheless, they are real and if we believe that an operational requirement has any purpose at all,
  296
  and if we are to operate a strategy of arranging our aircraft in such a way that they can operate east of Suez, as has been suggested, it is perfectly clear that the C130 is not the aircraft we need and that the one we need is one with a very short take-off capacity, and fast; in other words, an operational requirement to which the HS681 is the answer.
  What is true of the HS681 is equally true of the TSR2. There is a great deal of sleight of hand in this argument. It is expressed in this way: instead of like being compared with like, like is constantly being compared with unlike. In the case of the TSR2, it is said that there is an American aircraft which can be bought more cheaply. When one asks which aircraft that is, one is told that it is the TFX, but when one studies the specification one finds that it is not the TFX which is a comparable aircraft, but the TFX2, which is still on the drawing board. When one asks what is the alternative to the HS681, one is told that it is the C130, but what is being offered is not a comparable aircraft but something totally different.
  The idea of the HS802 is not an improvisation or a last minute afterthought, as has been suggested, but is merely the answer to an alternative specification. The HS802, which consists of the modification of the HS681 by introducing the common wing with the Comet Mark 4, is something which the company has put forward in answer to the alternative specification implicit in the fact that the Government are prepared to buy the C130. The advantage of the modified aircraft, the HS802, in the first place is that it is a pure jet, and so much faster than the C130, and because of that the cost effectiveness of the modified HS681 will be as four to three compared with the C130.
  If one goes into the question of costs, one will find that even if it can be stated purely statistically that the C130, at presumably near give-away prices, will be cheaper than the modified HS681, if one introduced the element of cost effectiveness, there will be a fairly close balance between the HS802 and the C130.
  I am told by my friends in Coventry that if they were given the job they would show that they could produce this aircraft just as quickly as it would be Possible to produce the modified C130 in order to put it into British service. There is one

  297
  factor which has been overlooked in this discussion and it is that the C130 will not be picked up and brought over here and put into service with the Royal Air Force. It will have to be modified. There is a suggestion that British engines will be put into the C130. That may be admirable, but if that is so, it will clearly mean certain structural modifications. Are we to have American electronics in the system, or are we to have a British system in the C130? If we are to switch over to American aircraft from a major project like the HS681, which would have taken a good deal of British electronic equipment, the cancellation of the HS681 will be a blow not only to the aircraft industry, but to the electronics industry.
  These are very serious matters. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) is here. A few years ago, I went to see him, because in 1962 there was already grave anxiety in Coventry, because even then the idea of buying the C130 was being studied at the Ministry of Defence. I went to see the Minister because it seemed to me that if we were to buy that aircraft it would be a very grave blow to the future of the British aircraft industry. I should like to quote a fairly short letter which I wrote to The Times shortly after that visit, because I think that it sums up what was true then and what I believe to be true today.
  On 3rd September, 1962, I wrote:
  "At a time when the British aircraft industry is entering into a phase of recession, with thousands of skilled workers and technical staff facing redundancy in the coming year, we write to express our anxiety at reports that the Government contemplate the equipment of the Royal Air Force with U.S. transport aircraft. It is now two years—"
  and this was written in 1962—
  "since Whitworth Gloster Aircraft Ltd., of Coventry, presented its submission to make a transport aircraft to the operational requirement 351. The hopes of large numbers of British workers as well as the future of an important section of the aircraft industry depend on the Government giving contracts for this work to British firms.
  The economists' argument in favour of a run-down of the British aircraft industry is that the redeployment of the national labour force will benefit the overall economy. In fact, there are already today former aircraft workers of Whitworth Gloster whose skill has been turned from making precision equipment to making vending machines which, normally, could be made by girls."
  Incidentally, I hope that nothing of that kind could happen again.
  298
  My letter continued:
  "May we therefore ask, through you, that the Minister of Defence, during his visit to America, should not yield in the name of defence integration or of financial stringency to the high-pressure demands of the U.S. aircraft companies to supply the strategic freighter which the British industry is supremely able to manufacture itself. To do so will reduce a wide area of our aircraft factories to the status of repair shops. It will mean the waste of skilled manpower. And, above all, it will be a wound to the British aircraft industry from which it will take a decade to recover".
  I cannot help feeling that the right hon. Member for Monmouth must take a heavy responsibility personally for the fact that there was this inordinate delay from 1960 to 1963 in ordering the HS681. If the HS681 today is not in production, the right hon. Gentleman and the Ministry of Defence of that day must be held responsible.
  In any inquiry into this matter, it is absolutely vital that we should know why the great Baginton factory was kept just ticking over, and all the overheads and costs were escalating during the whole of this period and no decision was made. Is it because the Gibb-Zuckerman procedure is bad? I believe that it is and that it should be investigated. Something should be done so that when issues of this kind arise and procurements have to be envisaged there is somebody who can make a decision and who does not hide behind the proliferation of committees to which all these projects have been referred.
  Somebody is guilty and must take responsibility for the fact that the HS681 is not in existence today. Having established where the guilt lies, I believe that we must be very careful that no irreversible action is taken today, because there are certain projects in respect of which, if they fall below a critical level, it will not be possible to reverse the process of running down. If that happens, it will be a death blow to the aircraft industry, and my right hon. Friend, enthusiastic about the aircraft industry though he is, will be known not as the Minister of Aviation, but as the gravedigger of the aircraft industry.
  For the sake of the aircraft workers who have faith in the Government, and who believe that under a Labour Government their talents and abilities

  299
  could find scope to raise the British aircraft industry to a pre-eminent place in the world, I ask the Government to think again. The aircraft workers trust my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I hope that he will show that he trusts them.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: Everyone in the House will agree that the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) has presented his case in a sensible and reasonable manner and that the Government should pay a great deal of attention to what he said. I sympathise with him very much in the position in which he finds himself, with so many workers in his constituency whose livelihoods will be affected by the Government's decision.
  My quarrel with the Minister is not so much that he has decided to cancel two projects which some people claim are of crucial importance to the British areo-space industry. It might be possible to demonstrate that the other projects which the industry has in mind might be of greater advantage from the national point of view. This is something about which it is difficult to argue in the House because we have not the detailed knowledge which would enable us to express an opinion. My quarrel with the Minister is more fundamental.
  I do not think that before this decision was taken there was an adequate assessment of the military needs. I will come to that point later. I do not think that there has been sufficient appreciation of the danger that we shall fall under American technological domination. And although I was delighted to hear the Minister say that M. Jacquet is to visit London early next week, the Government have shown no sign of accepting the proposals which we made for political initiative on the formation of a European aircraft agency.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) that there has been inadequate discussion of this downgrading of the military requirements. Until this review, it was thought that we needed a vertical take-off fighter and a short take-off and landing freighter for the kind of war in which we would be involved in future in remote areas of
  300
  the world where even Dakota strips would not be available. Now, as hon. Members have said, we can apparently do with a freighter designed 10 years ago, which is obsolescent in the United States and which comes nowhere near to reaching the original requirement and a fighter which needs acres of concrete runway.
  The Minister said that there was no real military requirement for the HS681, but it seems doubtful to me whether this is the real reason for the decision. I wonder whether it was taken purely on the ground of cost. I should like the Government spokesman who is to reply to the debate to give a clear answer to this question. Is it contended now that the specifications of the 681 and the 1154 were unnecessarily sophisticated when drafted, or that for some time to come the forces must make do with weapons and logistic systems which are inferior by the standard of real need? That is the critical question which should be answered. If the first is true, why was not the British industry given the opportunity of tendering to the easier specifications which are now thought adequate for the next few years?
  There is something to be said for the Phantom because we have the advantage that both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force will have the same aircraft, and we have been promised that the maximum use will be made of British components, including the engines. I accept the Minister's statement that even if the 1154 had gone ahead an interim type would have been needed to replace the Hunter.
  I come to the deplorable decision to order the Lockheed 130. I think that this is deplorable because if it is the type of aircraft which we need the British aircraft industry should have been given the chance to tender against the specifications. Most hon. Members who have spoken made out a case for the 802. I do not intend to repeat what has been said. However, inadequate attention has been given to the claims of the Short Belfast. I apologise to the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. McMaster) for making this point; I am sure that he would have made it had he the opportunity to speak. Both the present Government and the previous one seem determined to starve Shorts out of existence, even though the nation is a 70 per cent. shareholder in the company.

  301
  It is all very well for the Minister to talk, as he did in his opening speech, of giving fresh work to the factories of Short Brothers in Belfast to replace what they will lose on the military side. I do not believe that this can be done in the time scale about which we are thinking. The Minister told me in answer to a Written Question this afternoon that there would be negligible redundancy in Short Brothers during 1965. However, he amplified this in his speech by saying that in 1966 the situation would be much worse and that the consultants would take a long time to go into the alternative manufactures which might be capable of using the production facilities available in that company. Once they have reported to the Minister, the decisions which he makes on their advice will not be implemented overnight. It must be realised by people in Northern Ireland that this decision not to order the follow-on Belfast means unemployment in the Short Brothers and Harland factory.
  The developed Belfast freighter would do everything that the Lockheed C130E can do and a great deal more besides. It has a slightly better range and a 70 per cent. larger payload. It can use 2,000 ft. grass runways and it can take all the items on the Army's air portability list, whereas the Lockheed C130E can take only about three out of four of them.
  I do not think that if the Army had had its way the Lockheed C130 would have been ordered. The Army much preferred the Belfast. It is significant that when the loading trials of the Belfast took place, there were two generals present but only one squadron leader. I feel that the influence of the Air Force is behind this decision.
  The Lockheed may appear to be a good deal cheaper, and the Minister remarked that there was a vast cost differential between the two aircraft, but this probably arises from the fact that the Lockheed is being offered at a knockdown price, for reasons which I will go into presently. Even in the short term, however, it may prove to be a bad bargain. In the first place, 10 Lockheeds are needed to do the same work as six Belfasts; and the nation must bear the cost of unemployment pay for the
  302
  thousands of people who will be thrown out of work in Northern Ireland in 1966.
  In the long term, the implications are much more serious. The Americans are not offering us this aircraft at bargain-basement prices because they want to help the Government in the review of prestige projects which was promised in the "Brown" Paper. The Americans' motive is that of the Trojan horse. They want to get into this market so that, ultimately, they can put an end to British competitors in aero-space once and for all.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft). I am not a chauvinist and I do not believe that the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy should never order aircraft from any other source, including America. Here, however, we have a requirement which is within the capability of the British industry. Therefore, the Government should reconsider the Lockheed C13OE commitment as a matter of urgency.
  Mr. McMaster: The hon. Member has referred to the Belfast and to the criticism, of which there has been rumour, by the Air Force. Is he aware, however, that all Royal Air Force officers who have flown in it have highly praised its handling qualities?
  Mr. Lubbock: I am delighted to hear the hon. Member say that and I hope that the Minister will take note of his remarks.
  I should like now to deal with the TFX and the TSR2. I agree with those who have said this afternoon that it is highly misleading to talk about these aircraft as though they were identical in performance and that the only difference between the two is one of price. That is untrue. One of our difficulties in discussing a matter like this in the House of Commons is that, for security reasons, the detailed performance figures of the aircraft are not published. All that I should like to say is that the main difference is one which would have a major bearing on the survivability of the aircraft in certain rôles.
  As to cost, the figures given last week by the Prime Minister should not be accepted without the most searching examination. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) referred to these figures and I have been doing some calculations of my own which I

  303
  should like to put to the Minister, who obviously disagreed with those that have just been put to him. The Prime Minister said that the total research and development cost of the TSR2 would be £300 million and that the total bill, if we had 150 production aircraft, would be £750 million. That means that the production aircraft would cost about £3 million apiece.
  My first question to the Minister is whether this £3 million per copy for the TSR2 is based upon present-day costs or includes a factor which allows for escalation in wages and raw material costs to extend over the delivery period If so, will the Minister tell us what this factor is and whether a similar factor has been added to the costs which are being quoted for the TFX?
  Leaving aside the question of whether we are talking about the TFX Mark I or Mark II, I will make my comparison on the basis of the TFX Mark I. Since that is not actually the aircraft that we are talking about, I am being generous to the Prime Minister in basing my comparison upon it. The Evening Standard reported last Friday that the contract for the TFX had already risen in price from 6,000 million dollars to 10,000 million dollars and Flight states that the TFX electronic system has gone up in price by 100 per cent. over the original estimates. It seems highly unlikely, therefore, that the Americans would be able to offer us this aircraft at a price any less than that negotiated by the Australians last year. If that were possible, there is still something wrong with the Prime Minister's arithmetic when he claims that the substitution of the TFX for TSR2 would save us £250 million. He must have been using some of the matchsticks left behind by his predecessor.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: I wonder whether, in his assessment, the hon. Member has also taken into consideration the fact that the Government would probably have to pay considerable compensation for some 30 electronic firms who are engaged either directly by contract or in sub-contracting and who must have spent vast sums of money on research.
  Mr. Lubbock: I shall do this sum on the basis that there would be no cancel-
  304
  lation charges. I am being very cautious in this arithmetic. If we paid no more for the TFX than the Australians did, 150 of these aircraft would cost, by my reckoning, £286 million. If we add this to the £300 million research and development estimate for the TSR2, and allowing nothing whatever for cancellation charges, the total bill would be £586 million. That compares with the figure given by the Prime Minister in his speech of £750 million if we had the TSR2. Even on that basis, therefore, being as cautious as one can be, the saving is £164 million and not £250 million. It is important to establish how that arithmetic arose and whether these figures have been, I will not say "cooked", but adjusted in some way to improve the strength of the case.
  But that is not the whole story. In thinking about this, have the Government taken into account the burden on our balance of payments which would be imposed over many years? Have they thought about the consequences of can-cancellation for the British Aircraft Corporation? It seems quite likely that this company would go out of business altogether as a producer of civil aircraft and the prospects for the BAC111, which is selling very well in overseas markets, would be totally eliminated.
  In Britain, as in the United States, the industry depends upon having about 75 per cent. of its production in the form of military orders and 25 per cent. in the form of civil orders. If a company is deprived of virtually the whole of its military contracts—and that is what we are talking about in the case of the TSR2—it cannot possibly survive on civil work alone, because many of the items of overhead expenditure are indivisible and cannot be reduced pro rata to suit a smaller programme. For example, one cannot have 25 per cent. of a wind tunnel. One must have the whole wind tunnel which is used equally for military or civil work.
  The position of Hawker-Siddeley is rather easier than that of the British Aircraft Corporation because it has not got all its military eggs in one basket, and the cancellation of the P1154 and the HS681 ought to be compensated for to some extent by the orders for the Maritime Spey-engined Comet and the P1127, yet on the decisions announced so

  305
  far Hawker-Siddeley is much more affected than the B.A.C.
  That brings me to the question of what the total employment within the industry should be in the long term, and this is something which we have not discussed this afternoon, and on which there has been no statement of policy from the Minister. I think that even the most ardently patriotic of us would have to admit that the aircraft industry has absorbed a disproportionate share of our nation's resources over the last few years, both in capital and skilled manpower, that is, if one takes it in relation to the returns that we get from it, and the Minister's figures this afternoon went some way to show that. But in saying that, I am not being so much critical of the industry but of the defence Departments and the air Corporations which I think have ordered aircraft which could not be easily sold in overseas markets, and the result of that over the years has been short production runs and therefore high development costs per unit.
  If we are to be successful in correcting this tendency in the future, there will have to be some reduction in the number of people employed. I can well understand the anxiety of the workers who might be affected, but I think that the Government should now direct their efforts to ensuring that the transition can be accepted with the minimum of hardship, rather than to keeping people in jobs where there may be no useful work for them to do. I agree with those who say that we must avoid taking decisions which would prejudice the work of the Plowden Committee, but we cannot wishfully imagine that any sensible solution could involve the maintenance of an aircraft industry employing more than 270,000 people.
  What then is, or should be, the rôle of the British aircraft industry? It has to produce military aircraft to suit the nation's defence requirements. It has to produce civil aircraft for the air Corporations. It must make a substantial contribution to the export drive, and I agree with those who have said that 1964 was not typical. Finally, it must act as the spearhead for new technologies.
  I would not place too much emphasis on that last point, because I agree largely with David Fishlock in his article in the "New Scientist" recently where he showed
  306
  that the benefits attributable to fall-out as it is called in this country, or spin-off as it is called in the United States, have been rather difficult to demonstrate, and where they have been directly attributable to aero-space research they have been rather trivial.
  Going through the rest of these headings, it is clear that if we try to achieve them on a purely national basis the British taxpayer will have to pay through the nose, and we will get this increase in the proportion of the gross national product which we are devoting to military aircraft requirements over the next few years to the end of the decade.
  There is at the moment a school of thought which favours co-operation with the United States. I think that the new arrangement which has been announced this afternoon for vertical take-off engines could have great dangers for the British aircraft industry. Could it not happen that the "know-how" on vertical take-off in which we lead the world both on deflected thrust and small lift jet engines could be accumulated by the Americans through this arrangement at no cost to themselves? We could not be the gainers from that, unless we were in return receiving some technological benefits from their industry which we have not got at the present time? The V.T.O. engine was the only component of this agreement to which the Minister particularly referred. I think that if this is the answer of the Government and of the party opposite, we must recognise exactly what is involved.
  I have already referred to the motives of the Lockheed Company in offering us the C130E at knock-down prices. It is obvious that if the Government pursue this policy which they are beginning to follow no partnership of equals can emerge. The British aircraft industry's rôle will develop into that of subcontractors to the American giants, except in a few limited and well-defined spheres, such as light aircraft, and we can begin to dismantle the design and development teams which have produced world-famous aircraft such as the Viscount, the BAC111, the Canberra and the TSR2.
  If, on the other hand—and I believe that this is the solution—Britain continues to move towards Europe, the skill and "know-how" of our major engine

  307
  and airframe manufacturers will have a central position in the new partnership. And once having recognised this fundamental distinction between the two alternatives which face this country, taking up with the United States, or taking up with Europe, two consequences follow. First, we have to appreciate that competition can no longer be sustained within the boundaries of one nation, and that if we are to meet this threat of American technological domination we can no longer afford the luxury of two major engine and two major airframe producers.
  I realise that that is not a popular thing to say to the industry, but I say that its arguments do not stand up to examination, when it is so obvious that the real threat of competition is coming not from within the boundaries of our nation, but from the giants across the Atlantic such as McDonell and Lockheed.
  In my opinion, the real opposition to this proposal stems from the subconscious desire felt within these organisations to preserve their corporate identities. Secondly, it is necessary to adopt new machinery for integration of the European aero-space industries. Until recently one could have said that the industrial relationships across the Channel were very good, while the political relationships were mediocre.
  The Concord was not initially a Government project, although it suited the Conservative Party to back it when it felt that it would help our negotiations to enter E.E.C. Similarly, the P45 and the 200-seat airbus—projects on which we hope to co-operate with the French, and, perhaps, other Europeans—did not start as Government ideas but as negotiations between manufacturers long before there was any likelihood of Government support. Now there is apprehension in French political circles, as time is in England, about United States technological imperialism. The French had a severe shock recently over Machines Bull—one of the foremost computer firms in France—which has now come under American influence. This was a great blow to French national pride.
  For this and other reasons the political climate in France is ready for a fresh approach, and it is up to Britain to take the initiative, because of the damage done
  308
  to Anglo-French relations in connection with the Concord project when the Government took office. What is needed now is a radical departure from the idea of ad hoc collaboration on a few projects that happen to have evolved along parallel lines in the two countries, and a move towards the formulation of mutually agreeable specifications, both military and civil, at a much earlier stage.
  It is purely fortuitous that Britain and France, and also, perhaps, Germany, have requirements for a strike fighter-cum-trainer with variable geometry. Why should not there be this sort of preliminary thinking, planned between us? Why should not other European nations with production facilities participate in these arrangements? B.A.C. and Sud have already discovered that the disadvantages of split production and the language barrier can be very much more than compensated for by the bigger market. Let us consider the 200-seat airbus which has been talked about. It could be sold not only to B.E.A. and Air France, but to AlItalia, K.L.M., Sabena, Lufthansa and, perhaps, S.A.S. If orders from all these airlines could be guaranteed as a result of production—
  Mr. Webster: I agree with the point which the hon. Member is making about bringing in these other countries, but if we are to put pressure on other countries' Governments and on our air Corporations to buy the things, we must allow industry to come in on the exercise.
  Mr.Lubbock: Certainly I hope that I did not give the impression that the industry was wrong in taking the initiative that it did. I merely say that it was pure luck that these projects on which we are now co-operating evolved along parallel lines in the two separate countries. We need some machinery in which industry would participate which would enable us to formulate these general requirements at an early stage. All the European airlines might decide to purchase such an airliner if it were produced jointly in the countries concerned, and then research and development costs could be recovered over a large enough initial production programme to make the aircraft competitive with anything produced in the United States.
  Therefore, we on the Liberal bench say that the Government should discuss these ideas with France, as a start, and

  309
  that a European aircraft agency should be proposed as an initial step towards common procurement policies. Some people will say that the idea of common procurement has not worked so far in N.A.T.O. and that in spite of agreed military specifications, when it came to placing orders for the aircraft national considerations overrode those of cooperation.
  Although that is true, all it shows is that we cannot depend on N.A.T.O. type machinery in this new venture, but must give serious consideration to the idea of placing procurement funds in the hands of the central agency. It is not for me to spell out in detail what should be the terms of reference of such an agency or what sacrifices of national sovereignty it would be necessary for us to make as the price of the new arrangements. That is a matter for discussion between the Governments concerned. I am saying that the time is right for a fresh approach of this kind to be made, and that, at any rate in Paris, influential people are thinking on the same lines. It is clear to me and, I venture to say, to many people working in the industry that while some contraction cannot be avoided, the very survival of the industry depends upon our taking this initiative now. In a few months of office this Government could wreck the one chance facing them now which may never be repeated.
  8.41 p.m.
  Mr. John Rankin: I must necessarily condense much of what I had hoped to say, but I think one point is worth mentioning. I have heard every speech made in this debate, including that of the Minister, and from whichever side of the House hon. Members have spoken, the only person I have heard supporting completely the policy of the Minister was the Minister himself.
  That, of course, shows clearly that hon. Members on this side of the House, even though there may be numerical difficulties about the Division figures, can still speak their minds freely. When it comes to the moment of choice we shall, of course, march, quite properly, behind our Front Bench leaders.
  I have wares to sell, like most hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. Things which have been said remind me of some ventures that I
  310
  made in this House shortly after the war, in 1947 the industry which we have been discussing was concentrated largely on what we call the Home Counties. Little of it was outside that part of England.
  There have been one or two things said tonight about which I should have liked to say something more severe than I shall in this short speech. At that time I approached a colleague who has now ascended to very high office outside this House—Mr. John Freeman. He was then at the Board of Trade. He may now have a title, I am not sure. I suggested to him that this concentration of the industry was unfair to the rest of the country and that there should be a Government effort to get the industry away from the Home Counties towards the North and into Scotland.
  The Government of the day, or at least the Minister, decided on that expansion. We had got the industry moving up towards Preston and the North and out towards Bristol in the West, and into Yorkshire, when, unfortunately, the Tories came to power, which stopped the expansion. At that time we had in Scotland a maintenance establishment employing 500 persons. We also had a youthful industry growing up at Prestwick employing 2,000 persons. During the period round about 1953, the Conservative Government of that time destroyed the maintenance base at Renfrew and completely put an end to that budding part of the aircraft industry in Scotland. At the same time, while they were encouraging it in other parts of the United Kingdom—in Northern Ireland and in England—they refused to give any help whatsoever to the Prestwick development. It gradually disappeared over the years and is now non-existent.
  Because of these facts, I was seized of a statement which my right hon. Friend made. He said, and I welcome it, that the industry will not necessarily be reduced, as a result of the policy which the Government propose, below the present level by 1967. He went on to contrast the distribution of the industry in the United States with that in this country, by telling us that at home the industry was spread more widely over this country. I took note of that because I wondered exactly what was meant by "this country", in view of the fact that in the part of the country from which I

  311
  come—the area which I represent—there is no aircraft industry whatsoever. I want to make it quite clear to my right hon. Friends that this is a just grievance which we have in Scotland. It is my business to ventilate it.
  We have the operating side. The maintenance base has gone, and so has the little aircraft centre at Prestwick, with the result that, out of a total of 271,000 who are now employed in the industry at this moment—265,900 in the companies and the Corporations at the airports and in the facility work; over 5,000 in the airports under the Ministry of Aviation and 567 in the headquarters of the Ministry of Aviation at the various airports and the other parts of the industry—13,000 only are employed in Scotland at present. Since the figure of 13,000 was produced and given to me, it has dropped by 1,000. So all we have today is 11,000 persons employed on aero-engines by Rolls-Royce, and 1,000 in the other phases of the industry.
  I know that the industry is going through a reformation, but I was assured by my right hon. Friend that that reformation will not affect the total numerical strength of the numbers employed in it. I hope that he will keep in mind the position in Scotland when jobs are redeployed, as they will be, particularly in view of the fact that in Scotland at this moment we have 70,000 people unemployed, which is a very severe figure.
  I made a little agreement, to which, perhaps, I should not refer, about the length of my speech. I am sorry that it is somewhat restricted. I want to say this before I sit down.
  My own union commonly known as A.S.S.E.T., and the Draughtsmen's and Allied Technicians' Association, who met us last week, have produced a statement which I have in my hand. It is supported by A.S.S.E.T. I should draw my right hon. Friend's attention to two points which D.A.T.A. put forward in the statement, which I believe has been sent to my right hon. Friend. The first paragraph reads:
  "The Draughtsmen's and Allied Technicians' Association, which is the trade union representing the research and design staffs employed in the aircraft industry, expresses its concern at those parts of the Government's statement which plan to replace military aircraft of British design with those of American manufacture."
  312
  If I understood my right hon. Friend correctly, D.A.T.A. have no reason to fear any such happening. There will be no replacements but a collaboration in the production of aircraft, because costs have reached such a level that it is impossible for any country, other than such huge aggregations such as America and Russia, to go ahead alone. The first collaborators were right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they put forward the Concord proposals, which were based on collaboration between Britain and France.
  The last paragraph reads:
  "It is not in Britain's interest to depend upon foreign suppliers for major items of defence equipment. Such a policy will exacerbate balance of payments difficulties, expose the country to exploitation on services and spares and tend to make Britain a satellite of the United States of America."
  That is something which I should oppose. But if I have followed my right hon. Friend correctly I have no reason to fear such a happening; because he definitely said that that will not happen. If necessary, I hope that that will be confirmed in the winding-up speech.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Mr. Maude.
  Mr. McMaster: On a point of order. You will be aware, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that only about one-third of the Members seeking to speak in the debate have been called to do so. Unlike the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), I have a big aircraft constituency—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. McMaster: Further to that point of order.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There can be nothing further to a point of order which, in fact, is not a point of order.
  Mr. McMaster: I had not reached my point of order. Is it possible, under the rules of order, to extend the debate so that more hon. Members can take part in it and represent the views of their constituents?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid it is not. Mr. Maude.
  8.56 p.m.
  Mr. Angus Maude: Perhaps the most interesting part of the debate has been, as the hon. Member

  313
  for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) said, the surprising lack of any defence of the Government's policies relating to the aircraft industry by anyone except the Minister of Aviation. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) felt strongly that the aircraft workers in his constituency had been given a raw deal by the Government. As I understood him, he felt that he had been misled into making them promises which the Government were preventing him from honouring.
  Mr. Maurice Orbach rose—
  Mr. Maude: I have a lot to say and I do not propose to begin giving way at this stage of the debate. The Minister of Aviation referred to the difference between hope and achievement in the aircraft industry. This is something which we can discuss. But if there is a difference between hope and achievement in the industry, there is certainly a difference between promise and achievement in Labour's election campaigns in constituencies with big aircraft interests.
  The Prime Minister, in an exchange earlier today with my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneyeroft)—
  Mr. Archie Manuel: A very good one, too.
  Mr. Maude: —certainly appeared to have accepted a wide interpretation of the new rules of cricket umpiring; that a batsman must leave the crease without a decision if he thinks he is bowled out. However, the Prime Minister was, so far as he went, on a perfectly good point. He said that he had qualified his statement about the TSR2 when speaking to the electors of Preston in respect of such matters as cost. That is right. That paragraph was in his Press hand-out and was reported in the Press, but the point with which he did not deal, and which he did not wait to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth deal with, was the fact that in the leaflet circulated by the Labour Party to the aircraft workers of Preston there was absolutely no such qualification at all. In a borough in which the Labour Party succeeded in winning one seat, it is no good the Labour Party blinking the fact that
  314
  a flat and absolutely unqualified pledge was given.
  Mr. Orbach rose—
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Member has not been here for very long during this debate. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Orbach rose—
  Mr. Maude: I must get on.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Maude: Hon. Members opposite cannot take it. [Interruption.] But there is no doubt that they are going to have to listen to this sooner or later. They must hear just what promise was made. It is headed:
  "Harold Wilson tells TSR2 workers, Your Jobs are guaranteed under Labour. Labour will not"—
  and this is in large letters—
  "cancel the TSR2."
  There is then a bit about my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery), and then—
  Hon. Members: Read it.
  Mr. Maude: Certainly, with pleasure. It states:
  "Amery knows he will not be Minister of Aviation after next Friday."—
  [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but they should take heed of this, for it goes on:
  "His lie about the TSR2"—
  which was that the Labour Party would cancel it—
  "is a political gambler's last desperate throw to keep his Parliamentary seat in Preston North."
  Now we come to it:
  "Harold Wilson himself nailed this lie in Preston last June when he said he foresaw a 'long and useful life for this magnificent aircraft in a conventional role'."
  It goes on:
  "Who are you going to believe? A discredited Tory Minister—or your next Prime Minister?"
  They know now and, what is more, the adjective "discredited" will in Preston now he put on to the other Minister. It goes on:
  "Labour has big plans for the aircraft industry. Under Labour's plan, your skill will be at a premium and overtime (not short-time) will be the likely order of the day."

  315
  Let hon. Members opposite tell that in Baginton, Preston, and the other places.
  Finally, in a blaze at the bottom, we read:
  "There is a great future for the British aircraft industry under a Labour Government."
  This was happening in every aircraft manufacturing constituency in the country. In the Hawker Siddeley constituency of Eastleigh, where the Hamble factory is, the Labour pamphlet said:
  "A Labour Government will"—
  also with no qualifications:
  "reverse the Tory policy of increasing dependence on foreign supplies, e.g., Italian helicopters, the VC 10 and Phantom incidents, and other scandalous decisions of Mr. Amery and his colleagues.
  Aircraft workers—your future is more sure with Labour."
  I can only say that the design men at the Hamble factory were told today that their jobs would come to an end this year.
  Mr. Orbach: The hon. Gentleman has been talking about Hawker Siddeleys. As he will be aware, I represent a constituency, won at the last election, where live 3,000 workers employed by Hawker Siddeley. That is the hon. Gentleman's first mistake—
  Mr. Stephen Hastings: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it permissible for an hon. Gentleman, on an excuse of that kind, to start making a speech?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Hon. Members must not make a speech. They should make an intervention only for clarification.
  Mr. Orbach: That is exactly what I want to do, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has said that today a number of designers at the Hawker Siddeley factory in Hamble were given their notice. On Wednesday last the Hawker Siddeley employees at Woodford—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is now going too far. This is becoming a speech.
  Mr. Maude: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but he cannot make his speech now. The fact is that there are plenty of constituencies in which these
  316
  promises were made and have been broken, and the workers know it. In fact, when we consider the history of the last three months—
  Mr. Leslie Spriggs: The last thirteen years.
  Mr. Maude: —I am astonished at the moderation with which our Motion is worded. I want gradually to go through its wording to see how it applies to what has happened in fact. It regrets the Government's handling of the aircraft problem. The Minister of Aviation said that the problems of the aviation industry were there when the Government came into power. I would absolutely agree with him that there were serious problems in the industry, and it is to those that I want to address myself—
  Mr. Spriggs: And remember that.
  Mr. Maude: I know that it is very difficult for hon. Members opposite to find any comfort or cheer at all. None has spoken in support of the Government. Having not spoken in support of their own Government, even if they intend to vote with them, one would have thought that they would have been interested to discuss the problems of the workers they represent. Problems in the aircraft industry certainly existed, but can anyone doubt, after listening to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth and to speeches made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that the Government's handling of these problems has so far made them worse rather than better? A Government who talk about the need for co-operation with Europe must surely themselves recognise that their handling from the beginning of the Concord project was not exactly calculated to make this a real winner.
  With regard to the present decisions—the HS681 and the P1154, to say nothing of the TSR2—the way in which the rumours have got about and Press articles have been stimulated has done more damage to the industry and its export prospects than anything which could be imagined.
  Last week the Prime Minister made a speech in which he said that, after considering this for very many hours, he had come to the conclusion that the TSR2

  317
  could not be cancelled immediately but that the project should go on while it was further investigated. After 100 days the conclusion come to is that there is to be, at any rate for the moment, no change—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman who is now shouting is to remain seated he must contain himself, because there are many hon. Members here whose constituency interests are for their workers.
  Mr. Spriggs: But tell the truth.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) must not continue to interrupt from a sitting position.
  Mr. Maude: After all this time and consideration, the decision was that the TSR2 programme is to go on as it was for the time being. If, after all this consideration, that was the decision, could not this have been done without all the very damaging fuss, flap, rumour and counter-rumour which has come out of the Government's handling of this business?
  The Amendment goes on to urge
  "Her Majesty's Government to reconsider their present policies towards"
  the aircraft industry, their present policies being a little obscure, let us say, but we are trying to gather the threads from various speeches which are made. At the moment we have the decisions which have been announced on the HS681 and the P1154. We are not satisfied that the British alternatives to the HS681 have been properly considered or that a convincing case has been made for buying the Lockheed C130E, which, as we all know, represents a down-grading of the operational requirement, which is very large indeed. The Air Force and the Army have never wanted the C130E and have always previously rejected it.
  We also state in the Amendment that the Government's present policies are "likely to cause grave damage" to the British aircraft industry. It is to this point that I want to devote the major part of my speech. We are dealing here not, as we sometimes seem to imagine in discussion, with four firms. We are dealing with about 400 firms, when account is taken not only of the great airframe and aero-engine makers but of the component makers and all the electronic industries
  318
  which are associated with this. The damage which may be done to the British electronic industries and to their export prospects by the Government's decisions is very serious indeed.
  I hope that the Government will be prepared to consider their policies in at least one or two respects. I understand, for example, that their package deal for the Lockheed C130E does not even allow a British manufacturer to tender for the custom-built job of flight simulator for the C130E. This is something which the British electronics industry could very easily do, and, if it could be arranged, it would mitigate the damage which would be done to the industry.
  If, as my right hon. Friends have said, the Government persist in the cancellations which they have already announced and the cancellation of projects which are under review such as the TSR2, they will be destroying not just marginal projects in the aircraft industry but projects which not only represent the mainstay of two very great companies but the most advanced technological projects of the entire British industry. This is a matter to which enough attention cannot be directed. These aircraft would have made the Royal Air Force the most flexible and, for its size, the most powerful force in the world. Moreover, the technological advantages which would have accrued to this country from carrying on with the projects would have been very considerable.
  If the most advanced and most important projects in the industry are cancelled—heaven knows, enough damage has been done to the industry by the denigration which it has received from right hon. and hon. Members opposite and from Press articles which owe some part of their inspiration to the attitudes of right hon. Gentlemen—the design effort of the British aircraft industry will dwindle away almost to nothing. I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will deal fully with this matter in his speech. I was not satisfied that the Minister of Aviation had made a convincing case or shown a very clear policy for the future about it.
  The Minister's speech showed a number of remarkable contradictions. At no point did it appear that he was

  319
  clearly stating on what ground of policy the contraction of the aircraft industry was to be carried out. He talked about costs, but he must know that figures of costs have merely been canvassed and, in many cases can be no better than estimates. The case on costs is strong, of course, if one makes it in terms of sterling equivalent of dollar expenditure, on the one hand, and sterling expenditure including the whole research and development element in a project, on the other. But this is not a fair basis for comparison, and it has never been. For one thing, there is the strain on the balance of payments involved in the dollar payments for American aircraft.
  Secondly, there is the loss of export potential not only in the cancelled projects but in respect of other aircraft produced by the same firms. In addition, there is the factor that, over the years, one can see inevitably creeping up a situation in which we shall not only be exporting very few aircraft but we shall be forced to import an increasingly large proportion from the United States.
  This brings me to the passage in our Amendment which deals with the point that the Government's policies seem likely to force us ultimately into almost total dependence on the United States. This is a matter for argument, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with it at rather greater length and in greater detail. The experiences of this country and of others have not been all that happy so far when American aircraft have been bought, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say something about the record of the Neptunes. No doubt he has heard from his brother Ministers of Defence in Europe about their experiences with the F104. They are not particularly encouraging.
  Of course, it can be said that there is a rôle for British firms manufacturing American designs under licence and for British aero-engine makers putting engines into American planes, but do the Government really believe that this will continue indefinitely? Do they really believe that once the United States industry has a stranglehold on the British market because the British industries are dead specifications and future licences will not provide for Pratt and Whitney engines
  320
  rather than Rolls-Royce or Bristol Siddeley? Of course they will.
  Here we come to what is a crucial issue which right hon. Gentlemen opposite, certainly the Minister of Aviation, have not faced. It is an issue on which the country will insist that they explain their position very fully. Are they prepared to see this country dependent for its most vital defence weapons on a foreign country, whether thatforeign country is an ally or not? [HON. MEMBERS: "Polaris."] What hon. Members who so cheerfully cry out about Polaris do not recognise is—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth dealt with this and explained it—that Polaris was a very good commercial buy. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) does not realise what a trap he is digging for himself. Can he not see that the fact that we have got an American missile for Polaris submarines makes dependence for military aircraft on the United States much more damaging, not less?
  Mr. Charles Loughlin rose—
  Mr. Maude: This surely should be obvious even to somebody with the naivety of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Loughlin rose—
  Mr. Maude: It must be obvious that there is here an issue of principle which hon. Members opposite cannot dodge. They must make up their minds to tell the country honestly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, their record during the election does not encourage one to believe that they will—to tell the country honestly whether they are prepared to see us entirely dependent in the next generation upon United States aircraft.
  This will be true of civil aircraft, too. Civil aviation is expanding enormously. As a great trading nation, this country has always prided itself on being able to provide its own methods of transport communication on a worldwide basis. We did not become a great maritime nation by buying foreign ships, and we shall not become a great civil aviation nation by buying exclusively American air freighters.
  Clearly, in defence this is a much more serious matter. I hope that hon. Members opposite will care to reflect a little

  321
  on the risks to which this puts us. Supposing the supplier happens to take a dislike to the policies of Her Majesty's Government, or one of their successors; hon. Members opposite may care to reflect on the experience of the South African Government and see what lessons may be drawn for this country if it becomes dependent on aircraft and weapons from abroad.
  Let us now consider the future of the aircraft industry and, in particular, as co-operation in Europe applies to it.
  There has been a great deal of talk about co-operation with Europe. It is, as my right hon. Friend said, an easy thing to talk about, but a dangerous thing to talk about unless we recognise the difficulties involved in it. It involves delicate questions of foreign and defence policy. It involves the fact that, since many European countries do not have a requirement for overseas operations, particularly long-range ones, their specifications may be difficult to match up with ours.
  If, however, the Government feel that, as the Minister of Aviation said, it will not be possible for the next generation of military aircraft replacements to be designed and built in this country because they will be too expensive, the answer is that the first stages towards co-operation with Europe in respect of these replacements should be being taken now.
  Mr. Healey: They are.
  Mr. Maude: We hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us, not about one project or another, but what talks are going on with European countries on this basis. It is not only in respect of cooperation with Europe, but in respect of the whole future of the British aircraft industry, if there is to be one, that the next generation of aircraft is important.
  There will not be a British aircraft industry with a research, design and manufacturing capacity to co-operate with Europe unless steps are taken now to mitigate the effects of the present position. If hon. Members opposite believe it to be possible, I hope very much that they wilt disabuse themselves of the idea.
  It is not possible to have an advanced technological capability in an aircraft industry—I am talking about research,
  322
  design and development—unless we have a manufacturing capacity to back it up. Designers will not indefinitely do pure research and the aerodynamics or evaluation tests on American aircraft unless they have an industrial backing and, ultimately, a production line in this country which will enable them to see the results of their work in aircraft flying in the air.
  Right hon. and hon. Members opposite might reflect upon one other facet of the British aircraft industry, and it is, perhaps, the most important of all. The British aircraft industry, like the aircraft industry of the United States and of other countries, is the technological leader industry of the whole economy. It is no idle words to say that it is the technological spearhead in this country: it is. The interesting thing is that there is no alternative leader industry which can supplant it.
  Perhaps the industry of which, in the technological field, one might have had most hopes would have been atomic energy for peaceful uses, but there are reasons why that is incapable of supplanting the aircraft industry as a technological leader industry because the materials that it uses are of so narrow an application that the technological fall-out from it into other industries is much smaller than it is from the aviation and its associated electronic industries.
  The effects upon the technology of this country of blunting that spearhead are greater than right hon. Members opposite have yet been willing to believe. They must make up their minds to the fact that the policies which they have been following and that they are continuing to enunciate risk not only the defence of the country, not only the jobs of hundreds of thousands of people, but the chance of the country ever regaining the world technological supremacy which it once had.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Rubbish.
  Dr. Bray rose—
  Mr. Hamilton: Give way.
  Mr. Maude: There is no need for me to give way to the hon. Member, because I know exactly what he will say. He has told it to me so often before.
  Dr. Bray: Can the hon. Gentleman present one shred of evidence which does not stem from the aircraft industry lobby backing up his arguments on the value of fall-out to other industries?
  Mr. Maude: Development in the electronic industries without the backing of military commitments would have been pretty well nil by now. This is certainly true. The hon. Member, I know, is one of the those simple souls who believe that if we contract the size of the aircraft industry we can send skilled aerodynamicists to reorganise the London Docks or London Transport or to produce such things as pots and pans. This is not the view of any leading aerodynamicist of whom I have ever heard.
  The future of this country's technology and the future of this country's defence are at stake if the Government's policies are pursued, and it is time that the Government urgently reconsidered them.
  9.26 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): I apologise for asking for a few minutes' extra time. I could easly have answered the criticisms of right hon. Members opposite in half an hour, but it will take me a little longer to answer some of the requests for information which they have put to me.
  For a censure debate, today's debate has been a refreshing contrast to the debate of a week ago. I think that it has been very serious and thoughtful in tone. I will try to deal in the same tone with the speeches which have been made from the Opposition benches and from the benches on this side.
  The fact is that 90 per cent. of what right hon. Members opposite have said in the debate is quite irrelevant to the most serious problem facing the Government and the Services. I hope that no one on either side will deny that the first responsibility of Her Majesty's Government in military aviation is to see that our forces have the weapons that they need to fulfil the tasks which we give them and have them when they need them. The previous Government failed in this responsibility. Therefore, I am not surprised that the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) gave it such perfunctory attention in his speech.
  324
  The Royal Air Force is having to make do—and we all appreciate how magnificently it does make do—with aircraft some of which are inferior in basic performance not just to those in service with the great Powers, but to those in service with quite minor Powers—for example, the MiG21 fighters operated by Egypt, Iraq and Indonesia, which those countries bought from Russia and which were operational in Russia at least four years ago. We cannot meet such competition at the present time except by relying heavily on the superior quality and training of the R.A.F. aircrews and the efficiency of the whole complex radar system under which our aircraft operate.
  The Royal Air Force's troubles do not end with the theoretical performance of the aircraft. Some of the aircraft in service have been afflicted by a sorry history of technical problems, which are increased by the fact that often the aircraft have to be operated too hard and too long either because we do not have enough of them, or because we have waited too long to replace them. We recently heard about the Valiant bombers. In the field of helicopters, current operations in the Radfan and Far East have underlined not only shortages in numbers, but the low reliability of certain types, particularly the Belvedere.
  Even today the R.A.F. does not have all the aircraft which it needs for its immediate needs. If we look ahead, the prospect is grimmer still. Under the plans of the previous Government there was no prospect that the Hastings and Beverley aircraft of Transport Command would be replaced before 1971 or 1972. This would mean that the Hastings would have been in service for 25 years, and the Beverley for 16 years.
  The Hunter, which is now used in a ground attack rôle, has done magnificent service for the Royal Air Force and for our export drive, but, as I have suggested, it is already inferior in performance to the aircraft of several minor Powers, and under the plans of the previous Government there was no chance of replacing it before the end of 1970, when it would have been in service for 14 or 15 years. The same is true of the Canberra. By the time it is replaced this aircraft will have been in service for 15 years.
  These long periods of service face us with two deeply disturbing prospects.

  325
  First, there is a real danger that some of the aircraft, particularly those continuously in use for operations, may literally fall apart. We have seen what happened to the Valiant bomber, although, on average, the Valiant bomber has only eight years service.
  Similar over-use is one of the reasons for our present difficulties with the Belvedere. If we had stuck to the previous Government's aircraft programme, we faced a real danger that the Royal Air Force would literally have no aircraft at all for some of its basic tasks, unless we made an interim panic purchase of foreign aircraft. And even if we assume that the aircraft would somehow hold together, some of them fall short of our real needs today, and it would be criminal of any Government to ask the Royal Air Force to continue flying them for seven or eight years more.
  Anybody who cares for the security of Britain, and the efficiency of our Armed Forces, must agree that this is a serious situation, and one for which there can be no excuse. But if there is no excuse, there is a reason. It can take up to 10 years to get a sophisticated modern combat aircraft into squadron service. The seeds of the present crisis were sown about nine years ago. By far the largest responsibility lies with the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and the members of the Conservative Cabinet who approved his White Paper on Defence in 1957. The present Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Monmouth were members of that Cabinet.
  Hon. Members will recall that this historic document, which claimed to announce
  "the biggest change in military policy ever made in normal times",
  was based on the assumption that there was no future for manned fighting aircraft. It dismissed both bombers and fighters in two sentences. It said:
  "The Government has decided not to go on with the development of supersonic manned bombers. The Government has come to the conclusion that the R.A.F. are unlikely to have a requirement for future aircraft of types more advanced than the supersonic P1"—
  that is the Lightning—
  "and work on such projects will stop."
  Mr. Sandys: What is the right hon. Gentleman complaining about? What I said in that White Paper, if he will not misrepresent it, is that we did not see the necessity for a further generation of strategic bombers to replace the V-bombers because we saw that the ballistic rocket would take their place. That is what is happening. As for the fighter, I really cannot see what complaints there are about the Lightning fighter, which is one of the finest fighters in the world.
  Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman has just reminded me that he based the whole of our strategic aircraft policy on the success of Blue Streak. The Defence White Paper of 1957 inflicted a crippling blow on the British aircraft industry. It led the Conservative Minister of Supply to tell the House, in 1958, that employment in the aircraft industry by 1963 would decline from 250,000 to the pre-Korean level of 150,000. These were the words of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), speaking from this Dispatch Box.
  More serious still, the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper was based on a catastrophic failure to appreciate the nation's continuing need for military aircraft—a failure that stemmed not from a serious attempt to foresee the needs of national security but from the then Government's desire to cut defence expenditure at any cost. I suspect that it is the right hon. Member for Monmouth, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who may carry the real guilt for the 1957 White Paper. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said today—
  Mr. Sandys rose—
  Mr. Healey: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said today—[Interruption.]—it is interesting to reflect—[Interruption.] I know that hon. Members opposite cannot take it, but the country wants to know the facts. It is interesting to reflect that when a Conservative Member told the House in 1958 that the Government intended to cut the aircraft industry by 100,000—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: On a point of order. Can the right hon. Gentleman's speech be—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Can there be silence? I cannot hear the point of order.
  Mr. Fraser: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman's speech be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Speaker: We have enough difficulties without bogus points of order.
  Mr. Healey: It is interesting to reflect that when a Conservative Minister told the House, in 1958, that the Government intended to cut the aircraft industry by 100,000 in the following five years we had none of the alarmist predictions that we had today from the right hon. Gentleman about the consequences for technology and the aircraft industry. At that time, of course, the right hon. Gentleman had just resigned from the Conservative Government, not because it was cutting the aircraft industry but because it had not cut defence expenditure enough and was still clinging to the nuclear deterrent.
  It was not long before the previous Government had to admit that they had been completely wrong. Two years later, in 1959, a contractor was selected for the TSR2 and the Government began to get to grips with the pressing need to order replacements for the Hastings and Beverleys of Transport Command, and for the Hunter and Sea Vixen aircraft of the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy. But in the case of the Hastings/Beverley replacement, it took them two more years to issue a firm operational requirement. Another two years passed before even an order for a project study was placed with Hawker Siddeley for the aircraft now known as the HS681.
  Altogether, six years had been lost beyond recall. The case of the Sea Vixen/ Hunter replacement was even worse. It took the air staff three years to formulate its general operational requirement, in 1960. Another three years were spent in attempts to get the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy to agree on a common aircraft. Finally, on 30th July, 1963, the moment of truth arrived. The right hon. Member for Monmouth asked the House for permission to make a special statement. With a fanfare of trumpets he told us:
  "I am now able to announce that the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force have reached agreement on the characteristics of a common aircraft which will replace both the Sea Vixen and the Hunter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1963; Vol. 682, c. 237.]
  328
  Within a few months the newspapers were full of stories that the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy were at loggerheads. Then there was the blinding moment of illumination when the right hon. Gentleman—
  Lord Balniel rose—
  Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way when he is speaking, the noble Lord must resume his seat.
  Sir Robert Cary: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This reading a document is a negation of debate. May the House have the opportunity to hear a speech?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point contains this much of a point of order, that we do not in this House read speeches— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We do use notes, and my predecessors have forgiven the somewhat copious use of notes.
  Mr. Healey: This story ended in a whimper on 26th February last year when the right hon. Gentleman told the House that it was impossible for the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force to have a common aircraft. He announced that he would give the Royal Air Force, to replace the Hunter, the simplest and most robust P1154 and would go to the United States for the Phantom as a Sea Vixen replacement.
  There is an element of mystery about this episode. Why should the right hon. Gentleman have gone out of his way to tell us the year before that the Services would have a common aircraft? Was is really that he had not yet discovered the laws of gravity, as he told us in West Dundee? Or was it rather that, in the end, he had neither the moral courage nor the political authority to stick to the decision he had already announced?
  This is not the end of the story. The four years of muddle and vacillation were fatal in terms of timing. By the time the right hon. Gentleman had made up his mind, it was impossible for the Royal Air Force to plan on even starting to obtain the P1154 before the middle of 1970—these are points put to me by hon. Gentlemen opposite—well after the period when the Hunter should have been phased out of service.
  The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman left office knowing that continuous

  329
  failures of decision by himself and his predecessors faced the Royal Air Force with a gap in its fighter aircraft which could be fatal to the nation's security and to the lives of its airmen. He must have welcomed the events of 15th October last as a happy release. He left the new Labour Government to clear up the mess.
  This is only half the problem. Successive Ministers of Defence and Ministers of Aviation now sitting on the benches opposite have failed totally to control the costs of aero-space projects and to ensure that their development programme keeps up to time. The House will remember some of the fantastic stories uncovered in the past by my right hon. Friend when he was Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts. It will recall that during the 13 years when the party opposite was in office 26 major projects were cancelled at a cost to the nation of £300 million.
  If we look at the three projects now under discussion, we find that the estimated cost of the HS681 has doubled since the operational requirement was first issued nearly four years ago. In the case of the P1154, the estimated cost has trebled in under three years. Both these aircraft are still in the earliest stages of development. If we want to know what this may mean for the ultimate price, let us look at the TSR2.
  As the Prime Minister told the House last week, the 1960 estimate had almost tripled by last year, when the best estimate we could make was £750 million. There are still three years of development to go before the R.A.F. gets its first operational plane, and all experience suggests that these estimates may escalate still further. The history of delivery dates is just as bad. In November, 1959, the target date for delivery of the TSR2 to the R.A.F. was September, 1965—this year. Over the next five years it has slipped to mid-1968 and the first flight, without avionics and at low subsonic speeds, was two years late; and this was four years after full development was authorised. On last year's cost figures for the TSR2 it would cost us £250 million more than the TFX, over a 10-year period.
  330
  The right hon. Gentleman asked me some questions about the TFX. [Interruption.] I am just about to answer, if hon. Gentlemen opposite will listen. For planning purposes we have assumed that the Americans will put into the TFX the avionics that are in what hon. Gentlemen have called the TFX Mark II. Our calculations have been made very much on this basis, but we have included a very substantial contingency margin. We are still not sufficiently satisfied about the price advantage of the TFX to be able to take a decision now. Moreover—[Interruption.] I hope that right hon. Gentlemen are interested in this point, because it is of great importance, according to them, for the future of the industry.
  We have given the British Aircraft Corporation a chance, to see whether it can do better than the current figures for the TSR2 suggest. I hope that it can do so. But I must tell the House that the present Government will fulfil their responsibilities to the R.A.F. and to the taxpayer in a spirit far removed from the flabby indifference to cost displayed by the previous Administration. The past is an appalling story of financial incompetence and irresponsibility, but one of its consequences is that if the present Government decided to keep all three of these aircraft the bulge in expenditure when all three come simultaneously into full production around 1970 would send the defence budget right through the roof.
  Over the next 10 years—
  Mr. Hugh Fraser rose—
  Mr. Healey: I am answering this point. Over the next 10 years we should be spending about £1,700 million on the research, development and production costs of military aircraft. I do not know how any Government would be able to accommodate the enormous sums of money which would have to be spent between 1970 and 1974 without major cuts over these years in public expenditure for civilian purposes. But, in fact, the purely military argument for cancelling the HS681 and the P1154 was irresistible. These aircraft simply would not be ready for the Royal Air Force before their existing aircraft fall to pieces, or become obsolete in terms of conflict, even with a minor Power.

  331
  During the last four months we have had to look at every conceivable alternative to the existing projects, in the first place in Britain, and in the second place abroad, in Europe and in the United States. We are satisfied, after a most careful consideration, that the P1154 would best be replaced by a mix of the British 1127, or Kestrel, and the American F4.
  The F4, or Phantom, is a flexible aircraft capable of carrying out the wide range of interception, air defence, interdiction and close support rôles which are demanded by the types of operations which we have to undertake overseas. It flies at 1,600 miles per hour and is undoubtedly one of the world's most advanced aircraft. After all, that is why the right hon. Gentlemen opposite ordered it for the Royal Navy. But above all, it is in production now and it can be in squadron service when the R.A.F. needs it. In fact, by buying the American Phantom for the R.A.F. we are achieving the objective—
  Mr. Burden: On a point of order. May I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, whether the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the significance of giving these trite figures about American aircraft?
  Mr. Speaker: About five times in a Parliament I have to propose to the House the desirability of getting rid of the bogus point of order.
  Mr. Healey: In fact, by buying the American Phantom for the R.A.F. we are achieving the objective which the right hon. Gentleman set himself two years ago of having in the R.A.F. an aircraft which could be used off carriers of the Royal Navy, with all the economic advantages and operational flexibility which that may imply. The Phantom lacks only vertical take-off and landing capability, [HON. MEMBER: "Only."] This will be supplied by the British Kestrel, or 1127. This, too, is a first-rate aircraft, and because we shall have the Phantom it does not need to match the speed or range planned for the P1154.
  I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery), in what was otherwise a refreshingly serious speech, chose to "knock" this excellent British aircraft. It
  332
  is a good aircraft now, but we must increase its existing range. I believe that other countries may well find it more suitable to their special needs, particularly in price and date of delivery, than the P1154 could ever have hoped to be. It opens possibilities of co-operation with our European allies which simply did not exist with the P1154.
  Mr. J. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that all our professional advisers and those of many European Powers have said that this aircraft is not an operational aircraft over the modern battlefield. I doubt whether it is possible, even by raising the engines to 22,000 or 24,000 lb. thrust, to make it so. To do so would take as long and be very nearly as expensive as producing the P1154.
  Mr. Healey: All I can say is that those are not the views in any respect of my professional advisers, and I will expand on this in a moment.
  The case for the C130 as a Hastings Beverley replacement is equally compelling. We have looked at several alternative aircraft, but all of them fail to meet the needs of the R.A.F. either in time or in performance, or in cost.
  Let me answer some questions which have been asked. The latest version of the C130—the C130E—can by no stretch of imagination be called an obsolete or obsolescent aircraft. It will not come into service even in the United States until next month and it will still be in service in large numbers in the United States Air Force in 10 years' time. The C130 is also used by the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand Air Forces. This will help a lot whenever we are engaged in joint operations with our Commonwealth partners. It will come into R.A.F. service towards the end of 1966 and we hope to take full delivery of the order in 1967. All of us regret the necessity for these decisions. We are deeply conscious—
  Mr. Edelman: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the question of alternatives to the C130, will he say what consideration he gave to the project put forward by Hawker Siddeley for the HS802?
  Mr. Healey: This project has been given very serious consideration in the last week or so, but on the basis of the figures given us by the company the delivery of the 802 would not be com-

  333
  pleted until four years after the delivery of the C130 would be completed, and it would not start until two years after delivery of the C130 would start. The cost differential is quite unacceptable if we are to try to keep the defence budget under any sort of control.
  Of course, we should have preferred to buy British planes if we could have got them in time, but I do not believe that any hon. or right hon. Member on either side of the House would want to put our airmen into battle in aircraft which are liable to collapse through fatigue or which are grossly inferior in capability to those of a potential enemy. The R.A.F. themselves, of course, would much have preferred British planes, but I can assure the House that there is not one pilot in the whole of the R.A.F. who would rather be shot down in a British plane than carry out his mission in an American one.
  The right hon. Member for Monmouth and the right hon. Member for Preston, North spoke of the views of their professional advisers when they were in office and asked me how and why those views have changed. In principle, I think that we agree that it would be a dangerous practice if Ministers were to publish to the House the views of their advisers. The real difference since right hon. Gentleman opposite were in office is that we now have a Government who are determined to take a far more realistic view of our defence requirements and to make certain that the nation gets value for money.
  The decisions of the previous Government led to aircraft which were the ultimate in technical sophistication without regard to cost, to date of delivery or to the possibility of foreign markets for the projects. That was the major reason, after all, for the long list of aircraft cancellations which studded the record of the previous Government, and the industry and the Royal Air Force are determined to end this unhappy record. Moreover, there was a tendency to define operational requirements in terms of the best which the state of the art might make possible rather than, as is now the case, in terms of specific operational needs in specific theatres.
  In view of the questions asked by Opposition Front Bench speakers, I must add that the Government's professional
  334
  advisers are fully satisfied that the decisions which Her Majesty's Government have taken will meet the operational needs of the R.A.F. and, indeed, that it was necessary, for military reasons, to take these decisions. That is the view of my professional advisers.
  Mr. J. Amery rose—
  Mr. Healey: I will give way in a moment.
  The new approach of the present Government has led to the decision that, in fact, the actual need for a tactical transport can be met by the C130 and that it does not require the more sophisticated capabilities of the HS681. I am determined that a similar approach shall be adopted in future in judging the operational requirements of all the three Services.
  Mr. Amery: It was the rule and practice, during the time when I was at the Ministry of Aviation, that when an operational requirement was changed or relaxed in any way British industry was given a chance to compete for it as well as foreign industry. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the relaxations of the requirements for both the Hunter replacement and the Beverley replacement were put to British industry?
  Mr. Healey: We have discussed with British industry the new needs as we have defined them.
  Hon. Members: When?
  Mr. Healey: The basic point is that—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]—to develop a new aircraft which does not now exist from scratch is absolutely impossible, on the record of the previous Government, if we are to meet the time requirements of the R.A.F.
  Mr. Thorneycroft rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Healey: I must continue—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Several hon. Members opposite have asked about our position and the country's technological future.
  Mr. Thorneycroft rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Healey: It is easy to exaggerate the importance—and I am giving answers to questions which have already been asked from the benches opposite—of a large arms industry to technological advance. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) referred to the need for military aircraft if we are to go ahead in electronics, but our most effective competitors in the technological sphere are Germany and Japan, neither of whom make any military aircraft—and Japan has no arms industry at all.
  I turn to the final criticism which the Opposition have tried to make against us, the suggestion that by deciding to buy two American aircraft we are making ourselves a satellite of the United States and totally dependent on them. This argument comes rather oddly from hon. Members opposite, who, only two years ago, made the future of Britain's strategic nuclear power wholly dependent on the purchase of Polaris missiles from the United States. A year ago they made the Royal Navy totally dependent for its air defence on the purchase of Phantom aircraft from the United States.
  Their argument is nonsense, anyway. It does not make any sense, in the modern world, to try to produce every component in one's defence system out of one's own exclusive national resources. It does not make sense to do so even for a single weapon. Consider the TSR2, which seems to have become for hon. Members opposite the symbol of British independence in production. The whole of the TSR2 low-level delivery system depends on American computers. Equally, buying weapons from abroad does not, in itself, imply political dependence. President De Gaulle has proved it. The whole of his independent nuclear striking force depends on Boeing tanker aircraft bought from the United States—
  Mr. William Whitelaw rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 301.

  DivisionNo.56.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)

  Albu, Austen

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Chapman, Donald

  Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

  Alldritt, W. H.

  Coleman, Donald

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Floud, Bernard

  Atkinson, Norman

  Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank

  Foley, Maurice

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Barnett, Joel

  Cronin, John

  Ford, Ben

  Baxter, William

  Crosland, Anthony

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

  Beaney, Alan

  Grossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Bence, Cyril

  Dalyell, Tam

  Garrett, W. E.

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Darling, George

  Garrow, A.

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd

  Binns, John

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Ginsburg, David

  Bishop, E. S.

  Davies, I for (Cower)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Blackburn, F.

  Davies, S.O. (Merthyr)

  Gregory, Arnold

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Delargy, Hugh

  Grey, Charles

  Boardman, H.

  Dell, Edmund

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Boston, T. G.

  Diamond, John

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Dodds, Norman

  Griffiths, Will (M'chester Exchange)

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

  Doig, Peter

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Boyden, James

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Hale, Leslie

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Driberg, Tom

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Bradley, Tom

  Duffy, A. E.P.

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Dunn, James A.

  Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hannan, William

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Harper, Joseph

  Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)

  English, Michael

  Hattersley, Roy

  Buchanan, Richard

  Ennalls, David

  Hayman, F. H.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Ensor, David

  Hazell, Bert

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Evans, loan (Birmingham, Yardley)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Fernyhough, E.

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Manuel, Archie

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Mapp, Charles

  Shore, Peter (Stepney)

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Marsh, Richard

  Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)

  Holman, Percy

  Mason, Roy

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)

  Horner, John

  Maxwell, Robert

  Silkin, John (Deptford)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Mellish, Robert

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Millan, Bruce

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Howie, W.

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Hoy, James

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Molloy, William

  Small, William

  Hushes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Monslow, Walter

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Snow, Julian

  Hunter, Adam (Dunfermiine)

  Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

  Solomons, Henry

  Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (SheffieldPk)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Murray, Albert

  Steele, Thomas

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Neal, Harold

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Jackson, Colin

  Newens, Stan

  Stonehouse, John

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Stones, William

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

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

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Summerskill, Dr. Shirley

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St.P'cras, S.)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Swain, Thomas

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Ogden, Eric

  Swingler, Stephen

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Symonds, J. B.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham S.)

  Taverne, Dick

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Orme, Stanley

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W.Ham, S.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Owen, Will

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Padley, Walter

  Thornton, Ernest

  Kelley, Richard

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Tinn, James

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Paget, R. T.

  Tomney, Frank

  Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Tuck, Raphael

  Kerr, Dr. David (W'Worth, Central)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Urwin, T. W.

  Lawson, George

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Ledger, Ron

  Parkin, B. T.

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Wallace, George

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Warbey, William

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Pentland, Norman

  Watkins, Tudor

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Weitzman, David

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Prentice, R. E.

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Price, J.T. (Westhoughton)

  Whitlock, William

  Loughlin, Charles

  Probert, Arthur

  Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Wilkins, W. A.

  McBride, Neil

  Randall, Harry

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  McCann, J.

  Rankin, John

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  MacColl, James

  Redhead, Edward

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Rees, Merlyn

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  McGuire, Michael

  Reynolds, G.W.

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Mclnnes, James

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Richard, Ivor

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  MacKenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Gaernarvon)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  McLeavy, Frank

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Woof, Robert

  MacMillan, Malcolm

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Rowland, Christopher

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

  Sheldon, Robert

  Mr. Sydney Irving and

  Mr. George Rogers.

  NOES

  Agnew, Commander Sir Peter

  Bell, Ronald

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Braine, Bernard

  Allison, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Brewis, John

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.

  Bessell, Peter

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Astor, John

  Biffen, John

  Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bingham, R. M.

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Bryan, Paul

  Balniel, Lord

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Barber, A.

  Blaker, Peter

  Buck, Antony

  Barlow, Sir John

  Bossom, Hn. Clive

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Batsford, Brian

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Burden, F. A.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Box, Donald

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  338

  339

  Buxton, R. C.

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Onslow, Cranley

  Campbell, Gordon

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hendry, Forbes

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Chataway, Christopher

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

  Page, R. Graham (Crosby)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  peel, John

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Percival, Ian

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth. W.)

  Hooson, H. E.

  Peyton, John

  Cole, Norman

  Hopkins, Alan

  Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth

  Cooke, Robert

  Hordern, Peter

  Pike Miss Mervyn

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hornby, Richard

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.

  Pounder, Rafton

  Cordle, John

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

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Corfield, F. V.

  Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)

  Price David (Eastleigh)

  Costain, A. P.

  Hunt, John (Bromley)

  Prior J. M. L.

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pym, Francis

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Crawley, Aidan

  Irvine, Bryant, Godman (Rye)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Crowder, F. P.

  Jennings, J. C.

  Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Curran, Charles

  Jones-Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Jones Rt. Hn. Aubrey Hall Green)

  Ridley Hn. Nicholas

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jopling, Michael

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Dance, James

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Dean, Paul

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Roots, william

  Deedes, Ht. Hn. W. F.

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Royle Anthony

  Digby, Simon Wingfleld

  Kimball, Marcus

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Doughty, Charles

  Kitson, Timothy

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Sharpies, Richard

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Shepherd, William

  Eden, Sir John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

  Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Smith, G. J. (East Grinstead)

  Emery, Peter

  Litchfield, Capt. john.

  Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John

  Errington, Sir Eric

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

  Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Farr, John

  Lloyd lan (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Fell, Anthony

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Speir, Sir Rupert

  Fisher, Nigel

  Longbottom, Charles

  Stainton, Keith

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Stanley, Hn. Richard

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Stodart, J. A.

  Forrest, George

  Lubbock, Eric

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Foster, Sir John

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Talbot, John E.

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty,

  Taylor Sir charles (Eastbourne)

  Gammans, Lady

  Mackie-George Y. (C'ness & S'land)

  Taylor Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

  Gardner, Edward

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Taylor Frank (Moss Side)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Ian

  Teeling, Sir William

  Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

  McMaster, Stanley

  Temple, John M.

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Magginis, John E.

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Maitland, Sir John

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Marlowe, Anthony

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Marples. Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter

  Goodhew, Victor

  Marten, Neil

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Gower, Raymond

  Mathew, Robert

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Grant, Anthony

  Maude, Angus

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Mawby, Ray

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Gresham-Cooke, R.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Grieve, Percy

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

  Van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)

  Mills Peter (Torrington)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Walder, David (High Peak)

  Gurden, Harold

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mitchell, David

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Monro, Hector

  Wall, Patrick

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

  More, Jasper

  Walters, Dennis

  Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)

  Morgan, W. G.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Webster, David

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Murton, Oscar

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)

  Neave, Airey

  Whitelaw, William

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard

  Wise, A. R.

  340

  341

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Wylle, N. R.

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Yates, Wiliam (The Wrekin)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Younger, Hn. George

  Mr. McLaren and Mr. MacArthur.

  Woodnutt,Mark

  Main Question again proposed.
  The Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Charles Grey): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee Tomorrow.
  Mr. Reginald Freeson: On a point of order. Is it in order to make the kind of remark which was made just after the announcement of the Division figures, Mr. Speaker? The remark was, "Five nigger boys would have got us a Labour defeat".
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Speaker: I am asked to rule on a point of order. It reveals to me no impropriety whatsoever that I can rule upon. I cannot tell whether it referred to any persons here, or to somebody else.

  LAW COMMISSIONS [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the constitution of Commissions for the reform of the law, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any salaries or remuneration payable to Commissioners of the Commissions to be constituted under the said Act;

  342

  (b)any pension, allowance or gratuity, or contributions or other payments towards provision for a pension, allowance or gratuity to or in respect of any such Commissioner;

  (c)the expenses of the said Commissions, including the remuneration of their officers and servants;

  and the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, or the charging on the Consolidated Fund, of any increase attributable to provisions of the said Act relating to service as such an officer or servant as aforesaid in the sums so payable or chargeable under any enactment relating to superannuation.
  Resolution agreed to.

  TEACHING COUNCIL (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment in Scotland of a Teaching Council, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of any provisions of the said Act of the present Session; and

  (b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Secretary of State in consequence of any such provisions.

  Resolution agreed to.

  SITE, SALTDEAN
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr.Grey.]
  10.18 p.m.
  Mr. Dennis Hobden: Taking an Adjournment debate at this time has some drawbacks, but it is imperative that this subject should be discussed in view of its importance to the people of my constituency. It is a thorny problem which has been a feature in the constituency for many years and concerns an eight-acre site in the village of Saltdean, which is one of the suburbs of Brighton.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members be so courteous as to make less noise? They will, in their turn, if they are fortunate, require a reasonable degree of silence during an Adjournment debate.
  Mr. Hobden: This eight-acre site in the centre of Saltdean was originally part of a site of 16·3 acres which showed in the development plan for Brighton as being for compulsory acquisition by the local authority for the use of the people of Saltdean as a public open space. The development plan in which this showed was approved by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government as far back as 20th June, 1958. In 1960 the council revised the development plan and decided to reduce the 16-acre site to eight acres. It was agreed that the residue should be used for housing. The amendment to the development plan was agreed by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on 24th May, 1960.
  On 29th January, 1962, the Saltdean Estate Company, which owns this site, sought a certificate of alternative development for residential purposes under Section 17 of the Land Compensation Act, 1961. May I quote from the relevant document:
  "On 23rd February 1962, the Council issued a certificate to the effect that in their opinion planning permission could not reasonably have been expected to be granted for any development of the said land other than the development which is proposed to be carried out by the Council by whom all interests in the land are proposed to be acquired. The reasons for issuing a certificate otherwise than for the class or classes of development specified in the application were that, in the opinion of the Council as the local planning authority,
  344
  planning permission could not reasonably have been expected to be granted for any development of the land other than as open space available to the public as playing fields for organised games, since this is the most suitable land at Saltdean for such purposes which are necessary in the interests of the community at Saltdean."
  On 24th April, 1962, the Saltdean Estate Company appealed against that decision and a public inquiry, held on 31st October, 1962, by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, upheld the claim of the company against the Brighton Corporation and granted a certificate of alternative development with a density of not more than 12 dwellings to the acre. As a result of this, and as a result of the amendment to the Labour Government's Town and Country Planning Act, the price of this site over the years has risen from £7,500 in the immediate post-war period to £100,000; and I am advised that it may be as high as £120,000. This has come about directly as a result of the amendment to the Labour Government's Town and Country Planning Act which was passed in the immediate post-war period.
  The local authority felt that, because of the cost of the site and the eventual cost to the ratepayers of Brighton, it could not possibly purchase the site. It therefore negotiated for an alternative site, much more cheaply, of course, further north of this area, but for the community of Saltdean it is thoroughly unsatisfactory because it is too far north. In addition, it is not really good planning. As a consequence, a tremendous number of protests have been made in the area and in the constituency.
  This is one of the issues which arose during the General Election last October. The corporation, in view of all the protests, decided that it would try to reach a compromise with the Saltdean Estate Company to see if it could meet the wishes of the people of Kemptown and of Saltdean. The company submitted a plan to the local planning department, and this provided for the development of practically eight acres of the site with a density of about 10 dwellings to the acre. The compromise that has come forward from the estate company is no compromise whatever. It would merely give one-third of an acre as a public open space to the people of Saltdean. I am pleased to report that today, when the

  345
  application came before it, the Brighton planning committee rejected it out of hand.
  When the question arose from the certificate of alternative development that the company should be allowed to develop the land, the Minister decided to hold a public inquiry in Brighton at which, he said, he intended to make a decision on the outcome himself. It is interesting to recall the conclusions of the Minister's inspector concerning the problem. Paragraph 95 of the inspector's report states in the conclusions that
  "The planned provision for recreational open space to serve the local community is below accepted standards. The land in question is urgently needed as playing space and, indeed, there would appear to be a valid case for the provision of further land for this purpose."
  Paragraph 96 goes on to say that
  "Aside from the financial aspect, therefore there would appear to be no justification for permitting the present application, even if it was certain that the alternative proposal could be implemented."
  The crux of the matter comes in paragraph 97, when the inspector states that
  "The issue in this case therefore is whether diminished planning standards should be accepted because of the likely cost of acquisition of the land in question."
  We therefore reach the situation that whereas Brighton Corporation could have bought the land in the early post-war years for £7,500 under the Town and Country Planning Act passed by the Labour Government, following the amendment of that Act by a Conservative Government shortly after their return to power in 1951 the land has shot up in price to a figure which is now reckoned to be about £120,000. The Minister over-rode the inspector's report and gave permission for the site to be developed for residential purposes.
  There has been a great outcry in my constituency and in this suburb of Brighton. Examination of the map of Brighton and the layout of the area reveals that this eight-acre site at Saltdean Vale is eminently suitable for use as public open space. The town was of this opinion when it included the land for this purpose in its development plan. The Brighton planning committee has rejected the application temporarily because it represents no compromise what-
  346
  ever, and we are in the urgent situation that something should be done about this at Parliamentary level.
  To give the local authority credit, its hands are practically tied by planning legislation, and I hope that as a result of this debate my hon. Friend the Minister can hold out some hope for us in the area. I impress upon him that if he does, he will have earned the heartfelt gratitude of the people of Kemptown and of the suburb.
  10.30 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden). I know the detailed and intimate knowledge that he has of this problem and the active part that he has played in local government in Brighton. I know that he speaks for a great burden of local opinion which is surprised and upset about the whole position.
  There is only one small point of fact on which I should like to correct him, otherwise I think that he has stated the issues perfectly clearly and quite accurately. The position is that when the local authority originally intended to acquire this land as an open space, the then law provided that it could obtain it for what was little more than existing use value. Had the local authority used some of its other powers to acquire the land then, or if it had acquired it after the approval of the development plan in 1958, but before the coming into operation of the Act of 1959—but, of course, it had no reason to anticipate a change in the law—it could have acquired this land at very much less than the price it would have to pay if it felt able to acquire it now. It would have had the benefit of an open space, where it is generally agreed it should be sited, at very much less cost to the ratepayers.
  As my hon. Friend pertinently pointed out, the rules were changed in the middle of this operation, resulting in what is to the layman an extraordinary complicated calculation. When a local authority acquires open space for recreational purposes, it does not acquire it at a price which compensates the owner of the land at the price he paid for it. Nor does the local authority compensate him at the

  347
  price at which it is going to use it, because in this case, being an open space, the value of the land as an open space is very small. It is done on the basis of one of those extraordinary exercises that is undertaken from time to time in cases of compensation and valuation.
  Somebody has to do a sum and say, "It is true that the use which the owner is at present getting out of the land is so much. It is true that the value of the use to which it is going to be put for the public is so much", but to get the compensation we have to say, "If it were not going to be used for the purpose for which it is going to be used, what would be the use to which it was going to be put?".
  That exercise results in an astronomic increase in value, and I do not think that any criticism rests, so far as I can see, either on the inspector who conducted the first inquiry, or in the decision which was taken by the Minister. I think that within the law as it then was this sum was calculated quite accurately. I do now know how much the increase was. I suppose that it was at least 10 times, if not more, that would have to be paid. I think that that was a correct sum, and a correct calculation within the law as is was passed in the 1959 Act.
  Therefore, once that was decided, that did not stop the corporation from buying the land. I think that my hon. Friend made that clear. If the corporation had said, "We want this land so much that we are going on", it would have gone on, and it could have acquired it. But the corporation decided that at that price it could not afford to acquire the land, and so it withdrew from the proceedings altogether.
  The next stage was that the owners of the land applied for planning permission to develop in the way that had been used for notionally calculating the amount of compensation. An inquiry was held, and my hon. Friend has, curiously enough, just read out the three paragraphs from the inspector's report that I had marked to read out, because I think they are about the most unusual and remarkable paragraphs one could find in such a report. I have read a good many inspectors' reports in the last few months, and this, I thought, was one of the most
  348
  forthright statements I had come across. It was, I thought, what any normal and sensible person would feel about the situation.
  Nevertheless, my hon. Friend was wrong to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) disagreed with the inspector's report. My hon. Friend did not quote the last sentence of paragraph 97, which states:
  "As this appears to be a matter of policy I propose to make no recommendation."
  I find it hard to say that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong, or very far wrong, in what he then did, because the dilemma was that, the Corporation having withdrawn from the operation and made it perfectly clear that it did not want to have this land at that price as an open space, if planning permission had been refused a number of things could possibly have happened. A purchase notice might have been served on the local authority. It is unlikely that the developers would have left the land undeveloped, so there would have been rather a deadlock. It would hardly be reasonable to expect the Minister, at that stage, in the light of the previous decision, to have taken another or a much different decision. I do not think that any Minister could have taken any other decision.
  It was still open to the Corporation to buy the land, had it wanted to; it could have acquired the land under compulsory purchase powers, subject to getting the approval of the then Minister. It is a matter of argument and local consideration to say whether or not the local authority took the right decision. The Brighton Corporation is fairly wealthy, and I think that the cost of acquiring the land would have amounted to about ⅛id. rate, which would not have brought the authority crippled to its knees. But that was a matter for the corporation to decide, and I find it hard to point the finger at the right hon. Gentleman and say that he was wrong.
  When my hon. Friend asks for help, I am in a certain amount of difficulty, because under the existing law there is very little that my right hon. Friend can do about it. In the first place, the initiative would have to come, I think, from the local authority. It is the authority's problem and the authority's open space, and my right hon. Friend has no duties

  349
  —or powers—to go round taking any other action about the matter. Therefore, within the existing law the remedy does not lie in his hands. If my hon. Friend thinks that there is any way in which my right hon. Friend can help, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would want to help.
  If I were to go into changes in the law, Mr. Speaker, I would probably very soon get outside the limits of your tolerance. I therefore do not think that I can expound on that at all. I again say that my own feeling is that once we accept the law as Parliament decided it should be, the rest of this rather sad story follows like a tragedy; it is very difficult to stop the remorseless trend towards what is, I agree, a very deplorable result.
  Everyone agrees that there should be an open space for the residents in this suburb. The inspector thought it the best site, and the expert witnesses at the inquiry thought that the site should be used as open space. It is not a question of taking from the owners something for
  350
  which they paid. The owners would not lose money; they would simply lose whatever profits they would have obtained.
  The local community have had to be put off with the provision of an open space which they feel to be a poor second after the one which they wanted. I appreciate my hon. Friend's desire to raise the matter, and it is fitting that it has been raised so that the position could be made clear, but on behalf of my right hon. Friend and myself I can only say that while we understand his feelings, it is difficult on the existing law to see what more we could do at this stage. It is possible that some arrangement of compromise could be made between the corporation and the owners, and I am certain that my hon. Friend, with his intimate local knowledge and great vigour and enterprise as a local Member of Parliament, is the very person to secure that arrangement.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

MINISTRY OF POWER
  National Fuel Policy
  National Fuel Policy
  Closed Brickworks
  Closed Brickworks
  Continental Shelf (Licences)
  Continental Shelf (Licences)
  Electricity Industry
  Electricity Industry
  Steel (Production)
  Steel (Production)
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Economists
  Economists
  Kenya (Land)
  Kenya (Land)
  United Nations Programmes (Contributions)
  United Nations Programmes (Contributions)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Richard Thomas and Baldwins
  Richard Thomas and Baldwins
  Constituent (Outstanding Account)
  Constituent (Outstanding Account)
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Television Reception, Wales
  Television Reception, Wales
POST OFFICE
  Parcel Post (London to Northern Ireland)
  Parcel Post (London to Northern Ireland)
  Outsize Envelopes
  Outsize Envelopes
  Letters, North Buckinghamshire (Delivery Delays)
  Letters, North Buckinghamshire (Delivery Delays)
  Parliament (700th Aniversary)
  Parliament (700th Aniversary)
  Letter Post
  Letter Post
TELEPHONE SERVICES
  Subscriber Trunk Dialling
  Subscriber Trunk Dialling
  Bedford Exchange
  Bedford Exchange
  Telephone Poles (Erection)
  Telephone Poles (Erection)
  Industrialised Building
  Industrialised Building
HOUSING
  New Towns (Leasehold Houses)
  New Towns (Leasehold Houses)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Eviction Proceedings, Brighton
  Eviction Proceedings, Brighton
  Building Standards
  Building Standards
  Clearance Areas
  Clearance Areas
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Holdenhurst Road Relief Scheme, Bournemouth
  Holdenhurst Road Relief Scheme, Bournemouth
  Office Building, Tunbridge Wells
  Office Building, Tunbridge Wells
  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (ALLOWANCES)
  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (ALLOWANCES)
  CYPRUS (UNITED NATIONS FORCE AND MEDIATOR)
  CYPRUS (UNITED NATIONS FORCE AND MEDIATOR)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Short Brothers and Harland
  Short Brothers and Harland
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  P1154 and HS681 (Design Teams)
  P1154 and HS681 (Design Teams)
  TFX Aircraft
  TFX Aircraft
  Lang Inquiry (Report)
  Lang Inquiry (Report)
  Helicopters
  Helicopters
  TSR2 Aircraft
  TSR2 Aircraft
  Short Brothers and Harland
  Short Brothers and Harland
  Lockheed C130 and Phantom Aircraft
  Lockheed C130 and Phantom Aircraft
  PARLIAMENT (700th ANNIVERSARY)
  PARLIAMENT (700th ANNIVERSARY)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Operations, Malaysia (Casualties)
  Operations, Malaysia (Casualties)
  Lockheed C130E (Air Portability List)
  Lockheed C130E (Air Portability List)
  Statement on the Defence Estimates, 1965
  Statement on the Defence Estimates, 1965
  Airfield, North Weald
  Airfield, North Weald
  PERSONAL INJURIES (ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES)
  PERSONAL INJURIES (ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES)
  MINISTER OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
  MINISTER OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
  SOUTH AFRICA (SUPPLY OF ARMS)
  SOUTH AFRICA (SUPPLY OF ARMS)
  TFX AIRCRAFT
  TFX AIRCRAFT
  UNITED STATES AND CANADA (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  UNITED STATES AND CANADA (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  AIRCRAFT WORKERS, BAGINTON
  AIRCRAFT WORKERS, BAGINTON
  EXPORTS AWARDS SCHEME
  EXPORTS AWARDS SCHEME
  OMBUDSMAN
  OMBUDSMAN
  HIGHLANDS (ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT)
  HIGHLANDS (ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Potato Producers (Judgments)
  Potato Producers (Judgments)
  Farm Improvement Scheme (Piggery Grants)
  Farm Improvement Scheme (Piggery Grants)
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Commonwealth Secretariat (Working Party Representation)
  Commonwealth Secretariat (Working Party Representation)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Colleges of Advanced Technology (Students)
  Colleges of Advanced Technology (Students)
  College of Advanced Technology (North-East)
  College of Advanced Technology (North-East)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Fireworks
  Fireworks
  University Students
  University Students
  Maintenance Orders
  Maintenance Orders
  Prison Officers and Prisoners (Assaults)
  Prison Officers and Prisoners (Assaults)
SCOTLAND
  Juvenile Delinquency
  Juvenile Delinquency
  Smallholdings (Rents)
  Smallholdings (Rents)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Export Incentives
  Export Incentives
TECHNOLOGY
  Atomic Energy Authority (Commercial Operations)
  Atomic Energy Authority (Commercial Operations)
ROADS
  M.11
  M.11
  North Circular Road (Improvement Plans)
  North Circular Road (Improvement Plans)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Death of Sir Winston Churchill (Westminster Hall)
  Death of Sir Winston Churchill (Westminster Hall)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The Lord CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford
The Lord Clifford of Chudleigh—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

REPRESENTATION ON SCOTTISH HOSPITAL BOARDS
2.35 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider amending the Statutory Rules applying to hospital boards of management in Scotland so as to ensure that there is on any board a representative for each burgh having a population in excess of 7,500 and having at least one hospital unit within its boundaries.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, the procedure for the appointment
2
by Regional Hospital Boards of hospital boards of management in Scotland is laid down in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947. Her Majesty's Government have no proposals to amend these provisions.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I would ask whether in the case of the Burgh of Lanark, which in fact is the Burgh to which I particularly refer—it has a population of 8,000 and two busy hospitals, one of which is a maternity hospital which I understand it is proposed to close down—he will ask his right honourable friend if he will use the powers which he possesses under Section 11 (6) or (7) of that Act to ensure that this Burgh is represented on the management board for South Lanarkshire hospitals?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, there is at present a vacancy on the board of management for the South Lanarkshire Hospitals, and I can assure the noble Lord that in making an appointment to fill this vacancy, the Western Regional Hospital Board will consult the board of management for South Lanarkshire hospitals and will take into account the various representations that have been made on this subject, including the representations made to-day by the noble Lord.
LORD FERRIER: I thank the noble Lord.

PROTECTION OF WILD BIRDS
2.37 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: 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 yet in a position to state when it will be possible to introduce the long-awaited Bill for the amendment of the Wild Birds Protection Act, 1954.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the Advisory Committees on the Protection of Birds for England and Wales and for Scotland put forward at the end of 1963 recommendations for amendment of the Protection of Birds Act, 1954. These took account of suggestions made in 1958 by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The views of interested organisations have been obtained on a number of proposals. My right honourable friend and the Secretary of State for Scotland are at present studying the proposals in the light of the views expressed. I cannot say at present if it will be possible for Her Majesty's Government to take any legislative action.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I emphasise to him that the matter has been under consideration for a very long time and that, as he has pointed out, I myself took a deputation to the Home Office in 1958? May I ask him further whether, if there are difficulties about the timetable, which we all recognise, it would not be possible for him to arrange for some noble Lord to introduce the Bill, as was done by a Member in both Houses of Parliament in relation to the Act of 1954?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am, of course, aware that six years have passed since the noble Lord, as Chairman of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, led a deputation to the Home Office. But the delay cannot be laid at the door of the present Government, nor indeed is it the fault of our predecessors, because advisory committees took 3¾ years to make their suggestions
4
and since then we have had to consult interested parties. With regard to the question of legislation, it is not only a question of timetables; it is also, of course, a question of content. But if the noble Lord would himself consider initiating legislation, then I should be very pleased to discuss the matter with him. However, I cannot give any undertaking that Her Majesty's Government will be able to find time for amending legislation here or in another place during the present Session.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before considering any amending legislation would Her Majesty's Government be careful to obtain the views of horticulturists?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I understand that the views of all interested parties have been obtained during the last twelve months.

DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS RAILWAY LAND
2.40 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make with regard to the disposal by the Railways Board of surplus railway land in London and the Provinces.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, in general, the disposal of surplus railway land is a matter within the management responsibility of the British Railways Board. As your Lordships will be aware, the disposal of such land in London has been the subject of consultations between my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Board. The latter have given an assurance that they are willing to make available for housing and associated purposes all their surplus land in the Metropolitan area that is suitable for those purposes. Negotiations to this end are proceeding between the Board and the Greater London Council.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the only reason why this land is now available is that this House insisted that the Railways Board should not dispose of all land in London for the highest possible financial reward, and that, as a result of the defeat of the then Government on an Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Conesford, Section 87 of the Transport Act was introduced? Will the noble Lord explain how the state of affairs which he has now described arises out of the operation of Section 87 of the Transport Act?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, of course it arises out of Section 87 of the Transport Act and, in fact, it shows that this was an embargo, or restriction, or handicap placed on a nationalised board, which would not have been placed upon private enterprise. It shows the value of land being held in municipal or national Board ownership and thereby gives any Government the opportunity to direct the use to which that land is likely to be put.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary regret having voted against most of his noble friends on that side of the House and some of my noble friends on this side of the House and having supported the Government of that day?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, this is hardly the place for confession, but I then took the view that no Conservative Government had a right to place on a nationalised Board restrictions which they were not prepared to place upon private enterprise.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government suggest to the Greater London Council that the largest of these estates, presumably on the Marylebone Road goods sidings, might be called the Conesford Estate?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to say that, although this Section 87 placed a commercial restriction upon the Railways Board, as Parliament had decided the line of policy the Board have faithfully co-operated with the London County Council, with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and now with the Greater London Council to the extent
6
that over 700 acres of land are being made available on 144 sites, and even on 85 sites outside the Greater London Area.
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord has not answered my question.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, are the Government aware how most Members of this House will welcome the fact that this land is to be made available for the thousands of homeless who are in London?

COMMONS MOTION AND COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: 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, as reported, it was with the approval of the Government that a Motion was tabled in another place which has been described as an attack on Her Majesty's Judges and which suggests that, in the discharge of their judicial functions, they have usurped the legislative function of Parliament.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, the Motion tabled in another place criticising the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Ward v. James neither required nor received the approval of Her Majesty's Government.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's Answer, does he not regard it as most astonishing that The Times, with its high reputation, should assert positively on its main page, at the very beginning of an article, that this Motion was tabled with the approval of the Government? Am I to take it from the noble and learned Lord's Answer that there was not the slightest justification for this statement? Further, would he not regard it as very shocking if the Government had given their approval to the tabling of any such Motion?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as to the first part of the supplementary question, I am never surprised at mis-statements which I read in Conservative newspapers about the Government. As to the second part, I think it is perhaps

7
undesirable that your Lordships' House should comment on what is or is not tabled in another place.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, may I further ask the noble Lord to take note of the fact that it will be very wounding to those responsible for The Times that he should describe it as a Conservative newspaper?

RHODESIA
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Lord Chancellor will be making a statement on Rhodesia.
ABERDARE MARKETS AND TOWN HALL COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
BARCLAYS BANK D.C.O. BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a and referred to the Examiners.
BRIGHTON SKYDECK BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners
CRUDE OIL TERMINALS (HUMBER) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners

SALMON AND MIGRATORY TROUT (PROHIBITION OF DRIFT-NET FISHING) (EXTENSION) ORDER 1964
2.47 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES rose to move: that the Salmon and Migratory Trout (Prohibition of Drift-Net Fishing) (Extension) Order, 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on December 17, 1964, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Order is very simple. It does nothing more than extend for a period of one year the operation of the Order which at present prohibits fishing for salmon and migratory trout by drift-net in an area of sea off the coast of Scotland. This prohibition was imposed by the previous Government, and I think it is fair to say that they
8
did so because, as they admitted, they did not really know what the effect would be on salmon stocks of the new practice of drift-net fishing off the Scottish coast which had developed in the two or three preceding years.
Some of us may have had our doubts as to whether this complete prohibition was essential, but with the inadequate information available it has been very difficult to say conclusively what the effects of drift-net fishing might be on the salmon stocks in Scotland. It was no doubt because of this that the Government of the day decided, in 1962, to refer the matter to a Committee, under the Chairmanship of Lord Hunter, who were asked to review the whole law relating to Salmon and Trout Fisheries in Scotland.
The Committee were asked to consider first the drift-net issue. They did this, and in July, 1963, submitted an Interim Report, in which they said that they had reached the conclusion that an unregulated drift-net fishery would quickly deplete salmon stocks in some rivers. They also said that they had looked at various suggestions which had been made to them for regulating the fishery, such as the licensing of boats or the introduction of catch quotas, but in the end had to report that none of the possible methods, either singly or together, would be a satisfactory means of control; and that they had not been able to find any system of control which would be workable under the existing law.
In these circumstances it has seemed to us that the only reasonable course is to continue the present prohibition on drift-net fishing for salmon for a period until the Hunter Committee have completed the examination, on which they are now engaged, of the whole law relating to salmon fisheries. When the Committee's Final Report is received, which we expect will be in the early summer, we shall have to look again at this whole question of drift-net fishing for salmon. Meantime, this Order maintains the position for a further year after the present Order expires on February 15. As I have said, there is no other change made by the Order, which continues the present prohibition of drift-net fishing for salmon in exactly the same area off the coast of Scotland as that in

9
which the prohibition at present applies. I hope the House will agree that this Extension Order should be made.
Moved, That the Salmon and Migratory Trout (Prohibition of Drift-Net Fishing) (Extension) Order, 1964, be approved.—(Lord Hughes.)
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, before the Motion is agreed to, may I ask the noble Lord why this Order applies only to Scotland? Surely rivers in this country, in certain cases, also need this protection? And although it may not be within the powers of our authority to do so, I should have thought it was worth consulting the Government of the Irish Republic to see whether they might be willing to co-operate in some way. There are rivers in that country which are also affected. It is difficult to say, with any given area, whether the salmon will run up an English or an Irish river, but it must be to the benefit of all concerned that as large an area as possible is controlled from drift-net fishing.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I have no doubt that the Hunter Committee, who have been a long time on this job and have been looking at this matter from all aspects, will have had these aspects, among others, under consideration. In so far as the rest of the United Kingdom is concerned, the position South of the Border is totally different. The method by which salmon are fished for in English rivers is not the same as in Scotland. The ownership of the fishing is not the same as in Scotland. Methods which have proved satisfactory on English rivers are not capable of solving the problem in Scotland owing to the differences in fishing laws. And it is because of these differences that we have had to wait for the final recommendations of the Hunter Committee on the reform of the fishing laws as a whole. I would point out that they say in their Interim Report that they have not been able to recommend a satisfactory solution within the existing law.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, do I understand that the Government hope to introduce by this time next year legislation based on the Hunter Committee recommendations?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, there is no prohibition on hope.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Earl of Listowel be proposed to the House as a member of the Committee in the place of the late Earl Alexander of Hillsborough.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
2.54 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the last time that the Scottish law of registration of births, deaths and marriages was before your Lordships' House was 28 years ago. The first time was in July, 1854, when a First Reading was given to the Bill which became the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act, 1854. With the principal Act still in operation 110 years later I feel that I need scarcely apologise for taking up some time in your Lordships' House with a new Registration Bill. This new Bill repeals the 1854 Act and six amending Acts and re-writes them in the legislative and administrative language of to-day and also adds some new provision to meet present needs.
There are, therefore, two reasons for this Bill. The first is that the Act of 1854 is out of date in language and also in many of its practical applications. Simple consolidation would not be enough. To modernise, we have had to re-write. The second reason is that there are a number of improvements which should now be effected and which, I am sure, will be welcomed by the Scottish people. I should add at this point that there is no corresponding English Bill, as the English Registration Acts were consolidated in 1953. The two countries differ in this field in both law and practice, and I am assured that the contents of this Scottish Bill will not cause embarrassment on this side of the Border.

11
The Bill is based upon a four-year study undertaken by the present Registrar General, and also consultation with a wide range of interested bodies. This study resulted in broad agreement that the basic functions and structure of the registration service do not need radical change. I shall therefore describe the provisions of the Bill with emphasis on what is new rather than on what is already law.
The Bill has five Parts. Under Part 1 the broad structure of the registration service remains the same. There is a Registrar General with his head office in the new Register House in Edinburgh, and a network of district registrars (at present over 900) throughout Scotland. All are statutory officers with functions laid down in the Bill. The registrars are appointed by the local registration authority, but in the exercise of their statutory duties they are under the supervision of the Registrar General.
The Bill makes one significant change in the central organisation. The Registrar General is at present faced with an overcrowding problem. The annual intake of registers needs 110 linear feet of shelving, and at this rate the New Register House will be full probably within five years. It is therefore proposed to microfilm the registers as they come in from the local registrars, deposit the originals in a proper repository elsewhere, and retain (for search and extract purposes) the microfilms, which will take up only 3 feet annually instead of 110. Clause 3 is vital to this proposal, because it gives the Registrar General authority to deposit the registers elsewhere than the present New Register House. I should like to emphasise the fact that at the present moment there is no power to take the registers outside the building of New Register House.
In the local administration, which is covered by Clauses 5–12, an endeavour has been made to simplify the statutory arrangements so as to ease the work of the local registration authorities and to clarify the relationship between the authority and the registrar as employer and employee. I shall not go into detail on this matter, but I ought to mention that one of the steps taken to meet these objectives has been to omit certain administrative functions which were assigned to the sheriff under the 1854 Act.
12
Part II of the Bill re-writes the existing law on the registration of births—along with several improvements, a few of which I shall mention. Under the existing law all births must be registered by the registrar for the district in which the birth occurred. This can be an unnecessary inconvenience attaching to the policy—which your Lordships' House has often endorsed—of encouraging confinements in maternity hospitals, because it often obliges a parent to make a special journey (in some cases quite a long one) to have the birth registered. To help such parents Clause 13 will allow them a choice—provided that they reside in Scotland and that the child is born in Scotland—of having the birth registered either in the district in which the child was born or in the district where the parents reside.
Clause 15 deals with foundling children. One of its purposes is to give the foundling child a birthday. It still occasionally happens that a child is found on a doorstep. As a matter of fact, there was a case reported in the Press just within the last few weeks. At present the child is saddled for life with a birth certificate which shows that he was found at that particular address on such-and-such a date. Under Clause 15, if a medical certificate gives an approximate date of birth, that date may be entered in the register as the date of birth of the child.
Clause 17 deals with delayed registrations, and one of its objects is to meet the very real difficulties of some grownup people who have found that their births have never been registered at all. Under the present law they cannot act as their own informants if their parents or elder relatives are dead. In those circumstances it is impossible at present for a registration to be effected, but the change in Clause 17 will enable the person concerned to do so.
Under Clause 19, the abbreviated birth certificate instituted in 1934 will be issued to all informants free when a birth is registered. This certificate, unlike the ordinary full extract, does not contain names of parents and thus makes no distinction between legitimacy and illegitimacy. We hope that this free issue will bring it into more common use. The full extract will still be available on payment of the appropriate fee. Perhaps, as we are talking about Scotland,

13
I should have put it the other way round. We hope that the imposition of the fee of 5s. 3d. for the whole certificate will make it more customary to accept the abbreviated one.
An important point is that when the abbreviated certificate was brought in, in 1934, the purpose was to enable a birth certificate to be available which did not indicate to anyone seeing it that the child was illegitimate. In fact, because it has not been as widely used for all practical purposes as we should have liked, the use of an abbreviated certificate immediately raises the suspicion in somebody's mind, "Is this a reference to a child of illegitimate birth?" We hope, therefore, that by making this the standard certificate it will be the one which is regularly used, so that the original intention in 1934 will now be carried out, some thirty years later.
Part III deals with the registration of deaths. There is no radical change in existing arrangements, except for a provision in Clause 22 enabling a death to be registered either in the district where it took place or in the district where the deceased was ordinarily resident before his death. Clause 24 brings the statutory arrangements for the supply of a medical certificate of cause of death into line with current practice, and provides some latitude for improvements in the future. As I imagine your Lordships are aware, the particulars in death registrations, including the cause of death, are transferred to anonymous punched cards which are processed in order to produce a wide variety of statistical tables. I recently visited the machine room in the New Register House where this work is done and was much impressed by the tremendous variety of services given in this way to medical research workers in hospitals and medical schools.
Part IV relates to registration of marriages. It is not among the objects of the Bill to make any change in the marriage law of Scotland. In substance it consolidates the present law on the registration of ecclesiastical marriages, and it leaves untouched the Marriage (Scotland) Act, 1939, which deals with both the contracting and the registration of civil marriages.
Part V modernises the procedures for indexing, copying, and correcting registers.
14
Photographic or other reproduction methods will be used when this is possible and desirable. If a photographic extract is issued it will be authenticated in the same way as one written by hand or provided by typewriter. Clause 43 contains new proposals for recording changes of name and surname already made in accordance with the Common Law of Scotland. There is nothing in Scotland exactly corresponding to the deed poll procedure in England and Wales, and there has been some demand in Scotland for many years for a convenient method of recording such changes. It occasionally happens, for example, that a young man or a young woman is applying for entry to higher education or employment and is suddenly faced with the fact that he or she has been brought up with a Christian name or a surname different from that in the birth entry. In these and similar cases it will be possible to have established changes recorded in a separate register. The original entry will not be altered, but when an extract is obtained the change or changes will be shown in addition to the original name or surname. I believe that these provisions not only will be found convenient, but will often relieve some real personal distress.
Clauses 45 to 47 remind us that Parliament in its wisdom did something for Scotland a hundred years ago which it did not do for England and Wales. It made it a statutory requirement that all surviving parochial registers up to the year 1854 should be deposited with the Registrar General. He has them still—4000 volumes of them. I saw them recently in the New Register House, where they are in regular use for genealogical, historical and biographical research. I am told that they are also much used in the tourist season by Canadian and Australian visitors, who come to the New Register House to trace their ancestors.
May I conclude by making the point that the registration service continues to serve in an ever-increasing degree the two main purposes for which it was established over a hundred years ago. On the one hand, it supplies records for legal, personal and scholarly purposes. On the other hand, it provides the raw material for vital and social statistics, and these statistics are linked

15
with Census results to provide an important part of the factual background on which social, economic and land use planning must be based. I am happy to commend to your Lordships a Bill which modernises the law on a matter which concerns every Scot and has a contribution to make to the social and economic progress of Scotland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a,—(Lord Hughes.)
3.5 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is most grateful to the noble Lord for the clear and concise explanation which he has given of this very important Bill. We sympathise with him in realising that he was much gayer and uninhibited when in Opposition. We on this side of the House welcome the Bill. Inevitably, my noble friends and I have some doubts to voice, and we have, too, some suggestions—some of which, in fact I hope all of which, will be constructive. We shall study with care the noble Lord's replies to the points we make. Finally, we have a number of minor Committee points which I do not propose to raise to-day, but we shall put them down for the next stage.
Before turning to the Bill, I have three questions which I should like to ask the noble Lord. First, this Bill, as the noble Lord has said, touches on many aspects of life. Can he tell the House about the various bodies which have been consulted in its preparation, which, as we all understand, has taken such a long time? Secondly, can the noble Lord confirm that no change is proposed in the degree and the nature of the access which is now afforded to the public to the entries in the registers of births, marriages and deaths? Thirdly, the noble Lord spoke about correction of errors. Is it going to be any easier to get ordinary spelling errors corrected in the register entries? At present, as I understand the position, a simple correction of a spelling error requires a formal petition to the sheriff, which must be inconvenient and perhaps expensive for some people.
16
To turn to the Bill itself, Clause 3 (1) requires that the General Register Office shall be maintained in Edinburgh. It seems to be a very unusual provision to put into a Statute that an office should be maintained in Edinburgh. The noble Lord pointed out to the House that it had been 28 years since a Bill of this nature has been before your Lordships. This is the sort of Bill which remains unchanged for many years. We are facing big changes in Scotland. Who knows what the future will bring? Some Registrar General, some Secretary of State for Scotland, may have very good reasons for wishing to move the office to Livingstone, or Glasgow, or Fife. But, as the Bill stands, he must come to Parliament with an amending Bill. I feel strongly that this is a most unusual provision to go into a Bill. I know the Register Office will be in Edinburgh; it may be in Edinburgh for all time. But I am going to suggest that we should substitute the word "Scotland" for the word "Edinburgh" and not create what, I believe, is a quite unusual precedent.
On Clause 6 and other clauses, I am concerned about the effect on the present staff in some of the registration districts. Their districts will alter quite properly: they may contract, they may enlarge, and the volume of their work may be greater or less. Would it not be proper and in conformity with the normal practice—we put this in so many Bills—to include in this Bill a compensation clause for any officers or servants who may suffer detriment as a result of the Bill?
To turn now to Clauses 7 and 53, my noble friends and I know that many of the staff are concerned about the arrangements in the Bill for such things as the fixing of salaries, the engagement of staff, and the appeal procedure over salaries and over dismissals of part-time registrars. As I have investigated the situation, and as I hope the position is, the staff of the district registrar's office will all be treated for this purpose as normal local authority employees, whether they are full-time or part-time. I understand that the part-time registrars may join the Association of Registrars of Scotland. I ask the noble Lord whether I am right. I hope the noble Lord will clarify this matter in his reply. There is misunderstanding, there are fears, and it would be very good to have the answer on the record from him.

17
On Clauses 13 and 22, the Bill departs, as the noble Lord told us, from the present practice of registering births and deaths in the district where they occur, and I agree with him that the present provision has caused some inconvenience. The present practice in England is to give the particulars to any registrar. The registrar then sends the declaration for registration to the registrar of the district in which the event took place. This is clearly a more convenient practice, though, of course, because the declaration has to be handed on from one registrar to another, this may lead to some delay. I do not think the English system causes any trouble over signatures, because, presumably, the informant advising the original registrar's office can sign the form giving the particulars.
Both systems seem to have the advantage that the district where the event occurred is the one place to look for the particulars. Under the Bill, the record need not be in the district where the event occurred; it can be in the district where either parent was living at the time. But how is one to find which district this is? Will it not be necessary, in far more cases than at present, to go and consult the central register? This is what I do not understand. I am not at all sure that the noble Lord is not curing one difficulty by creating another. We try in Scottish Bills to do things better than they are done in England, and I hope that the noble Lord can convince me that this is the case here. As of now, I and some of my noble friends have considerable doubts on this matter.
The noble Lord mentioned Clause 19, which discontinues the free issue of a full birth certificate. Of course, this is something which we in Scotland do better than England does, and such a certificate has not been charged for in Scotland. I am glad to see that the Bill keeps ahead of England by giving a free issue of the abbreviated certificate. As the noble Lord knows, there has been some criticism of this change, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, who suddenly became so lucid in departing from his brief, for telling us in words that we could well understand the reason for this departure.
Finally, my Lords, there is Clause 46 under which all the parochial registers not already returned must be returned to the Registrar General. I feel that some of
18
these registers are prized historical documents, possibly kept now in a place of honour where they have lain for so many years. I do not see why they must be returned to the Registrar General. Should not provision be made so that, with or without payment of a small fee, the Registrar General would be satisfied with a photographic copy, allowing the original to remain where it has lain for so long—that is, of course, if the present custodians so desire? That is something which we can talk about at greater length in Committee. Those are the points I have to make. My noble friends have others, and I hope they will support and elaborate some of the points I have made. Our one desire on this side of the House is to send this good Bill on its way as an even better Bill.
3.16 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps it may not be inappropriate, in opening my remarks on this Bill, to look back to the 1854 Act, the purpose of which, as described in its preamble, was
"that a complete and uniform system of registration should be established and maintained."
Lord Elcho, who introduced the Bill in another place on April 7, 1854, claimed that compulsory registration was
"the greatest boon which an enlightened Government could confer upon the people."
In his peroration he said:
"While the rich have their title deeds, their parchments and their sculptured monuments, there is literally no record of the poor man's birth or death except the parish register, which may not inaptly be called the charter of the poor man."
And he sought, in effect, to convert the parish registers into a national record.
My Lords, what are the tests by which a measure of this description should be judged? The first I suggest is: will it improve the system of registration so as to make it more uniform and complete? The second is: do the changes proposed make registration easier and more convenient for the citizen, with due regard for economy and administrative efficiency? The third is: are the interests of those who carry out the registration—the registrars—properly safeguarded? The first question on which we have to make up our minds is whether registration should be regarded as a local or as a national service. I would suggest that, where it is desired that in meeting human

19
needs different methods should be employed to conform with differences in life, thought and habit in different areas, then it is natural that the service concerned should be local rather than national. But where the very essence of the service is uniformity throughout the country, it is reasonable, at least, to put the case for a national rather than a local service.
Under this Bill, it is the Registrar General who is to give the registrar instructions and directions in the exercise of his functions under the Act. That comes under Clause 7. Under the same clause, it is also the Registrar General who is to prescribe the appropriate qualifications for registrars. Indeed, it is really not too much to say that responsibility is placed upon the Registrar General for the efficiency of the service, for Clause 1 (3) empowers him,
"to do all such things as appear to him necessary or expedient for maintaining the utility of the registration service in Scotland."
There are, of course, powerful arguments in favour of local administrative control. First of all, that is where the control now lies. Secondly, it is in many ways economical and administratively convenient. Registrars may well combine their functions as registrars with other local authority duties, and there is a close link between local authority health services and registrars, each relying on the other for much of the information required. On the other hand, local authority boundaries may not always result in the registrars' offices being located in the most convenient place for the people in the surrounding area, or even in the most economical distribution of offices throughout the country. For example, one office situated on the boundary between two local registration authorities might replace two or more registration offices, yet Clause 6 of the Bill does not seem to make provision for one registration office to cover parts of two or more local registration authority areas. This is something we can look at in Committee.
There are also frontiers of jurisdiction which may cause trouble. For example, there is the small one of office hours. I believe that, under the original Act, the hours of opening were laid down in the Act; and I think they were to be from eight to six for six days a week. But
20
now, under this Bill, they are to be fixed by the local registration authority with the approval of the Registrar General. What happens if the Registrar General does not approve? It may well be that in certain areas which have gone over to a five-day local authority week the Registrar General may feel that it is for the convenience of the citizens, many of whom come into the centre on a Saturday, that the registration office should be open on that day.
Then there is the question of discipline. The power of dismissal is given to the local registration authority, although it must first of all consult the Registrar General. But it is the Registrar General who issues instructions as to how the registrar is to carry out his functions; and if they are not carried out efficiently, then it is presumably the Registrar General who will want to have the registrar removed. It is not easy to be sure where the balance of advantage lies in the interests of uniformity and efficiency, and the choice is perhaps made more difficult because of the review of expenditure falling on the rates which I believe the Government are undertaking. If local authorities were to be relieved of the cost of registration services, the balance would be tipped in favour of a national service. Conversely, if Parliament felt strongly that the service is primarily national rather than local, there would be a strong case for relieving local authorities of the rate burden of the service.
My own view is that much depends on the extent to which local authority officers act as part-time registrars. It seems to me significant that the cities are in favour, I believe, of registration being a national service; for in cities, no doubt, registrars all have a whole-time job and do nothing but registrations. But I am sure that the answer ought to depend on the convenience of the individual, rather than on administrative convenience; and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be able to convince us that in fact the two coincide. Personally, I want the Bill to go as far as possible to enable every individual to fulfil his registration obligations at the office which is most accessible to him—which, of course, is not necessarily the nearest office.
On the score of remuneration, even if local authorities are to continue to be the employers of registrars there seems

21
no reason why, in a uniform service such as this, there should not be uniformity of remuneration, at least for whole-time registrars and those who are only part-time employees of local authorities, or in some cases, perhaps, not employees at all, but independent people carrying out the functions of registrars. Again, this is a matter which we can perhaps consider in Committee.
My Lords, it is at least surprising that there should be no mention in the Bill, that I can find, of any arrangements for the negotiation of salary scales or for arbitration in case of disagreement. If it is the intention that reorganisation of districts should take place on a considerable scale—and this was something that I think the noble Lord did not mention in the course, of his observations—then surely provision should also be made for compensation for loss of office or for down-grading of office. There is also the effect on salaries of those of the Bill's provisions which give a choice of the place of registration. That choice, I should have thought, would be likely to increase the work for some registrars and perhaps reduce it for others, although the mere fact that a choice is given will not mean that the amount of the reduction will be as much as the amount of the increase, because of the necessity to consult between registrars.
My noble friend Lord Craigton has referred to the question of where registration takes place. This, I think, is perhaps one of the most important changes made by the Bill. On the face of it, one would say that the right place to register is where the event took place. In the less mobile days of 1854, where the event took place was in most cases probably also the district of residence. Nowadays, in a far higher proportion of cases children are born in hospitals, and those hospitals may be quite a long way from home and in a different registration district. I am sure it is right at least to allow notice of a birth to be given to the registrar in the district of residence, and perhaps even to go as far as is the case under the English procedure, and allow notice to be given to any registrar—that is to say, the registrar who is most conveniently situated for the individual. Because, I repeat, it is the convenience of the individual that we want to study most in this matter. I am also sure that it is right to allow parents to notify a birth
22
in the district of residence. That is not quite the same thing as allowing the birth to be registered in the district of residence. In England, as my noble friend has said, one may give notice to any office, but registration will take place in the district of birth.
It can hardly be said that to adopt the English system would greatly increase the work of registrars, since in every case the registrar in the district of birth will have to verify that the registration has duly taken place elsewhere whenever, indeed, it has not been made by him. Otherwise, one could never be certain that there had not been double registration. The most cogent reason for an event always being recorded in the district in which it took place is perhaps that where it took place is a matter of fact: in contrast, a person's district of residence is a much less clear-cut concept. There are many nuances between "Where I lived" and "Where I was" at any particular time.
If the Bill becomes law, what is to happen on the Borders? I thought that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, did not quite cover all the points here. No doubt a Dumfriesshire or Berwickshire parent whose child is born in a Carlisle or Berwick hospital will want to register the birth in Scotland, for reasons of national sentiment. I gather that he will not be able to do so. Why should the Scottish registrar not be empowered to send the notice of birth to his English counterpart to be registered in England? Why should the Bill not provide for that? Or will notification of the birth have to be given in England, since there is to be no machinery in Scotland for notification as the Bill is now drafted?
What happens if a woman who is ordinarily resident in Carlisle has her baby, perhaps prematurely or unexpectedly, in Dumfries while on a visit there and is sent back to Carlisle quite soon after the birth, as sometimes happens? If the father gives notice of the birth to the Carlisle registrar, the registrar has no power to register the birth but must send the notification to the district of birth. So it looks as if in such cases, even though the mother may be already back in Carlisle, the Dumfries registrar will have to do the registration. Surely the Dumfries registrar could be empowered to receive the registration

23
from the registrar in Carlisle. Otherwise, obviously, the parents will be compelled to go back to Dumfries to make the registration.
My Lords, there are two main purposes in this Bill. One, has been referred to by the noble Lord, and that is the question of changes of name and surname. He referred, in particular, to children; and I think that what I have to say also covers children. The Bill maintains the Scottish tradition that the name of a person is his Christian name and that the surname is an additional name. Until I looked into this I confess that I was not aware that it is customary, but not necessary, for a father in Scotland to confer his own name on his children born in wedlock; and that, to quote the authority I consulted:
"unless any obligation exists, freedom of selection is unrestricted."
—that is, selection of name. Such obligation arises in cases of "names of dignity". A person, according to the law as stated by Lord Adam:
"has a perfect right to change his name and no-one can prevent him from adding to it or altering it."
At the same time, it is clearly desirable that some formal step be taken so as to establish the identity of the person.
I understand that in Scotland the commonest ways of establishing a new name are by Lord Lyon's certificate, which confers official recognition of the change of name, or by public advertisement. Once the formal step has been taken, and the new name is in use, there seems to be no reason why application for registration of the new name should not be made. But Clause 43 (5) allows application after the name has been in use for two years, and not before; and the registrar can insist on a further insertion in a newspaper, this time giving notice of the intention to apply. I quite appreciate that where no formal act has taken place, this delay may be justified. I realise that the period of the delay may in some circumstances provide some protection for the community. But surely at least where official recognition has been given to a change of name it is not necessary that there should be this two-years wait before the change is recorded in the register. I should
24
have thought that in the particular case that the noble Lord cited, that of children, this might be very disadvantageous. These are the points, and some others, which we shall consider in Committee. With that I welcome the Bill and wish it well.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could indicate to us the situation of that place he refers to as "elsewhere", that is; the place where the Registrar General might deposit the document other than in the New Register House. Is it by any chance a certain church situated in Charlotte Square, or is it some other place?

MINISTERS' VISIT TO RHODESIA
3.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I, with your Lordships' permission, read an Answer that is being given by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place in reply to a Question asking whether he will make a Statement about his correspondence with the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia? The Answer is as follows:
"My correspendence with the Prime Minister of Rhodesia remains confidential. I can, however, inform the House that when I met him in London ten days ago I suggested that my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary and my noble friend the Lord Chancellor should visit Rhodesia to have discussions with the Rhodesian Government and to meet a representative cross-section of opinion. The Rhodesian Government has agreed to the visit, which is expected to last about ten days. My colleagues will be seeing any persons they wish who are not in prison for criminal offences. They expect to arrive in Salisbury about February 22."
My Lords, that is the end of my right honourable friend's Answer. Assuming that my visit lasts for about ten days, I should be returning to London on or about Wednesday, March 3, and I should like to inform your Lordships that the Counsellors of State have been graciously pleased to consent to my being absent from the country for this period. So far as I can judge, I am likely to be away from the House for about five sitting

25
days. I ask your Lordships to agree to my being absent from the Woolsack during that time.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, while we shall all of us no doubt miss the noble and learned Lord during his absence from the Woolsack, I am sure he will embark on his mission with your Lordships' good wishes; and it is the hope of all of us that the discussions which are to take place may result in some alleviation of the problems of Southern Rhodesia. May I take it that the object of the visit is solely to have discussions and not to reach decisions, and that the noble and learned Lord and the Commonwealth Secretary will be reporting to Parliament the results of those discussions? There is one further matter that I do not think is quite clear from the Statement. There is a reference to seeing any persons whom the noble Lord and the Commonwealth Secretary may wish to see who are not in gaol for criminal offences. May I ask the noble and learned Lord this? Will he and the Commonwealth Secretary be able to see Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Sithole, should they wish to do so?
LORD REA: My Lords, may I add our good wishes from these Benches? We shall indeed miss the noble and learned Lord. We are very glad that we shall be so very well represented on his journey. May I thank him for his courtesy in notifying us of his intentions, and wish him full success in his mission?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I welcome the observations that have been made both by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. It is correct that the purpose of the visit is to have discussions both with the Government of Rhodesia and with representatives of all shades of opinion in the country. We shall return and report in the first instance, of course, to the Government, and it will be for the Government then to decide what is the next step to take. In answer to the last question raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, we shall not be able to see Mr. Sithole, who is in prison as a convicted man, but we shall be able to see restrictees, including Mr. Nkomo.

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, to return to the Second Reading of the Bill so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I intervene, for only a short moment, because I have had considerable experience—some twenty years' experience—of the importance of registration in Scotland, since I have been a member of a local authority, and a rural local authority at that, for all those years. I should like to testify to the value of local registration and the local registrar. He is often the key person in a village and is someone to whom people will go to register those events in their lives which are associated with the most fundamental of life's happenings—namely, births, deaths and marriages. These words themselves evoke in all of us very many memories, and how vivid they still remain although the events may be a long way off!
I believe registrars are very important people, and although this Bill stresses to some extent the importance of central registration and of the central Registrar, my feeling is that the local influence and the local importance of registrars are very great indeed, certainly in village areas. I am speaking thus because in my area at the present moment I have the secretary of the Registrars Association of Scotland, who is registrar in the Burgh of Selkirk, and I take this chance of raising with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, some of the points I have discussed with him.
The first thing of importance to realise is that in Scotland, out of 950 registrars, approximately 900 are part-time and only 50 or so are full-time registrars. This, in itself, is proof of the value and importance of the local aspect of registration. The 900 cover small areas, perhaps, but in their areas they will know almost everybody in the community and this is very important. Therefore, in my experience, registration is first of all a local service, although the Bill stresses its national aspect. It is also a local government service.
It is not always easy to get people to take on this job, because, as well as

27
being interesting, it is exacting. A registrar never knows when people are going to call on him and give him vital information to be registered, and he has really to be available at almost all hours. I have found, in the area which I know best—the Borders—that the local registrars are devoted people. And I hope very much that their interests will be safeguarded in this Bill. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn referred to this. Being part-time and in local government service, they cannot speak up for themselves in the same way as the full-time registrars, who have an association to speak for them. Clause 7 of the Bill refers to the dismissal of local registrars, and I hope that the Minister is sure that they will be properly represented in such an event and will get proper compensation.
With reference to the registration of births, dealt with in Clause 13, about which other noble Lords have spoken, there is a change in principle. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said: We want to make it as easy as possible for people to register, but there is a great deal to be said for registration by declaration and for information to be sent to the home registrar of the person concerned. All the information regarding a family would be passed on to the place where the family lives. Sometimes it might not work that way, if people were migrant, but in my experience, although now in the modern era people may move about more, on the whole people stay very much in the same areas, certainly in the rural areas. It is important to send information from the places where family events have occurred—in hospitals, for example—to where a family actually lives and where most of the information about the family and its forbears is registered.
On the point about the new certificate of birth, I see that it might be valuable to have the abbreviated certificate. We do not want to stress the problem of illegitimacy, which, alas! arises rather often these days. On the other hand, a great many people prefer the full certificate they have been used to getting, which records information which over many generations forms an interesting record, and I hope that there will be no discouragement to getting a full certificate, if it is indeed the policy now to stress the abbreviated certificate.
28
The hours of attendance of local registrars has been mentioned in the course of the debate. There is a difficulty here, since most local government officers work only five days a week and an important event might have to be registered on a Saturday. In villages the registrar is often very well known. Perhaps he is someone who has a small business in the village. And the information gets to him almost at the moment it has taken place, so that information is almost constantly made available. In the cities it must be quite different. Yet I think, that with a little arrangement of hours, it would be possible for registrars to cover the whole of a 5½ -day week at least, which I believe would be of great value to people who may want to make registrations. Certainly a rota of some kind could be organised in the smaller areas and, I hope, in the cities, too.
I agree with what noble Lords have said about the value of records in a locality. I would suggest that they need not all be sent to the central register. By the use of microfilm and other photographic means of recording, a record could be sent to the centre and the local areas might be allowed to keep their own records.
I hope that this Bill will go through. It is a valuable Bill. But I should like to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that he should consider these points, in which registrars in Scotland are keenly interested, and I hope that he will be good enough to allow us to discuss these points, perhaps in the form of Amendments to the Bill, on Committee stage. I support the Bill very much indeed.
3.48 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, may I crave your Lordships' indulgence for intervening in this debate? I do so as a geneticist, who is consequently much interested in pedigrees and in ensuring their accuracy. As the law stands at present, the new-born child must be registered in the registration district of its place of birth. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has pointed out, with the development of maternity hospitals, as well as for other reasons, it makes sense to extend this to the registration district where the parents usually reside and from that to where the mother is living shortly after the birth.

29
But I cannot see any good reason for extending this to the registration district where the father is living, and there are many reasons against so doing. To take the best aspect of those circumstances—that is, where the father at the time of the birth or immediately thereafter is living elsewhere than with his wife by reason of employment—I can find it of no great convenience that he should effect the registration. If his wife is still confined, then she can persuade any of the persons mentioned in Clause 14(2) to effect the registration on her behalf. But if a third registration district is possible, then there is the probability of confusion due to duplication, which may be accidental or may be deliberate. For who will name the child? And if the child be given different names and if in any case the surname be hyphenated, it may be very difficult for the Registrar General to discover that a duplicate registration has been made. In cases where the paternity is suspect there is more likelihood of deliberate misinformation, and the duplication will be more difficult to discover. The argument that the father is the best person to acknowledge paternity falls to the ground in cases like this. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will take another look at this matter so that the Bill may be amended and confusion avoided.
In Clause 19 another change is made in the existing law, also, I think, for the worse. It substitutes the abbreviated certificate of birth for the full excerpt which is at present given free on registration. There are two important points in favour of the continuation of the issue of a full gratis extract at registration. First, the person to whom the possession of documentary evidence of his birth is most important is in later years the child himself. Obviously he can exercise no choice when his birth is recorded. Whether or not a full extract is obtained (if not to be issued gratis) depends entirely upon the parents, who may or may not, for financial reasons or otherwise, obtain such a full extract. It seems reasonable that there should be provided in every case a full extract so that complete documentary evidence is given in the first instance. Where desired an abbreviated certificate
30
could be obtained on request. To suggest the substitution of an abbreviated certificate for the present full certificate, so that by the wider use of the former a minority would be spared embarrassment, seems to me to be unfair to the large majority.
Secondly, the recording of particulars of parentage for the registration of marriage and deaths is necessary, and with the setting up of a system of record linkage in the General Register Office must inevitably be more so. All registrars, I believe, would agree that it is because of the availability of the birth certificate (that is, the original gratis full extract) that the records of marriages and, in particular, deaths are as complete as they are. Registrars are the only persons who can speak with assurance on this point, and I understand that they do so with the complete conviction that the disappearance of the full gratis extract will lead to an increase in the incompleteness of records or a considerable inconvenience to informants who may not otherwise have particulars of parentage available.
The importance of many a Bill is emphasised by saying that it affects the life of every citizen. In the literal sense this can be said more truly of this than almost any other Bill. For it most certainly affects the life of every Scot who does not emigrate. Although, in its ultimate application, we Scots may not be able to enjoy personally the fruits of this Bill, nevertheless, for the convenience of posterity and the justification of generations yet unborn it behoves us to deliberate to-day with wisdom and circumspection.
3.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be pleased with the welcome that his Bill has received from this side of the House this afternoon, and, indeed, I do not want in any way to detract from that welcome. On the contrary, I think that when one looks at Schedule 2 to the Bill and sees the legislation that is repealed, then this Bill must be very welcome indeed. The law that is repealed is in some cases to be found in books so archaic that it required a longer walk in the Temple this morning than I was prepared to undertake to find them. This must in itself be justification for what the noble Lord said in opening.

31
There are, however, one or two matters with which I should like to deal, as have other of my noble friends this afternoon. I would take up the invitation of my noble friend Lord Craigton to elaborate one point in particular; that is to say, the provisions of Parts II and III of the Bill about where and how registration of births and deaths is to take place. As most noble Lords have said, the present law, both in England and Scotland, is that registration of birth and death can take place only in the district, or the sub-district in England, where the event took place. In England there is a mitigation of this rule only so far as birth is concerned, and not death, in that the person qualified to inform the registrar on this subject may make a declaration to any other registrar who will pass on the information to the registrar concerned. This Bill provides for the continuance of that type of system. It is provided for the general public in a slightly different way, and it extends that convenience also to the case of registration of death. In view of what has been said in your Lordships' House this afternoon, I am sure that the noble Lord opposite will have a further look at this point.
But perhaps I should tell the noble Lord what I think would probably be an improvement on what the Bill says. As I understand it, there must be three criteria of this sort of registration—and I do not know in which order they come: the public convenience; the accuracy of the entry; and the certainty that the registration takes place, and takes place once only. I think that for the purposes of carrying out those three intentions behind the law it would be better if registration took place in the district where the event took place, and there only, but that there should also be a declaratory system, both for birth and for death, so that the information required might be passed on by any registrar in Scotland to the registrar in whose district the matter had to be registered.
To take the point that you must have certainty that the information is registered, and registered only once, surely it must be the registrar in the district where the event takes place who is most likely to know about the event. Furthermore, if he, and he only, has the responsibility
32
—as I think ultimately he has under this Bill, because in the end he is the person who has to chase up any defaulters who have not done their duty under the Bill—then no other registrar in the areas where parents live, or in which a person has lived and then unfortunately has died somewhere else, need be worried about what has happened outside his district, He need concern himself only with what goes on inside his district. Both of these points, I suggest, are going to lead to greater certainty that the matter is properly carried out.
My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn mentioned the difficulty about the Border country. It is, indeed, going to be strange for Scots people, if this Bill comes into law in the form in which it now is, that if they have lived all their lives in Scotland and they should happen to die in England across the Border, or if they have lived all their lives in Scotland and given birth to a child South of the Border, they or their relatives will find that, instead of being able, as the Bill provides under Scottish law, to register in the district where the residence normally was, this cannot be done and the registration can take place only in England. Equally, there will be confusion for English people living South of the Border when they find the difference in the Scottish law that would be brought about by this Bill. This, I think, could be largely overcome if the suggestion I am putting forward were adopted by the Government.
There is also the difficulty that my noble friend Lord Balerno mentioned of the possibility under the provisions of the Bill of more than one registration taking place. As he said, there can be up to three registration districts where birth can properly be registered, and in order to prevent duplication of the sort that I have in mind there has had to be provided the specific provisions of Clause 14 (4), so that the Registrar General can sort out any muddle that may occur. I should have thought that the necessity to put in that type of provision pointed to the possibility that a considerable amount of administrative time and trouble would be involved in checking all those matters.
Then, as to the accuracy of the registration, I think some people would say it is important that the information in the

33
register should be accurate; and I would not disagree with that. They might also say that one of the things that should appear in the register is the signature of the informant concerned. Under a declaratory system of registration of both births and deaths, I do not believe there is any reason why inaccuracy should occur. After all, any registrar to whom the declaration is made will be perfectly familiar with the process that is being carried out. He will know precisely what questions it is customary for himself to ask when he is registering somebody in his own district, and if he is in charge a perfectly accurate record ought to be able to be sent on quite easily to the registrar in whose district the event took place. Moreover, if there is a necessity for a signature to be available for later inspection there cannot, particularly now that we have moved into the realms of microfilm and photography, be any insuperable difficulty about it, because the declaration could be signed by the informant when the registrar asks him the questions; and the document itself could be passed on to the registrar who is actually going to effect the entry in the register, and it could there be kept or photographed, or whatever is suitable, and there the signature would be.
One thing I do feel is that a declaratory system would be of even greater convenience to the public than are the provisions in the Bill at the moment. Any registrar would be available for the informants to visit in order to go through the proper statutory provisions of the law. I appreciate that with this system a birth certificate might be a little delayed, but I do not think that there would be a great difficulty. I also appreciate that a death certificate might, in some cases, be delayed. This might present a greater problem, but I would invite the noble Lord, if he has not already done so (and I am sure he has), to look at the provisions of Section 24 of the 1953 English and Welsh Act, which provides for the issue of a death certificate under proper safeguards, even before the death has been registered in the register in the ordinary way. It may be that any practical difficulties which would be involved in that particular instance could be overcome as they have been, I think, in England. I believe there can be no difficulty now about the
34
idea in Scotland of having deaths registered in a different place from that where they actually occurred, because this, after all, is what the Bill itself is providing. Therefore, I see no reason why the curious anomaly of English law should have to be perpetuated North of the Border. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will look most seriously at this point again to see whether the Bill cannot be improved. He will be given an opportunity at a later stage to do so.
There are three points that I should like to mention about the effect of the Bill upon illegitimate children—and this is a matter which I consider to be very important indeed. First of all, the provisions of Clause 18 (1) which provide for the father's name to be entered in the register by means of a statutory declaration are something that I welcome very much. I do not remember whether this is a change in the law, but it is certainly something that does not occur in England, and the fact that it should be in the forefront of the Bill for Scotland is something I applaud. The further provisions in subsection (2) of Clause 18, for the subsequent entry of the name of the father of the illegitimate child in the Register of Corrections Etc., in the circumstances set out, I also find very welcome indeed. The English provision is very much more narrow and, I think, certainly is lacking in some of its respects, and if the Scottish law is going to provide for this type of registration it will do a great deal to satisfy the inevitable anxiety of an illegitimate person to know who he is, and who his father was, which is a very real problem. It will also ease the situation which is now involved where the father of an illegitimate child seeks access or custody under recent Acts of Parliament, and it may also allow upon the register itself the appearance of a legitimacy if the mother is living with the father, and has, as is possible in Scottish law, quite easily, taken his name.
I should like also to comment on Clause 19 of the Bill, and to part company, I am afraid, most profoundly here with my noble friend Lord BalerNo. 1 believe this provision is absolutely right, and that the encouragement of the shortened birth certificate is a very great service to the illegitimate child. I do not believe that, on balance, the disservice, if any, to the legitimate has any comparison

35
whatsoever. The shortened birth certificate has not in fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, been as widely used as it might have been, and its mere production still involves a grave suspicion that it is merely a covering up of the illegitimacy that the person does not wish to admit. If there is one thing that one would not wish to do if one could help it, it is to saddle an illegitimate child with an extra stigma or extra occasion for distress or grief which his birth involves, and for which he cannot be blamed in any way whatever. So I hope there will be no change whatever in the noble Lord's approach to Clause 19, and that he will retain the provisions of the Bill here exactly as they are.
I hope also that if there are any institutions—I think there are a few—which still require the long form of birth certificate for some purpose, be it good or bad, they will take the opportunity presented by this Bill to have a good look again at the reasons why they do so, and to make quite certain that they really cannot, in the present circumstances, accept the shortened form which, after all, will now become standard in Scotland.
I believe there are now to be a few changes in the law, set out in Clause 28. I do not believe they are very important, but if the noble Lord is going to look over the Bill again, I do not know whether he would agree to change the sidenote to that clause, because although we all know that death is certain to everybody, I am not sure that I wish the procurator fiscal to intimate the fact to me.
There are one or two very small points regarding the end of the Bill. In Clause 35—and this really ties up with Clause 44—I hope that the modern reproduction systems that are set out are going to be of the type which ensure that a copy of the original entry in the register is available to those who wish to see it, not in the form of a Roneod sheet or a typescript, but as a photograph or some other suitable reproduction of the actual entry which took place. If there are to be signatures on these documents it is not the slightest use, when the original register is sent to Edinburgh, or wherever the central registry may be, for the copy to be sent back and not to look exactly the same as the original register was.
36
If there is going to be, as there is, a Register of Corrections, et cetera, at the central point, I am sure that it is very important, as the noble Lord said was going to be done, that there should be a full cross-reference system between corrections made in that register and the copies of the original registrations in the local registries, so that when someone goes to search at the local registry he may be quite certain that by some reference, asterisk or sidenote, he will realise that since the date of that original copy a correction has been put in. While talking about these systems, I wonder whether this is the first Act of Parliament which has used the word "xerography"? If so, I congratulate the noble Lord upon this very up-to-date drafting and also upon the introduction of a word beginning with "x".
My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn—and this is my last point, I promise your Lordships—was talking about the ease with which names may be changed in Scotland. I look at the provisions of Clause 43 (7), and I do not know, incidentally, whether a name like Macpherson is counted as a non-English name and, if so, what is its English equivalent. But I do not understand the provisions of this subsection at all. If in fact there is a perfectly good provision in the Bill for somebody to change his name and to have it registered, why is there any necessity for someone, perhaps of European origin, to have two names which are apparently valid in Scotland? Surely he ought to be required to choose one or the other, and if he chooses the so-called English variety, why can he not have that registered as his proper, legitimate name in Scotland? I suggest to the noble Lord that this provision is a little strange, and I would ask whether that subsection might with advantage be left out. With these remarks—and I am sorry for keeping your Lordships so long on them—I join with the rest of my noble friends in welcoming this Bill and hoping that, amended I trust, it will have a speedy passage through Parliament.
4.10 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, it is with considerable temerity and trepidation that I venture to intervene in a debate on Scottish affairs conducted up to now by Scottish Peers and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. My only

37
reason for doing so is to underline the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, that in this Bill there is no provision at all for officers and staff who may be adversely affected by the operation of the Bill, if and when it becomes an Act of Parliament. This omission is all the more surprising in view of the fact that it is now a well-established principle that where a general Act of Parliament adversely affects officers and staff, arrangements may be made for compensation provisions to be included in that Act.
I do not propose to argue the matter further than that this afternoon. I hope that between now and the Committee stage the Government will put down an Amendment and that, if not, the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, or other noble Lords will do so. I would support such an Amendment. It is well that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill should know that this is a point of interest not only to the other side but to his own colleagues.
4.12 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, in the first instance I should like to express my thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part and for the general welcome that they have given to the Bill. Many points of possible amendment have been raised but, having regard to the number of noble Lords who had given me previous notice of the points which they wished to raise so that they could hear what the answer might be, I am persuaded that in no case is a point being brought up merely for purposes of embarrassing debate, but that all are designed to do what the Registrar General himself is trying to do in working out the details of this Bill: to make it a more efficient machine for the operation of the registration of births, marriages and deaths in Scotland.
It is in that spirit that I propose, so far as I can in the time, to reply to the points that have been raised. I do not know that I shall necessarily deal with all of them, but I doubt very much whether I shall miss many because of the care with which noble Lords primed me in advance so that they would get good, rather than impromptu, answers.
The first point which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, raised was about consultation. Consultation has been on the widest possible basis. In fact, in addition to the Government Departments affected,
38
more than thirty bodies having some interest or other in registration have been consulted. We are not aware of any body with the slightest connection with registration who has not been consulted at some time or other during the four years that this Bill has been in preparation. If this had been a more political debate, I rather think the point would have been made that as it had taken four years this is very much more Lord Craigton's Bill than mine.
On the subject of correction of errors, the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, asked if it was going to be easier to get spelling errors corrected. Yes; it is a cumbersome procedure at the moment and it is going to be made very much easier. Clause 42 is the clause designed to that. Most of the errors are errors of spelling and sometimes of dates. Sometimes, for instance, a name may be spelled "Mc" and it should be "Mac"; or a wife discovers to her horror that her husband has given her age as 35 when, in fact, it should be 32. One doubts very much that she would rush to correct the error if her husband had given her age the other way round. In future these errors are going to be much easier to correct.
Item 5 of the notes that I have here is on compensation for loss of earnings, a point made by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and my noble friend who raised it just a moment or two ago. This is a very difficult point. One appreciates that some of the changes, particularly those in relation to the registration of births and deaths other than in the place in which they occurred, could cause quite a diminution in the number of entries in the offices of particular registrars. One thinks, for instance, of the registrar in whose district is located the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. If a great deal of use is made, as it would be expected to be made, of the opportunity of making the registration at the place of residence, it could cause quite a bit of diminution at any of the large hospitals.
The difficulty of putting a compensation Clause 1n an Act of Parliament is that this is only one of the causes by which a man's work could be varied. The operations of local authorities themselves in demolishing old houses in one area and creating new housing schemes in different districts altogether can also have the effect of changing

39
very much the incidence of work as between one local registrar and another; and it seems to me, at first glance, that it would be exceedingly difficult to make provision in the Act for compensation for one particular change alone and to ignore all the others which could take place in the ordinary course of local authorities' execution of their duties and which could have as great, or even greater, effect on registrars' volume of work.
However, in view of the fact that we are continuing in the Bill, as in the present Acts, to combine what is a national system of service with local administration, the question of the salary that the registrar has to be paid remains a matter for the local authority; and speaking with more than a quarter of a century's membership of local authority behind me, I know it is one of the grievances of the ratepayer that local authorities are very reluctant to diminish the salary of their officer whose circumstances of employment may have changed through no fault of his own. It is very much the case that local authorities tend to preserve the salary which the man has achieved, although not necessarily guaranteeing to him any future increases that he might have got if the circumstances had remained as they were. However, in view of the fact that a number of noble Lords have raised this question I will certainly undertake to look at it, but I do not offer a great deal of hope that we shall put in a compensation provision, because we feel that it would create more problems than it would cure.
The free abbreviated certificate of birth has met with a varied reception. I must say that I was very pleased that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, found it possible to give it the same sort of reception as I greeted it with when I first saw it. I cannot bring myself to agree either with the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, or with the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, on this point, although I appreciate the value of the full certificate. All I would say, if I may, with Lord Craigton's permission, to return to my Opposition manner, is that they have only to pay 5s. 3d. and they can have it; and if a child who grows up feels that his parents were not sufficiently interested in him, or were too much interested in
40
the 5s. 3d. to get him the full certificate, he can still get it on payment. But, things being what they are, I would not guarantee that it will necessarily still be 5s. 3d. in twenty years' time.
With regard to the old parochial registers, this is a point which more than one noble Lord has raised. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, raised it first, and I think there is some substance in what has been said: that people might value the actual possession of the old register, and some authorities or associations or churches with these in their possession would perhaps wish to keep them. Personally, I do not see any difficulty in accepting the microfilm or photograph or other processed copy of the register. I will undertake to go into this point with the Registrar General and if it would be acceptable for his purposes, as I suspect it would be, we will make an Amendment to accept either the register or a copy, as the present owners or apparent owners would wish.
The subject of the declaration system for births and deaths, instead of what is proposed in the Bill has been raised, particularly by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross and the noble Lord, Lord Craigton; and I think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, also spoke on this point. Having come so recently, I think I can say without any fear that your Lordships may think I am prevaricating that I have a completely open mind on this subject. I am not wedded to what the Registrar General has to say. These are the proposals of the expert in this matter; and, of course, it is well known that it is very easy to get experts to differ. I should not like to swear on soul and conscience that what is in this Bill is necessarily the best way of doing it. But what I am prepared to say is that, from all the inquiries that have been made by the Registrar General in seeking to improve it, it is what he believes to be the best way of doing it. Having regard to the convenience of the general public, I do not think it can be contradicted that this makes it the easiest possible way for the citizen to register either a birth or a death. I am, however, impressed by the stress which has been put on ensuring that there is only one registration taking place of each event, and I would wish to look at this matter from that point of view.

41
I must say that I approach this matter—and my colleagues will forgive me for saying so—from the point of view that I do not necessarily work on the basis that anything done in England is right, and that when we are making a change in the law in Scotland the first thing to do is to prove that we ought not to accept the English system. We try to work out what is the best way of doing it. If we decide that it is what the English are doing, then we give that way our approval, but not otherwise. I do not, therefore, approach this from the point of view that this is something which works in England, so let us do it in Scotland. After all, twelve years has elapsed since the last English Bill, and quite a number of changes have taken place, particularly in social habits.
In this connection, I think that the figures in Scottish cities show that the proportion of births taking place in hospital is well in excess of that with many English authorities. We show a lead in this, as the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, well knows. In any event, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said, in the question of registration of deaths we are going further than the English law at the present time. Without giving any undertakings on the matter, I will read in the Report of to-day's proceedings all that has been said on this particular subject, and will go into the matter very thoroughly with the Registrar General, so that we may decide whether in fact we can combine convenience to the public with the accuracy of the records better by the system which he has proposed in the Bill or by the alternative which has been suggested by your Lordships this afternoon.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, referred to xerography, and we thought that he was going further than that by asking what was meant by "any other convenient process". But he must have found out in the meantime, because he did not ask that question. Not only have we got to the letter X in the alphabet in Scotland, but we are assuming that xerography is not necessarily the last provision, and we are providing for the Registrar General to be able to take advantage of anything that is here now or anything that may be invented in the years to come.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, with regard to the inventions that are either present or to come, will only those which result in a photographic or other precisely similar representation of the original be available at the local register? Will typescripts and Roneos, which will not give exact representation, be avoided?
LORD HUGHES: It is difficult to be certain, but one presumes that there would be continued reliance on a system which reproduces the document as it is, with both typewritten and written material on it, including signatures.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, stressed very much the importance of local registrars—and I agree entirely with what she said in this connection—and she went on to speak about the five-day week. This is something which does not affect the local registrars in the area which she knows very well—in fact, there the registry system is really round the clock. The registrar in some of these small areas, where he knows every man, woman and child in the district, is prepared, if need be, to get up in the middle of the night to effect registration. So that this is principally a worry of the cities. It is a problem which is already with us and one does not know where it is going to end.
I read the other day in my local newspapers of a firm in Scotland which is taking the opportunity of reducing the 42-hour week to a 40-hour week by working on 4½ days, finishing at lunch time on Friday, so that the women workers will have the same opportunity of recreation as their husbands and will get the shopping done on Friday afternoon. Obviously, if there is a prospect of a further reduction in the working week one cannot have a system under which the registrar's office is closed on three or four consecutive days. I am told that at present where there is a five-day week arrangements are made wherever possible for the registrar or his assistant to be available on Saturday morning to deal with urgent business, although I cannot answer the question put by my noble friend Lord Mitchison who, when Lady Elliot of Harwood spoke of an important death, asked, "When is a death important?"
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, also spoke on a number of points in

43
connection with salaries and staffing arrangements. The position here is that we have continued in this Bill a combination of national and local service. The conditions under which registrars work are national; they work to rules laid down by the Registrar General, so that the same system is applied, whether it is in Aberdeen or elsewhere. But the question of the conditions of employment is a matter for the local authority in whose area they are. The negotiation of these salaries is a matter which rests almost entirely—it is almost out of the hands of local authorities—in the hands of the Whitley machinery. More and more the system is growing up that what is paid in the area of one local authority is comparable with what is paid for a similar job in another area, and we are content to leave this to the good sense of the local authorities concerned.
I must say that this was one of the points upon which there was most consultation, and the counties of cities wished the whole service to be taken over and run as a Government service. On the other hand, the County Councils Association and the Convention of Royal Burghs, representing at least as large a section, if not a larger section, of the population than is covered in the cities, and certainly representing a much greater preponderance of local authority opinion, wished to have the present system, which they felt combined the advantages of a national service with the opportunity to apply to it local knowledge. The Government have no strong feelings on the matter. If the general feeling of local authorities had been that they wished to have this taken over and run by the Registrar General from Edinburgh as a uniform system, then consideration certainly would have been given to it. They do not wish necessarily to take it away from the local authorities. The balance of advantage therefore rested with the majority, taking it on heads, of those concerned who wished it to remain a locally administered service. The Government thought it was better that they should accept that majority opinion and let it so rest.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord passes from that point, may I say that he was asked whether the staff of the district registration offices will
44
be treated, whether part time or whole time, as normal local authority employees. Is that the position?
LORD HUGHES: Yes. I was coming on to that.
LORD CRAIGTON: I apologise to the noble Lord.
LORD HUGHES: I was going through the pieces of paper that have been passed from the Officials Box in the course of the debate. There is one important point before I come to this matter—namely, the question of the location of the office. The Bill states that the office of the Registrar General shall be at New Register House in Edinburgh. It will be no surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, that the views he expressed on this matter had already occurred to me. It would be completely wrong, at a time when the present Government are pursuing with even greater vigour the idea of their predecessors in Scotland to have Government offices winkled out of London, that we should present Ministries down here, which are most anxious to keep their Departments in London, with such a ready-made excuse as that when we ourselves are presenting a Bill, not only do we say that the Department is to be in Scotland, but we put in that Bill that it is to be in Edinburgh.
We have decided—I am sure that Lord Craigton will welcome this—not to substitute for "in Edinburgh" the words "in Scotland", but to take out the words "in Edinburgh" and just leave the clause without them. It will serve the purpose. We cannot conceive of any Government ever coming into power in this country who would wish to have the office principally in charge of the registration of births, marriages and deaths in Scotland located either in England or in Northern Ireland; so we do not think it necessary to put this in the Bill. We reserve full freedom in this respect. But this does not mean that there is any present intention or idea at all of moving it out of Edinburgh. If, however, circumstances should ever make it as desirable that the General Register Office should be out of Edinburgh, as it is that certain Ministries or offices should be out of London, then I hope that we shall be as forthcoming ourselves as we should wish our English colleagues to be at the present time.

45
The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, referred just now to part-time registrars. He asked whether they would be treated as local authority employees. He went on to ask whether they could join the Association of Registrars. The answer in both cases is, Yes. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn—he was supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in this matter—raised a question about the registration of a birth taking place, say, in Berwick to someone who was normally resident North of the Border, or taking place in Scotland to someone who was normally resident in Carlisle. I will have a look at this. I will read out the answer which the Registrar General has passed over to me and then I will say what I want to say. He says
"This would require simultaneous legislation in both countries. The present Bill applies to Scotland only. In any event a reciprocal arrangement of this kind would be very difficult indeed."
If he had left it at the first two sentences I should not have bothered to say any more about it, because it would have seemed to be insuperable; but when he added the words about being "very difficult indeed" it makes me feel that I should look at it to see if anything could be done from the point of view of simplifying events for the citizen. It may be that the unanswerable part is in the first two sentences—namely, that it would require simultaneous changes of the law, and that it may not be possible to do this. While it is a common custom to have a long Bill dealing with English affairs and then to have a sentence or a clause added on at the end saying "This applies to Scotland", and for this purpose "refer to Schedules 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6", I doubt whether an amendment of the English registration law to this effect would meet with a welcome South of the Border. However. I will look at it.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde—it he will permit me to use this less customary term in your Lordships' House—asked what we meant by "elsewhere". By "elsewhere" I mean what he would mean by "elsewhere". Then he went on to say, had it anything to do with a
46
church in Charlotte Square? In fact no decision at all has been taken about where the surplus records could be stored. All the Bill does is to make it legal for them to be stored somewhere other than in New Register House; and the decision on where they will be taken will depend, I suppose, on terms of acquisition, and so on, and it will be taken in good time.
There was one other point which the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, raised—namely, as to the residence of the father being a qualifying place under Clause 14. I do not think we have had this point raised previously by anyone else. I must say, as against the reception which I gave to his proposals about a full certificate, it seems to me that this point in connection with the residence of the father is one which we ought to look at from the point of view of the security of the register. I certainly should wish to look at that point most particularly.
In regard to some of these matters, and some other items to which there has been no reference, a number of Government Amendments will be put down. As the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, in particular, will not be surprised to know, quite a number of them will be of a purely drafting nature. I thank the noble Lords for the helpful reception that they have given to the Second Reading, and with their co-operation in succeeding stages I am quite sure that we shall be able to pass on to another place a Bill of which this House need not be ashamed.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

KENYA REPUBLIC BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY BILL
4.41 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Airports Authority Bill. This is not a controversial measure as between the political Parties, a fact which at first sight may seem a little strange, since the Bill establishes yet another public authority. In other words, it provides for another piece of practical and applied socialism. It was described in another place by a member of the Opposition as an excellent Bill. While that in itself may not commend the Bill to my noble friends in this House, I hope that it will set the tone for the comments made from noble Lords opposite.
The Bill was, of course, drafted by the preceding Government, and I understand that the proposal to establish a public authority for the administration of our main airports was first put forward some twenty years ago by the noble Lord, Lord Reith, than whom there is no greater authority on these matters of public administration; and I hope that that opinion will carry considerable weight. The immediate purpose of the Bill is to transfer the four main international aerodromes of the United Kingdom, Heathrow, Prestwick, Gatwick and Stansted to a new and, it is considered, more appropriate form of ownership and control—namely, to the British Airports Authority.
Before going on to discuss the proposal for the future, I should like to say something about the present position and about those who have been responsible for the achievements of the past. A good deal has been said from time to time in "Letters to the Editor", and indeed when the Bill was passing through another place, about dirty teacups and untidy lounges, poor service, and high aircraft landing charges. I consider that often a good deal of this criticism has been unfair, inaccurate, mostly out of proportion and certainly unjust to those devoted public servants who have had responsibility for the administration of these airports up to the present time. It is conceivable that on occasions,
48
when noble Lords or some of these television personalities go up to London Airport, especially after a delay when there has been a rush through of passengers, one may find a dirty teacup. On the other hand, I have noticed elsewhere that not everything has been above criticism when large crowds have passed through a public place.
I myself have watched the development of London Heathrow. Over the past twenty years I have seen it grow from one runway and one tent to its present quite enormous industrial complex, in which 20,000 people earn their living and serve their country—and I include, of course, men and women other than those employed directly by the Ministry. No fewer than nine million passengers passed through this airport last year. The figures show a rate of growth of 600 per cent. more passengers in ten years, and a most surprising increase in revenue. I see that over a period of ten years the revenues collected for the services offered at London Airport, Heathrow, have gone up from £844,000 to £10,295,000. All this—in a highly technical operation where the safety factor is absolutely paramount—reflects credit on those who until now have borne the responsibility and who have brought us to this position of economic viability.
As for airport charges, I have seen a good many figures about costs, and I know that it is possible, if one is sufficiently selective, to prove almost anything about the charges for landing of aircraft at Heathrow and elsewhere, Possibly one ought to take with more than a grain of salt the airline operators' own selection of charges. It is difficult to get a perfectly comparable set of Costs. Probably the fairest comment was that made by the Select Committee which reported in 1960–61 and which, after examining this matter, stated:
"Your Committee has experienced considerable difficulty in obtaining facts of comparable costs, but they consider that the costs to operators using London airports are not unreasonably high."
This does not mean, of course, that further improvements are not possible. And the purpose of this Bill is to facilitate these improvements.
Many developments and improvements are already in progress. New passenger piers are planned; multi-storey car

49
parks, a new passenger building, an extension of No. 1 runway, and the development of the freight area are among the improvements which are either in course of construction or planned. But the point is that now that the need for public subsidy has gone, now that there is this trading surplus for the group of four international airports, we believe that it is both possible and desirable that management should be transferred from a Government Department to a separate authority which is able to exercise more flexible commercial methods in their management.
The success of the British Airports Authority will depend to a large extent on the calibre of the members chosen to control it, as well as of the staff who are employed to run it. With regard to the members of the board, the Minister stated in another place that within the maximum of eight and the minimum of four members provided for by the Bill, in addition to the chairman and Deputy chairman, he will be inclined to appoint mearer the lower limit. Having looked at the qualifications which the Minister is required to have in mind some may say that the is now guided by a set of very comprehensive, one might say complete, qualifications and that he could not possibly appoint from, outside them. I know that some noble Lords have questioned the wording in Clause 1 (4). All I would say about this at the moment is that the qualifications there set dowa certainly have been increased over the years, but have been increased because Parliament itself has demanded that the qualifications should be listed. And in setting down those qualifications the Minister has been following the wish of Parliament. The qualifications were added to during the progress of the Bill in the other place.
I should like to emphasise, in regard to the constitution of the board, that, once having been appointed, it will be expected to use both the responsibility and the powers granted to it. It is in no sense intended that this new Authority shall be tied to the apron strings of the Minister. It is true that in certain matters—for example, when framing proposals involving substantial outlay on capital account, or involving wider economic or national aviation policy; and in two matters specifically
50
mentioned in the Bill, air traffic control and aircraft noise, to both of which I shall return later—there are reserved ministerial powers. Nevertheless, it remains true that this body, the Airports Authority, will have, in fact and in name, the authority to carry out the duties all located to it.
The staff, who will number about 2,000, will consist initially of the civil servants, both. industrial and non-industrial, who operate these aerodromes at the present time. To provide for the smooth transfer of the functions to the Authority they will be seconded to the Authority for a period during which time most classes will have an opportunity of deciding whether to accept any offer of employment which the Authority may make or to return to the Civil Service. For certain classes of staff, however, the Department will have no alternative post to offer in their existing grades, and to this extent if the staff concerned do not wish to transfer to the Authority, alternative arrangements will have to be considered. No civil servant will lose by his temporary secondment to the Authority, since his pay and conditions of service will remain unchanged. Furthermore, staff who decide to transfer permanently to the Authority can expect terms and conditions of employment at least broadly comparable with those which they now enjoy.
Your Lordships will probably be aware that for good reasons the two functions which I previously mentioned—namely, air traffic control and consideration of noise—are not being transferred under this Bill, but will be reserved to the Minister. Provision of navigation services— the air traffic control and function Associated with that control, which guid the approach, landing and take-off of aircraft at the aerodromes—will remain the responsibility of the Minister. In this respect, the British Airports Authority will be in the same position as the major municipal aerodromes—Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham. The reason for this reservation of functions to the Minister is that at important aerodromes such as these, where the technical control of aircraft movements to and from the aerodromes is closely linked with the complex State-controlled en-route navigation services along the air corridors through out the country, it is important from the

51
point of view of both safety and economy that the services are provided by one agency.
The other function over which the Minister will continue to have control is the regulation of aircraft noise on and in the vicinity of the Authority's aerodromes. Aircraft noise, as most noble Lords will know, is a very difficult and a very vexed problem and it was considered—I think father courageously—that a Minister directly responsible to Parliament, and directly responsible to Members of Parliament, who in turn are often very closely in touch with the constituents affected, should retain responsibility. The Minister will therefore continue to monitor the noise made in the vicinity of the Authority's aerodromes, and to lay down the anti-noise requirements, such as the current limitations on jet night flights at Heathrow. If there is any infringement of the Minister's requirements in respect of noise, the Authority can be required to take steps to see that the infringement does not recur—if necessary, by excluding any offending pilot or airline from its aerodromes. With these exceptions, the British Airports Authority will be given as much freedom of decision and action in the day-to-day commercial management of its affairs as is possible, and the provisions of the Bill follow the line set down in a number of post-war nationalisation Statutes.
Clause 1 specifies the aerodromes to be transferred, and takes the necessary provision for the appointment of members. The four airports—Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Prestwick—although at varying stages of development, and of utilisation and profitability (especially profitability), are essentially a coherent group of international aerodromes whose fortunes are linked, and I think we shall all agree that it is reasonable that the one Authority should undertake the management and development of the whole group, and not just the more profitable London (Heathrow). The inclusion of Stansted in the group will in no way prejudice the outcome of the forthcoming public inquiry, which the Minister of Housing and Local Government will be holding on the proposal to develop Stansted as the third London airport. The special position of Prestwick in the Authority is recognised
52
in Clause 1 (5), which requires the Minister to see that the interests of Scotland are fairly represented on the Authority.
Schedule 1 details the arrangements for the terms of appointment of members, for the Authority's proceedings and for staff consultation. Schedule 2 sets out the arrangements for transferring from the Crown to the Authority on the vesting date land and other property, together with rights and liabilities. The vesting date will be as soon as possible after the passing of the Act, although it is not anticipated that it will be before the autumn of 1965.
Clause 2 deals with the duties and powers of the Authority, and the power of the Minister, which is a standard one in Acts creating public authorities of this kind, to give the Authority general directions in the national interest. The powers include the power, subject to the Minister's approval, to provide new aerodromes or to acquire or assume the management of an existing one. This power is not intended for be used, to take over existing aerodromes against the owners' Consent, but it will obviously be needed if the Authority develops a fourth London airport—or even if it has to look for an alternative site to Stansted for the third London airport. It will also be required if the Authority establishes a Central London heliport.
Clases 3 to 8 are fairly standard financial clauses. The Authority will inherit an initial capital debt equivalent to the written-down book value of the inherited assets, plus a sum for working capital, and this debt together with any other capital loans will be constituted by means of Exchequer loans. The Authority's revenues will derive mainly from landing fees, rents and services, and trading concessions. There is every reason to believe—and this, of course, is the expectation—that the Authority will be able to meet from the start its statutory duty to pay its way—as the phrase goes, taking one year with another.
Clause 9 empowers the Authority, through whose aerodromes several millions of people and vehicles pass each year, to make by-laws regulating the use and operation of its aerodromes, and the conduct and safety of people using them. There was some criticism in the other

53
place, that London Airport was at times a meeting place for "Teddy boys". I am informed that under the new powers, although the situation has already improved to some extent, it will be possible to rectify some of those complaints. Schedule 3 sets out the procedure for confirming and promulgating the by laws.
Clause 10 deals with the Authority's constabulary, which will be recruited in the main from the Ministry's constabulary who currently perform the policing functions at these aerodromes. Clause 11 deals with the constable's powers of search and arrest in respect of thefts at the airports. These powers are similar to those held by the railway and the Port of London Authority police who are confronted with similar problems. Clauses 12 to 15 make the necessary provision for the control and management of road traffic, port health functions, noise and lost property at the aerodromes.
Under Clause 16 and Schedule 4 the Authority will be able to acquire land by agreement or, with the support of the Minister, compulsorily. In fact, the powers given are similar to those held by a local authority which already provides an aerodrome. The clause also provides for the Minister of Aviation or the Minister of Transport to exercise in favour of the Authority his power to obtain rights over land, to impose control over laud or to stop up or divert highways. Clause 17 provides for the Authority to pay compensation or to purchase the land in cases where planning permission is refused or revoked in the interests of the Authority's aerodromes; and Clause 18 makes the Authority a statutory undertaker for the purpose of certain named Acts and thereby gives it the same sort of protection from unreasonable interference by a local authority or another statutory undertaker as is afforded to existing transport undertakings such as railways, inland navigation, and dock and harbour authorities.
In conclusion, my Lords, I think I I should say something about the task ahead. I have referred to the very considerable growth in air traffic at these four airports over the past two decades, and undoubtedly there will be a considerable expansion in the future. But I think it would be wrong not to recognise that some advantages which these British
54
international airports have enjoyed in the past will be less evident in the future. Much has been said about the international airports of Britain being the gateway to Europe. This they have been, and this, I trust, they will remain. But, with the development of the longer-range aircraft, there will be an increasing possibility of transatlantic aircraft overflying London and making directly for the European Continent. To the extent that this tendency is encouraged by the development of new aircraft we shall have to ensure that it is counteracted by the increasing attraction and efficiency of our airports. This is a challenge that I have no doubt the new Authority will accept, and in their work I know noble Lords on all sides will wish them well. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Beswick.)
5.3 p.m
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am very honoured to follow immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and to be the first to congratulate him on, I believe, the first Bill he has presented in this House. I am sure he will wish that all the Bills he presents here will be received as well as I believe there is a good chance that this one will be. I should like straight away, if I may, to join with him in offering our regard and congratulation to the many public servants who worked at the aerodromes owned by the Ministry of Aviation. I am bound to say that I think many of them have not worked in the easiest circumstances, and not least, perhaps, because of the organisation which has been imposed.
The noble Lord talked a little of the tasks ahead. I am going, if I may, to try (shall I say?) to prise open some more ideas of what does lie ahead, and see whether Her Majesty's Government have in fact considered a number of the difficulties which are likely to arise, and perhaps fairly soon. Before doing so, however, I should like to call attention to the actual format in which this Bill has been presented. Perhaps I should particularly address these remarks to the noble Earl the Leader of the House. When this Bill was presented in the other place, it had an Explanatory Memorandum—I never quite understand where

55
Explanatory Memoranda come from—which was divided into two. When it comes into this House, one finds that the second half of the Explanatory Memorandum has been cut off; and I do not quite know why that has happened.
The second part is called, "Financial effects of the Bill". I do not know whether this is due to the fact that your Lordships' House is so learned in financial matters that it is wholly unnecessary to offer any explanation; or whether the opposite view should be taken, that it is wholly improper for your Lordships to consider any financial matter at all. Whichever it is, I think it is wholly false. It is nothing to do with the Parliament Act. It may conceivably have something to do with the Resolutions passed in the time of Charles II, I think, about 1670: something which said that aid and supplies are solely the province of the Commons. Nobody is questioning all this, but we in this House have always been entitled to the fullest explanation of all matters in Government policy, including financial matters, and we are fully entitled to make any comment we like on them. I merely put to the noble Lord that I think it is a pity that there should be any suggestion that this House is not entitled to all explanations, whether financial or otherwise.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Earl, since he has referred to me, I apologise to him for the fact that I may have to leave the House in a few minutes, but the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who is going to wind up, is very well equipped to deal with this point, among others.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Earl very much. I would not dream of retaining the noble Earl unnecessarily on it. The noble Lord mentioned two subjects which are going to be reserved to the Minister of Aviation, and the first of those is noise. I wonder if the noble Lord could state whether, in the event of any damage arising from noise, the Minister of Aviation accepts full responsibility. This, I know, is a very tricky subject, and I expect the noble Lord may have difficulty in answering me in categorical terms, but I think it is a point of very considerable public importance.
56
The second point I should like to make is on the other reservation. It is put in the Bill as being "navigation", but if your Lordships turn to the Interpretation Clause 1t will be found that "navigation" can in fact cover a much wider sphere than one would normally imagine. It covers, in fact, all facilities provided in connection with the movement of aircraft and of vehicles on the airport. That means that the Airports Authority will have nothing to do with aircraft except when they are parked. I bring this out in no sense of criticism, but simply because I think that, in aviation particularly, direct and clear lines of responsibility are of great importance. This means, then, I think, that all the equipment connected with flying—that is to say, blind-landing equipment, I.L.S. or any other form of blind approach system, or any other form of radar connected with aerodrome control—will be wholly the responsibility of the Minister of Aviation and not of this Authority.
I make this point because I think it is very important that we should know who is going to be responsible for developing blind-landing equipment—which, of course, among other things, and among other forms of control, we are looking forward to coming quickly. It is important, I think, that this Authority should know where they stand in this. I am aware that this arrangement can be changed by a letter; but, frankly, if there is a clear decision to be made, it should be made, I think, in the Statute, and not in a personal letter from the Minister to the Authority.
There is one thing, however, which is quite clearly the responsibility of the British Airports Authority, and that is car parking. For a long time we have been far behind the world in our car parking arrangements, and we should have reached the stage when a car is not regarded as an unusual luxury for which people are very lucky to have any provision whatsoever. A large number of those employed in different capacities in airports come in cars. It is high time that at aerodromes, at least, proper car parking facilities were provided; and I should be glad to see some indication of this in the Statute itself, because this matter has become very badly out of hand in a great many places.

57
If I may go on from that, I am not entirely happy about the title British Airports Authority. In the first place, it is not British in the full sense of the word, because it represents only a comparatively small number of British airports; and, secondly, it is not really an Authority, because all it is doing, in fact, is being a stationmaster for an airport which is operated for the Ministry of Aviation. I am bound to say that the expression is slightly grandiloquent and, in a way, rather misleading. I do not know that that matters very much; but I should like to ask whether it is intended that this should, in fact, cover a large number of additional airports. For instance, I take it that there will be no attempt to take over the municipalised airports in Group 2. Whether the intention is to find an agency to run what is called Groups 3 and 4, I do not know; but I should be interested to know whether the Government have that in mind. What I am really concerned about is the structure of our air services in the immediate future, because they will, and could, considerably affect the economic evolution of this country and the distribution of industries and, accordingly, of population.
My Lords, the great failure of our air services in this country since the war is that they have followed the railway line far too closely. They have perpetuated and continued the concentration which the railway line started a hundred years ago. I think this is a very great pity. They had the opportunity to break away and they did not do so. I am hopeful that they may yet do so. At the present time, the first thing you do, if you want to leave this Island, is to buy a ticket to London. That has always been the case with the railways. I had hoped that with the development of aviation that would cease to be the case. But what has happened? Naturally, London Airport has become horribly overcrowded. It may be it is not designed as well as it should be; but from the passengers' point of view it is really one of the least pleasant airports in the world to-day.
This is something which can very well be got over by greater diversification of the terminal traffic and by stopping the channelling of all traffic to Heathrow. It is really curious that the Air Transport Licensing Board has taken the line
58
that this is the only way in which the airlines can be commercially operated in this country. That may be true if you disregard the personal comfort of the passengers and the broad economic planning requirements of this country. But if you do regard them it is wholly untrue.
My Lords, I am asking only this: does this Bill affect this proposition? This is fundamental; it is important to know how our evolution in air planning is to take place. Does this Bill, as it now stands, affect it at all? If so, how far are we going to be able to maintain control of proper aerodrome services? I should like to ask this: will the Government recognise that the shape and form of aviation services is going to play a fundamental part in the broad economic planning of this country? I should like to have an answer, either "Yes" or "No", on that. Let us not forget that it is the North and West of this Island which have been traditionally deemed most concerned with the export trade; yet it is from these areas that it is almost impossible to get out of the Island, either to the Continent or to any part of the world, without travelling first through London. To get round this, I suggest that more attention should be devoted to the provincial services outside London, instead of doing what at present is the apparently accepted policy: feeding all the services from all over the country into London Airport.
I should like to deal specifically with the subsection to which the noble Lord referred and which deals with Scotland—Clause 1 (5). This, in common terminology, is called a gesture to Scotland; but if I may say so, it is a pretty feeble gesture. What it says is this: that one member of the Authority will be familiar with the general circumstances in Scotland. Frankly, with four airports, I should hope that all the members will be familiar with the general position in Scotland. Indeed, if you take its meaning further, it implies that the other eight or nine members will be unfamiliar with the position in Scotland. That is ridiculous. I would rather have no paragraph at all than that. I know this is a difficult point; I am aware of it. It is not easy, because it is not always easy to get the right man. And if the man lives in Scotland, it is sometimes difficult for him to attend

59
meetings in London. It is not easy; but in this case, where there is an obvious possibility of a conflict of interest between, say, Prestwick and London Airports, I think stronger assurances must be given that Prestwick Airport will not be strangled by London.
The position, bluntly, is that London Airport is crowded at the present time and is making money; and Prestwick Airport is losing money. It will be obvious that an Authority such as this, which is clearly designed to be commercial, will put all its money into the paying side of the proposition and leave the other side undeveloped. There is clearly a financial incentive to do so. In these circumstances it will be necessary to put down an Amendment to ensure that there will be a clear-cut expression of those who are resident in Scotland on the Board of this Authority. I will only add this. I am glad that, as I understood it, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said it was his intention to make this Authority independent, or, at least, not tied to the apron strings of the Ministry. I am delighted to hear this. I hope he will get people of standing for this important work; and with those words I, personally, welcome this Bill.
5.17 p.m.
LORD REITH: My Lords, I got far more from the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, than from the Bill. It is true that I tried to have an aerodrome authority created after the last war, and what it is proposed to do now is, in my view, entirely right in principle. But, according to the Bill as it now stands, how it is proposed to do it, the institutionalisation of the Authority, is in so many paragraphs so horrible as almost to make the original right a wrong. I have made myself clear, I hope; and I have also made clear, as did my noble friend who has just spoken, one's immense relief that the Bill should have been interpreted in a much more satisfactory way than eyesight entitled one to expect.
I think most of us agree that it is right that there should be such an Authority, but I say that at the moment this Bill is giving birth to an Authority in a straitjacket. What are we to believe: the clauses of the Bill or the statements of the Minister?—because they are delightfully
60
and most satisfactorily different. And I am sure the noble Lord means what he says. But I find that this Authority is, according to the Bill, merely a proxy for the existing Civil Service control.
In general, I want to make an appeal to the noble Earl the Leader of the House, or to the Minister, or to whomsoever it may be. I believe profoundly in the public corporation system—I was responsible for the first one and for five others and I have managed six—so long as proper institutionalisation is given to the Authority; so long as one can depend on the decent. right attitude from the Minister (with the approval, forsooth, of the Treasury), from the Treasury, from both Houses of Parliament and from the civil servants of the Ministry concerned; without all that I should oppose the public corporation system, either for this particular service or for almost any. After all, both Houses of Parliament, in letting a Bill through for the creation of a public corporation, have passed a self-denying ordinance—have they not, my Lords?—withdrawing from themselves the right to interfere in management.
Now that affects this tremendous issue of accountability. And my appeal to the noble Earl, in his absence, through whomever it may be, is this. Would he consider, and if his considerations are as I think they might be would he recommend to his colleagues, the establishment soon of a Royal Commission to consider this new—relatively new, anyway—and tremendously important instrument of government, which has had no official consideration, none at all, so far as one knows, and in which practice varies immensely as to accountability and in many other ways as well? Could we have consideration given to the appointment of a Royal Commission, so that in fact this system gives what it is designed to give—namely, the best of both worlds: public control over major policy when necessary or desirable, but no public interference in management (or, if you prefer it to be put positively, relatively commercial freedom of management) so that those two essential characteristics may be realised?
So much for the general. Let me turn to the particular. I am going to say very little indeed, because this is Second Reading and not Committee stage. But in

61
my view it really is an awfully bad Bill as it stands. I think it could be two-thirds of the length, with far greater clarity. It is too bad to establish an Authority with a borrowing power of £70 million with an initial capital debt commitment of £56 million-plus. How delighted I was to hear what the noble Lord called it! It was not what the Bill called it at all, but the initial capital debt; not, forsooth, the "commencing capital debt"—in one's prep. school the word "commencing" was as much an offence as a split infinitive. The Authority will have this initial capital debt of £56 million-plus, and for the first two years they may have another £4 million added and no consultation or say. What a task— £70 million borrowing power and committed already to anything up to £60 million!
Equally important—could they not be allowed to borrow in the cheapest market? I think your Lordships will agree that the clauses read now as if the borrowing, the repayments, the interest and all the rest are to be controlled by the Minister. Surely we can trust the Authority to look after their own affairs as to borrowing reserves, repayments and statements of accounts. But the particular matter I am referring to is the borrowing and repayment.
Please, could the Authority be allowed to appoint their own auditors? There have been many Scottish accents in the House this afternoon, so I will use a Scottish word. I think that to make the Authority take auditors appointed by the Minister is "scudgie". Please let them appoint the auditors, if you like with Ministerial approval. Could consideration be given to that?
I have nothing more to say, except to repeat that, despite what the noble Lord has said—and he said a great deal that is most relieving—these things are here in black and white. Could some of them be modified to make it statutorily clear that what the noble Lord said will be implemented and that the Authority will be a real authority, trusted by the Government?
5.25 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I can only hope that the worst fears of the noble Lord, Lord Reith, are not realised. On the whole, I welcome this
62
Bill, and I am very glad that it should be introduced in this House by a noble Lord who had such a close connection with the subject fourteen years ago, and who, in addition, must be one of the few Ministers in the Ministry of Aviation to be experienced in piloting an aeroplane. I think that he speaks to us with great authority.
I believe that the Bill is a very necessary step towards placing our major airports on a businesslike and commercial basis. The demands of air travel change so rapidly that the development and management of airports is a science which calls for a high degree of business sense, imbued with foresight, imagination and courage. It is no reflection on those Ministers and their servants who have been responsible in the past to say that a Government Department is not the best sort of organisation for this purpose.
We all know the trials and trouble at Heathrow. It has never been adapted for the traffic, constantly growing, which has been brought to it. At one time or another, most of us have suffered discomfort, delay and frustration there. Until very recently the conditions in the domestic departure and arrival area would have disgraced a cattle market. Fortunately, some improvements have been made; and more, I am glad to see, are on the way. Again, these conditions are no reflection, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said, on those who work there, doing their best in the face of heavy odds. They are the consequence of early mistakes of design and subsequent indecision on future needs and planning. I am glad to say that at last there are more signs all around London Airport that we are beginning to put these things right.
I am glad that the noble Earl said a few words about the future of the staff, because it struck me as peculiar that in the Bill the only reference I could find to staff was to the Authority's power to pay them pensions, and I am relieved to find that that is not all they are going to do with the staff. This is reassuring, because an enterprise like Heathrow is very much dependent on the staff. It is a remarkable mixture of a small town and a sizeable industrial enterprise rolled into one.
May I say a word on the communications to and from airports? I know

63
that the Authority's responsibility ends at the perimeter of the airfield, but that does not lessen the vital importance of public communications from the neighbouring town. We all know the problems of getting to London Airport. Fortunately, they will be considerably eased by the opening of a new road in the spring. I think that they would have been even more eased if, years ago, the various plans for a railway line or monorail line had been taken a great deal more seriously; and I hope that, even at this stage, the new Authority will not rule out something of this kind.
There is one particular point which, though I do not think that it is covered by this Bill, deserves the Government's attention—that is, the question of the fares charged for taxicabs from London Airport to the centre of the city. I know that they come under ancient legislation, which refers to them as hackney carriages, and that the jurisdiction of that legislation does not extend as far as London Airport. But the fact remains that if a passenger arrives at London Airport and takes a taxicab outside, as a friend of mine from America recently did, the taxicab driver can charge anything he asks, if the passenger is prepared to pay. It may be said that one should take a bus or hired car; but, after all, the foreigner arriving and seeing a London taxicab probably regards it as much a part of the image of British respectability as he would a London policeman. Moreover, the end of a long and tiring journey is no time for argument. To be charged, as my friend was the other day, the sum of £4 10s. to be conveyed from London Airport to Hyde Park Corner is an utter disgrace when it is possible to hire a car, with driver, for less than half that sum.
I should like to say something, in particular, about Prestwick, because it occupies a position somewhat distinct from the other three airports covered in the Bill. When the White Paper was first published some voices in Scotland suggested that Prestwick should be included in a Scottish Airport Authority, as distinct from the rest. I am sure that this would have been a mistake and it is right for it to be in this group
64
which is essentially one of international airports. It is only in this way that its equipment facilities and status can be properly maintained.
Prestwick has come a long way since before the war, in the days when it was a grass airfield and its potential had been appreciated by few people, including the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, his brother, the Duke of Hamilton, and that great pioneer of aviation, the late Group Captain Macintyre. It was the war that brought Prestwick into its own. It was vastly developed with Government money, and was brought to its position because of its location for the shortest crossing of the Atlantic and because of its climatic conditions as the most fog-free airport in Britain. It was reported in a headline last week that Prestwick had been blacked out by fog for a whole day. That was news because it was the first time this had happened since the end of the war. I believe it was that quality of being a fog-free airport more than anything else that saved it at the end of the war, because its value as a diversion was considerable, and it still is most important to-day, as you will discover at any time when there is fog in London.
There is, however, another reason why it survived, and that is that there was a strong realisation in Scotland after the war that our own transatlantic airport was essential for the development of our industry and trade. Those were the days when United States companies were first coming over and setting up branch plants in Britain, a great many of them in Scotland. They have now swollen to some 70 in number, making everything under the sun; and many of these, I know, might well have gone elsewhere if they had not direct communications with their parents in the United States. It is this question of direct air communications that is so important: they are the lifeblood of industry and trade. And I say direct, as opposed to hampering bottlenecks, like the procedure of changing planes at London Airport.
To-day Prestwick is a great gateway for our export salesmen and the goods they send out, and also for the growing incoming tourist trade. That is why we have always kept up the pressure and wrung out of successive Governments, as the noble Lord knows well

65
from his earlier experience, assurances about Prestwick's future. We have constantly done so because there have been times when it looked as if there was a danger that Prestwick would be relegated to a second-class status, and also because the Ministry of Civil Aviation (as it was then) seemed to enjoy (if that is the word) an unusually high rate of turnover in Ministers. Our aim has always been to secure that Prestwick should continue as the second international airport of Britain, and that it should be developed to handle all aircraft capable of being handled, and on the same terms as at London Airport. An assurance to that effect was given categorically by the then Minister to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Scottish Council, which I was representing, in December, 1958. The assurance was honoured, if only in the nick of time, by the extension of the main runway for the accommodation of jet aircraft when they came into service. If this had not been done, they might well have overflown on their regular schedules for ever.
The new terminal building at Prestwick is a fine building. This has now been completed, and so have other facilities. Prestwick is now well up to date and an airport to be proud of, with the exception that it lacks a hotel. The old one had to be demolished in the interests of safety—not of the occupants, but of the occupants of the aircraft. The late Government negotiated with various developers for the building of an hotel, but nothing came of this because the requirements of the Ministry were for something much too grandiose and expensive. I hope that they will reconsider this as a matter of urgency, because there must be an hotel there.
The assurance about Prestwick was given about six years ago. I would ask the Minister who is to reply if he will be good enough to repeat the assurance for us to-day. I say that because there has recently been some talk of further extending the runways at London Airport for the requirements of the supersonic aircraft. We are most anxious that there should be full provision for these at Prestwick, too. That is why we attach such importance to Scottish representation on the Authority. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said something
66
about this. I would only add that the expression in the Bill regarding this is not only verbose, but verging on the evasive. Clause 1 (5) says:
"The Minister in appointing the members of the Authority shall have regard to the desirability of ensuring"
that there is at least one Scottish member. If there is a "desirability", presumably it is desirable; and if the Minister is to "have regard to the desirability", surely he must do something about it. I would suggest that it can be simply put (I know that we can raise this in Committee) as "shall" and "should".
In Clause 7 there is mention of provision for consultation with various local interests. I am not sure how much value one can attach to this kind of consultative committee, but I would suggest that in the case of Prestwick the locality of the airport is not strictly relevant in the normal sense. The area served by the airport is the whole of Scotland, and if there is to be some consultative body for Prestwick, then I suggest that it should be on an all-Scottish basis.
I should like to ask one other question. What in future will be the status of the Scottish Advisory Council on Civil Aviation, which has a duty to advise the Minister on matters affecting Scottish airports? How will this be affected by the advent of the new Authority? As we have been told, the Authority is bound, under the Bill, taking one year with another, to make ends meet financially. Prestwick does not yet do so. The overall profit of the four airports covered in the Bill last year was some £1½ million. But London Airport alone made a profit, or, as it is described, net operating surplus, of £2¾ million. This was offset partially by a deficit at Prestwick of £250,000, and even more by a deficit at Gatwick of nearly £1 million.
What we have to do is to build up the traffic, particularly through Prestwick. For this reason we were disturbed at the late Government's action last summer in placing restrictions on the number of services that Scandinavian Airlines could run through Prestwick Airport on the ground (which I think was somewhat dubious) of international agreement. Certainly that was not the interpretation of the agreement by the Scandinavians, to whom I know, from a visit at about that time, we caused a great deal of offence.

67
There is a rumour that other overseas airlines may be similarly restricted. I should like to point out that these services are valuable, not merely for the crossing of the Atlantic, but as direct air links of the kind mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, from Scotland to the Continent of Europe, and they are widely used by our visitors. I hope that rumours of further cuts are false.
It is understandable that the Government should want to give some protection to our national carriers. But B.O.A.C. can stand on their own feet against this kind of competition. In fact, they are doing an excellent job in building up air traffic from Scotland and the North of England to the United States. They are running a daily service called the "Scottish Monarch, "which originates from Manchester, calls at Prestwick, and flies to New York every day of the week, in addition to services to Canada. For the benefit of our friends embarking at Manchester, I think the least they could do would be to call it the "Lancastrian," or something similar, on one day of the week. This service has the added advantage of taking away traffic that would otherwise be channelled through London Airport, so adding to the congestion there. I also think that every possible encouragement should be given, and everything possible done, to increase the service through Prestwick and other airports, rather than place a restriction on them.
On the accounting side, there is one technical branch on which I should like to put a question to the Minister. I think it is a matter of bookkeeping. Last year, over 20 per cent. of the total landing fees at Prestwick were not paid in cash, but were a bookkeeping entry from another Government Department for aircraft, mostly military, which enjoy rights of landing free of landing charge. Under the new Authority, how will this be dealt with? Will the Government promise to make good to the Authority this shortfall on a cash basis, instead of merely treating it as a shortfall?
I know that I have spoken rather a lot about Prestwick, but it is only because I believe that, important though it is to Scotland, it is equally important in its r^ le of being one of Britain's great international airways. It is important that Prestwick should not be left behind or
68
forgotten just because the other three airports covered in the Bill are London airports. The new Authority has, as has been said, a challenging and exciting task. With the powers in this Bill, and if it is given the right membership and left unhindered to get on with its job, I believe that we stand a chance of regaining for our international airports their rightful place among the leading airports of the world. And in this I would certainly join the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in wishing the Authority very well.
5.43 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships long, nor will I say much more about Prestwick. If I do not, it will not be because I do not, as a fellow Scot, support all that has been said on the subject. There are two points I should like to emphasise. One is the reference to supersonic aircraft and the importance of Prestwick in terms of the supersonic boom for outward bound planes. We do not know much about the boom, but it has an effect upon a coastwise airport of that nature. The second point which was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, was the trade between Scotland and Canada. When I have travelled in and out of Prestwick, as I do quite often, I have been greatly struck by the enormous volume of the Scottish-Montreal traffic flowing inwards and outwards, almost like commuters.
Mention was made of the need for rail connection with London Airport, and noble Lords may remember that I have asked a question in this House on that subject before. Of course, it is a pity that, when the Airport was developed after the war, the rail communications were not completed as originally planned, due, I am informed, to the absence of sufficient bridging spaces at Victoria across the river at that time. That accommodation in tracks across the river is now there, and if it is not too late I feel that, whatever may be said about the future of a highway to the West and a road to London Airport, the speed with which road traffic is growing may still make us face the same kind of problem in ten years' time-the problem of linking the centre of London with the Airport, which can be overcome only by some sort of rail connection.
Reference was made to the taxi service at Heathrow, and I think it is perhaps a

69
little off the beam to develop here what the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, said. I got in a taxi at Heathrow the other day and asked to go to Osterley Park Tube station. The taxi driver told me he could not take me there, but that he would take me to the taxi pool. I motored in the taxi until it had 3s. 6d. on the meter. When we got to the pool I offered to pay, but the taxi driver said, "No", and told me that this was a service they rendered free. I got in a taxi which took me to Osterley Park, and I got in a Tube to the City. It is clear from this that there is a problem which must be overcome by the authority in the future. I mention this only because it seems that something might be done now; and I believe the taxi people would co-operate to enable one to take a taxi from there to any part of the Metropolis, within reason. With those few remarks, I support the Bill.
5.46 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I hope it is in order for a mere Englishman to venture into this discussion, and I should like to start with a brace of congratulations. I had the good fortune to be able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, only a few days ago on his recent debut in your Lordships' House. But, as my noble friend said, this is certainly the first time that he has introduced a Bill to your Lordships, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Reith, is not alone in being grateful to the noble Lord for the helpful and lucid way in which he introduced us to this Bill.
My second meed of congratulation is to the Government themselves. It is no secret that this Bill was prepared by the last Administration. It is one of the many good things which the present Administration found waiting for them when they took office, and I should accordingly like to congratulate the Government on their good sense in taking over this measure. Given the Bill's respectable parentage, I think it would only be right and charitable for me to put right any uncertainty which the noble Lords, Lord Beswick and Lord Shackleton, may be feeling, and to tell them straight away that I, for my part, have No 1ntention of disinheriting this child. I can straight away endorse what my noble friends have said: that we generally welcome this Bill, and we welcome
70
the improvements which were made to it in another place. I am particularly glad that the interests of the consumer and the user are now specifically provided for in the membership of the Authority itself. There may well have been very good reasons in the post-war years for our international airports being subject to tight ministerial control. But they should now be well able to stand on their own feet; and we agree that it is certainly time now for them to be free from the ministerial apron strings. The reasons for this are perfectly simple. It was put very succinctly. I feel, in the evidence which B.E.A. gave to the Estimates Committee three or four years ago, as they then stated:
"An airport is potentially a keenly commercial undertaking, and for this reason should be run on competitive business lines. A Civil Service approach is very often quite inappropriate."
As an ex-civil servant, I should like to associate myself with those words.
That said, I think I also agree that the Minister has in all probability been right to reserve to himself the two areas of activity, air traffic control and noise, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, specifically referred. It is quite clear from what has been said in your Lordships' House this evening that the new Authority is to have a considerable job on its hands. This is one of the fastest growth points in our economy and, like much growth, this particular growth has been accompanied by growing pains.
I certainly do not wish to disparage Heathrow and other great airports, and I certainly do not wish to disparage the achievement of those responsible for them and who have been working there, but if there was any part of Lord Beswick's introductory speech which gave me some concern—and I hope I am not putting it too strongly—it was the rather complacent way in which he dismissed some of the criticisms which have been made of these airports and of Heathrow in particular. It is true that they have a proud safety record and I think that their traffic control is unrivalled in its efficiency. The Foreign Airlines' Association in their statement to the Select Committee said that in operation London Airport is one of the best in the world. If anything, I think that is an understatement.

71
But the criticisms which have been made of London Airport, and of Heathrow in particular, go a lot deeper than the question of whether there is, or is not, dirt on teacups. They go very deep indeed. I will not go over the ground, but a number of telling points have been made by my noble friends on this subject. I do not intend to elaborate on this point, if only because I could not possibly put the critical case against Heathrow better than it was put by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in your Lordships' House three years ago on February 23, 1961. I would endorse and echo many, if not all, of the strictures which he then passed on Heathrow. I do not think we help ourselves or help the cause of British aviation by overlooking the warts on London Airport.
I know that up to a point all airports are being overtaken by events these days. However, compared with the new Rome Airport or Orly or Kennedy Airports, or those fine airports at Copenhagen and Zurich—I am just mentioning one or two which are personally known to me—Heathrow, in certain important respects, certainly as far as the convenience of the passengers is concerned, does not come off too well. But it handles more international traffic than any other international airport, and it should, and must, therefore, be a shop window for British aviation, and not least for Britain. It is not yet that shop window, and I am sure that most noble Lords will agree with this and will also agree that this is part of the challenge that the new Authority are facing.
I hope I have said enough to show that we on this side feel strongly that this new Authority will have a big job on its hands and will need big thinking. Any indication which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, can give us in his concluding speech of what is contemplated in this respect will be very welcome. For example, what is the programme of material improvement at Heathrow? When will the new freight area, about which we have heard and which is very important, be ready? Do we really have to wait four years for the new domestic terminal? What about Stansted? When is the inquiry to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, referred likely to be held?
72
Perhaps most important of all, there is the question of communications and intercommunications between the London group of airports, a point on which a number of my noble friends have touched. Is there anything which the noble Lord can tell us about this, and of the monorail project, of Tube extensions, of the use of helicopters, of the pet project of my noble friend Lord Bossom for hovercraft, of road improvements, and so on? These things are not directly relevant to the Bill, but they are the long-term setting in which the new Authority is going to have to work, and I, for one, would welcome any glimpse which the noble Lord can give us of what is the Government's future thinking on these important matters.
Big thinking is certainly required here, and big thinking needs big minds and big men. The stronger this Authority can be made and the sooner it is set up the better. I am glad that the Minister prefers a smaller rather than a larger Authority. I suppose we must accept the fact that it would be difficult to get the new Authority constituted until, say, the middle of next year, but can the noble Lord tell us anything more about the Minister's intentions here? I think he said in another place that it was the middle of next year.
LORD BESWICK: In 1965.
LORD SHACKLETON: It was last year that he said it.
EARL JELLICOE: I am delighted to hear that.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Earl should have looked up the debate in another place. It took place last year, so "next year" has now become "this year".
EARL JELLICOE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for exhibiting his remarkable arithmetical prowess to us and the House as a whole. Can the noble Lord tell us anything else about the Minister's intentions regarding this new Board? I remember having something to do a year or so ago, with my noble friend Lord Hastings, with the establishment of the Water Resources Board, and we then gave your Lordships a fairly clear indication of the then Minister's intention in that respect. What sort of Board does the present Minister of Aviation have in

73
mind? Does he, for example, propose to appoint a full-time chairman? I hope that the noble Lord can give us the answer to that, and that the answer will be affirmative. What about the remuneration of the chairman and other members of the Authority? These men will have a pretty big job on their hands, and I trust that the noble Lord, in winding up, will be able to tell us what sort of remuneration is proposed.
Finally, my Lords, while I am on the question of the composition of the Authority itself, I should like to add my support to what my Scottish noble friends have said about the Scottish provision in Clause 1 (5). It seems to me that the simplification of this as proposed by my noble friend Lord Polwarth could be very easily achieved, and it would be right to achieve it.
My Lords, if big plans and big thinking are required, big money is likely to be needed; and here, in an exploratory way I should like to reinforce the question put to the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Reith. I note from subsection (2) of Clause 4 that the commencing or initial capital is not to exceed £56 million. I see from the Explanatory Memorandum that probably a figure of £50 million is in the Government's mind. Can the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, confirm that this figure cannot be exceeded? In that connection, may I ask whether I am right in thinking that subsection (3) of this particular clause cannot override subsection (2)? Finally, can the noble Lord assure us that, in the Government's view, the borrowing powers of the Authority are really adequate for the foreseeable future?—one of the points on which I think the noble Lord, Lord Reith, touched. I must confess to some doubts about this. If the initial capital debt is, say, going to be £56 million and the ceiling is £70 million, that will represent a margin of only £14 million; and another place was told in the debate last year, I think on the Second Reading, that the proposed extension of the freight area might itself cost £10 million. It seems that the margins here are very slender. Can the noble Lord give us any assurance about this particular aspect of the matter?
This Bill was examined carefully in another place, and some of my noble friends have asked a number of quite
74
searching questions about it. I trust that the noble Lord will be able to satisfy your Lordships on the points which I have put to him and, more important perhaps, the points which my colleagues have put to him. But, that said, I should like, in any event, once again to congratulate the noble Lord on the way he introduced this Bill to your Lordships, and from these Benches to wish the new Authority well.
6.0 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Beswick, as noble Lords have indicated, has brought to this debate a great deal of experience and interest; indeed I am not sure that London Airport was not in his constituency, or an adjoining one, at one stage. I would certainly agree with noble Lords opposite that we have had an accession of strength to this side of the House and to the Government. Since the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was so generous with his congratulations, let me congratulate him on leading for the Opposition on the Airports Authority Bill for the first time. He was perfectly right; this was one of the things we found in the cupboard, along with £800 million deficit in foreign exchange. I am glad that there were some "plums". I think the Bill was beginning to get a little bit mouldering at the edges, and the present Government have hastened to bring it forward.
It is clear that your Lordships generally accept and welcome the Bill. A large number of questions have been asked, and practically every noble Lord—or every noble Lord who was aware that he was going to speak—has given me notice of points that he intended to raise. I should like to express appreciation to noble Lords for that, and it means that I shall be able now to deal more effectively with many of the points raised. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, added a few at the end of his list, and I may not be able to answer them all; but I will do my best.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, raised one or two issues of a procedural nature, of which he had been good enough to give me notice. As to why the financial memorandum to the Bill has not been prefixed to the Bill as printed for the

75
House of Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that this does not date back to some historic practice from the time of Charles II, or an earlier age. The actual history of this is that in the House of Commons the Treasury, on a recommendation from the Estimates Committee in 1927, require the financial memorandum to be prefixed to all Government Bills involving expenditure, and the memorandum sets out briefly the financial effect of the Bill and, where possible, contains estimates of the money involved.
Of course, the inclusion of this memorandum to some extent reflects the predominant r^ le of the House of Commons in matters of finance; and, furthermore, your Lordships' House has never expressed the desire for the same information to be attached to the House of Lords print of Government Bills involving expenditure. I must say that I find it hard to see any reason in principle why we should not have this. As the noble Earl said, we have always exercised our right to discuss these matters and to be as fully informed as possible. My noble friend Lord Longford heard the observations of the noble Earl, and I suspect that this is really a matter of the procedure of the House, rather than one for me to deal with in any more detail now. But certainly I congratulate the noble Earl on hitting on what now appears to be an extremely obvious point, but one that appears to have escaped the notice of your Lordships ever since another place introduced this.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I thank the noble Lord very much. Perhaps I might read one passage which is really quite interesting:
"In the financial year 1963–64 the expenditure incurred by the Exchequer in respect of the four aerodromes is estimated to have amounted to £12 million (including £4-3 million on capital account) … "—
That information is not known from other sources—
"These figures include the cost of navigation services, which will not be transferred to the Authority but which cannot be estimated separately".
I think that passage is very relevant to the Bill we are discussing.
LORD SHACKLETON: I accept that it is, and it is clearly the desire of this Government, and I believe of any Government,
76
to give the House as much information as possible. At any rate I think this is a matter of which we have taken note, and I congratulate the noble Earl on raising it.
The noble Earl raised a number of points, some of which he seemed to think I might not be able to answer right away. There was one on the question of liability on the part of the Authority for damage in regard to noise. I can say specifically that under the Civil Aviation Act and the Noise Abatement Act the Authority is exempted from legal process in this matter, and will not, therefore, be liable. This is one of the reasons why power is retained in the Bill for the Minister himself to ensure that the necessary measures are taken. He is retaining the control because, clearly, the Authority, which no doubt will have regard to public convenience, none the less will have No 1ncentive—indeed, there would be a financial disincentive—to restrict the number of night landings, and so on, in order to deal with the matter.
The noble Earl also mentioned the question of navigation services and definition, and I agree this is a matter which, when I first read the Bill, caused me a little concern, because it appeared that the definition was taking navigation services very much wider than one had anticipated. There are technical reasons, and if the noble Earl wishes I could go into these; or we could deal with it at Committee stage. But I can assure the noble Earl that no difficulty is anticipated in making the dividing line. There are certain powers put into the Bill which are necessary but which, none the less, must be a matter of sensible agreement between the Authority and the Ministry of Aviation. I am assured that in fact no difficulty is anticipated in this matter, which clearly is of great importance, especially as further developments of instrument landing, blind-landing devices and so on, come along. In regard to other facilities, I doubt whether one wants to write into the Bill the obligation to provide car-parking facilities. It is an interesting idea, but I think it would be going a little far to write it into the Bill. However, the need for the provision of car-parking facilities is not in question, and of course there are a number of proposals—indeed,

77
certain steps are being taken—to increase car-parking facilities.
The noble Earl also referred to the Title of the Bill and of the new Authority. This was a matter of some contentious discussion in another place. It was doubted whether British Airports Authority was the proper title for this new body. But, frankly, I do not think anybody has been able to come up with a better one. It is unquestionably British. This we know will at least not be offensive to the Scots. And I think it is as good a title and as fair a title as can be found. But if any noble Lords wish to make other suggestions they are welcome to do so. I think that to call it the Airports Authority would, in effect, give it even too wide a connotation. Nor would it be entirely satisfactory to call it the International Airports Authority. I am inclined to think that British Airports Authority is as good a name as we can find.
The noble Earl also asked whether there was any intention to take over additional airports. I think my noble friend Lord Beswick dealt with this point fairly fully. Of course there is No 1ntention of taking over the other groups of airports, either the Ministry's own airports or municipal airports. This Bill follows closely the White Paper which the previous Government produced, and certainly there is no definite proposal in this matter. There is no total exclusion, but, as noble Lords will see, the Minister retains certain controls. Certainly there is nothing planned or intended in this regard at the moment.
There were a number of other interesting points raised by the noble Earl concerning wider issues in regard to planning, which I do not think I will go into. I followed what he had to say, but I think I should not go further than saying that I noted it with interest. I would fully agree with the fact that there is scope for original or fundamental thinking in this matter, and any contributions of this kind are valuable.
The noble Earl and several other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, referred to the question of the Scottish representation dealt with in Clause 1, subsection (5) of which says:
"The Minister in appointing the members of the Authority shall have regard to the desirability
78
of ensuring that there is at least one member of the Authority who is familiar with the requirements and circumstances of Scotland."
I realise that this is a most delicate subject, and I share the concern of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in taking part in a debate on it at all. I think it is perhaps safer for the Scots to debate it than the Welsh. But there is of course no requirement that any member of the Authority should be familiar with the requirements and circumstances of England. I think that occasionally the Royal Society for St. George might have something to say on that. But the Government would, I think, be prepared to consider any further representations on this matter. I should not like at this stage to undertake to strengthen the clause, but certainly I will discuss this with my right honourable friend and, if there is anything more that can be done to meet the noble Earl and other noble Lords on the point, the Government would wish to do so.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? Suppose you put it this way, that it is desirable that one member of the Authority should be familiar with the situation in London. That is utterly absurd. To put that in would be just as absurd.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think it would be desirable that more than one member should be familiar with the situation in London. I am not sure what the noble Earl wants. I think he wants this clause out, and other noble Lords want it in in a more explicit form. We will do our best so far as possible to meet these views. On the whole, I think I am slightly more inclined to favour the views of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, but again I do so without any undertaking.
The noble Lord, Lord Reith, in a rather short speech raised some most fundamental questions. As the noble Lord himself demonstrated, and indeed as we all know, it is clear that no noble Lord has greater experience of public administration. Indeed, perhaps I may say, as one of the last of the talks producers in the B.B.C. to have the famous Reith interview on appointment, that there is no man who has made a greater mark of value on this country in the

79
matter of broadcasting. Therefore, there is no question but that we respect anything he has to say on this matter. I think, however, that he is unnecessarily concerned. I was a little worried that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, appeared to be listening to the siren voice (if one might apply such a term) to the noble Lord, Lord Reith, and applying it to his argument.
The noble Lord was good enough to write to me raising a number of points of drafting, but I will deal only with those points that he mentioned. First, I should like to emphasise what Parliament has made clear—whether Parliament is right or wrong is another matter, but I think it is right. In setting up a public Authority the Government, as my noble friend Lord Beswick said—and I do not myself regard the noble Lord's speech as inconsistent with the Bill; certainly it was more agreeable, but then sometimes speeches are more agreeable than Acts of Parliament—certainly had every intention to set up an Authority which is free to do its job and to run its affairs. But there have always been certain matters over which Parliament wishes to retain some control. These are covered in the Bill. In fact it follows closely the pattern of previous legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Reith, would say that this is part of the dangerous hazards of certain kinds of institutionalism which we have got ourselves into. But the examples he gave I did not find convincing. I think that the right balance is struck in this Bill. There are, as again I stress, certain matters in which the Government, clearly acting for and responsible to Parliament, have to exercise and retain some control. When you set up a public monopoly like this it is of the essence that this control should be retained.
The noble Lord objected, for instance, to the fact that the auditor is appointed by the Minister. But this is traditionally something which a company or the board of a company does not do for itself, for certain obvious reasons. One may say that one ought to be able to trust the Authority. I would accept this. But traditionally, as the noble Lord, Lord Reith, knows, practically the only business at some company meetings, after
80
passing the accounts and possibly declaring a dividend, is the appointment of an auditor. This is done by the shareholders. This seems to me to be perfectly analogous and consistent, and not an interference in the management freedom of the Authority.
The noble Lord asked why should not the Authority shop for its capital in the cheapest market. It will in fact do so. This is precisely what the Bill provides. It will go to the cheapest source. This is in fact laid down. The noble Lord also objected to the figure of £56 million. I think the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, also asked whether £70 million was enough. In setting up this Authority the Government and the Ministry of Aviation are not just trying to saddle the Authority with some big debt. These figures are most carefully arrived at and are regarded as the proper figures. Certainly I am not competent to question a figure which I should be surprised that the Authority itself would question—namely, whether the total figure of £70 million is enough.
If I may deal with the point of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, over the five-year period until 1970 the total capital expenditure is expected to be £34 million, of which the Authority can be expected to find £23 million from their own resources. This leaves approximately £11 million to be obtained by borrowing. The Bill provides for a total borrowing limit of £70 million, including the initial capital debt, before further reference has to be made to Parliament. This, again, is a well-established practice. When the airlines wish to increase their borrowing powers, the Minister comes to Parliament and brings in legislation to do so. After all, this is consistent, to take the analogy of a limited company, with a proposal to increase the authorised capital of a company, which has to be agreed to by the shareholders. This enables Parliament usefully to retain a control, and on previous occasions we have had useful discussions on the airlines in relation to such matters. I do not regard this as an interference with the independent management of the Authority.
There is one small point which I cannot resist referring to, and it is the noble Lord's objection to the use of the word "commencing". I would best answer this by referring him to a document, with

81
which I am sure he is very familiar, namely Gowers' Plain Words, where a very firm differentiation is made between the language of literature, writing or conversation and legal language. I should regard it as rather strange if one were suddenly to start changing accepted legal phraseology. I can assure the noble Lord that this is not due to some passionate belief, on the part either of this Government or of the previous Government, in words of Latin derivation. It just is the accepted phrase which draftsmen have continued to use.
The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, raised a number of Scottish points, with some of which I should briefly like to deal. He mentioned the problem of providing an hotel at Prestwick. This does not seem to me to be a matter for the Authority but rather a matter for private enterprise. I hope that there will be an hotel. Perhaps the various Scottish bodies may be able to stimulate some public-spirited entrepreneur to set up an hotel. I believe certain proposals have been put forward, but it must pay its way. The hotels around Heathrow have not been set up by an authority or by the Government, but by private enterprise.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to put one point straight? I am not asking the Authority to build an hotel, but I think that it was the case under the recent Administration that the only suitable sites were on land owned previously by the Ministry and now, presumably, by the Authority. It would be a question of negotiation by the Authority with private enterprise to provide a site on certain terms. This was the difficulty previously.
LORD SHACKLETON: This is clearly a matter on which the Scottish Advisory Committee on Civil Aviation could make representations to the Minister, or indeed to the Authority. In that connection, I should imagine that the Scottish Advisory Committee would be able to approach the Authority direct; but, as the noble Lord knows, my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation had intended to visit Scotland to-day in order to meet them to discuss some of these matters. They have the right of access, which will continue at all times.
The noble Lord wondered whether Scottish representations in the consultative
82
r^le would be confined to the locality of Prestwick, or whether Scotland could be regarded as local for this purpose. I understand, from the strict drafting of the Bill, that there is nothing to prevent Scotland from being regarded as "local" for this purpose. Here again, this is a matter which could well be settled by discussion. I would only say that the noble Lord's point is taken.
The noble Lord also asked about reimbursement in regard to the mainly military air traffic landing free at Prestwick or at any of the Authority's airports. Hitherto, these have not been charged, on the reasonable grounds that transfers of this kind are not made between different Votes, but in future it is intended that reimbursement shall be made. To this extent the Authority will not suffer from traffic of this non-fee-paying kind, of which Prestwick carries a great deal. I noted that the noble Lord was concerned that Prestwick was not paying its way and that it was, in a sense, being subsidised by London and by Heathrow. This is the essence of the problem, and is inescapable. The solution contained in this Bill—that is, the setting up a national Authority—will ensure the continuation of Prestwick as a first-class international airport.
In regard to the point made by the noble Lord about the landing of supersonic aircraft, I cannot answer straight off, but there is no reason to suppose they will not. It has been the Government's intention that Prestwick should be able to take any aircraft, and I assume that this will apply in the future. As to the other points the noble Lord made, they are, I suggest, Scottish points and it would probably be better for him to tackle the Minister direct. As to the exact status in the league of international airports, that is something into which I would prefer not to be drawn to-day. Certain facts in the development of Manchester and other airports may increase the numbers of movements, but whether on a strict comparison it equals Prestwick in the international r^ le I cannot say.
The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, referred to restrictions on foreign services at Prestwick; I believe he was referring to the limitation of Scandinavian air services. These restrictions, I am advised, have been more than counter-balanced

83
by increased services which B.O.A.C. have been able to introduce. On balance, the Authority's revenues will be the gainer. While we want to see the airports play a full r^ le in the country's communications, we also want to see British airlines carrying as much as possible of the traffic.
The noble Lord and others mentioned the taxi service. I agree that there have been some disgraceful episodes. This is a difficult one to answer. The Bill will have one effect—that taxis coming into London Airport will be obliged at least to pick up fares within the six-mile limit and will be obliged to accept fares. But the problem of driving into London is, of course, limited by the out-dated provisions of the Hackney Carriage Act, 1831, I believe it is. This is a matter on which discussions are taking place; the Home Office are actually discussing it with the London cab trade. I cannot say that a decision is imminent, but I hope very much, and I know that the House will agree, that this matter will be put right. Noble Lords who raised this matter can accept that the Government are doing their best.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, made a number of points, and I do not wish to go through all the developments which are taking place at London Airport. I thought that he was a little unfair in saying that my noble friend Lord Beswick was complacent. I did not think he was complacent. London Airport has had so many "knocks" from so many of us, including myself, that it is right it should also receive its true meed of praise. I was interested to see how closely Lord Jellicoe, who thinks on similar lines to myself on these things, had drawn on the speech which I made three years ago. I can only say that I am slightly better informed now that I have seen some of the facts, but this Bill and the measures which the last Government set in hand and which this Government are setting in hand will, we hope, contribute greatly to improving the facilities of London Airport.
The delay in building piers is something on which we have commented in the past and these, of course, are under way. There are a number of proposals
84
which will contribute to improvement in these matters and which I should like to relate to the House now, but I have already taken up a lot of time. On this vexed problem of communication, I cannot offer any hope of any break through, whether on the subject of monorail, Underground or Southern Rail link, beyond saying that there is a committee which is sitting—and they must be getting fairly tired of sitting on this subject—and which is considering these matters. But, of course, the most striking development will be the completion of the M.4 with the direct link into London Airport, and we shall see how that works out.
If the noble Lord wishes to pursue these others points, I think there may be an opportunity on the Committee stage. I am afraid I am not able to give him any definite information on the composition of the board. If it is possible to find out what is in my right honourable friend's mind on this matter before a later stage of the Bill, I shall try to do so and will give this information to the House. Again, the question of whether there should be a full-time chairman will depend on whether a man of the suitable calibre, willing to take a full-time chairman's position, can be found. Of course, this ties up very much with the rate of salary which it is proposed to pay, and it is important that it ensures that we get people of the calibre we want. Certainly, I agree that on the quality of the members of the board of the Authority will, to a large extent, depend its success.
I am grateful to your Lordships for the welcome you have given to the Bill. I do not think there is very much between us but, undoubtedly, we shall have many debates in the future on the development of airports. I doubt whether we shall always get them satisfactory, but the Government are determined to do their best to improve London Airport. On Stansted, I should say that the public inquiry is expected to be in the autumn. On the development of this complex of airports depends a great deal of the prosperity of this country.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COMMONS REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
6.33 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Now that the functions of the Minister of Agriculture in relation to commons have been transferred to the Minister of Land and Natural Resources, it falls on me to present this Bill to your Lordships. Its object is to get registers made throughout England and Wales of common land and of town and village greens, and the purpose of doing so is to ascertain what common land there is and what claims there are to rights of common or ownership in respect of it. There is a similar purpose in relation to town or village greens. When the registers have been prepared in a provisional form from claims made, there will be time for objections to be made and decided; and once the registers have been finalised they will be conclusive as to what is common land or a town or village green, and they will also be conclusive as to rights of common. It will then be possible to make provision by further legislation for the better management and use of the land.
"Common land" is a phrase used with various meanings. One would hope that it was like the elephant—difficult to define but easy to recognise. Unfortunately, even recognition is not always easy, and the exact extent of common land is unknown or at least unrecorded. But, to take rough figures, out of 32 million acres in England, slightly more than 1 million are common land. In Wales, the proportion is higher, and out of slightly over 5 million acres, nearly half a million are common land. So, in England and Wales together, there are some million and a half acres of common land; say, an acre out of every 25 acres in the country. This is of course a considerable area, and commons vary widely in their type, their size and their geographical distribution. Most of them derive from the common use of grazing land lying outside some centre of arable land, the arable land being farmed in individual holdings. The
86
great extent of common land, some four-fifths of the total common land in England, is found in the hill-farming areas of the Pennines, in the Lake District, the heart of Wales, and the uplands of Devon and Cornwall. In the Midlands and in the South and East of England there are now fewer commons, with a rather patchy distribution as between one county and another. It is the case, however, that a substantial area of common land, some 70,000 acres, lies within 50 miles of the centre of London, and the social importance of such an area is obvious.
Common rights derive from early systems of land tenure; so early, that the late Lord Jowitt complained in this House on February 23, 1955, that we were encumbered by a mass of Anglo-Saxon laws and he wished to goodness that someone would send those laws packing, bag and baggage! In those early times there was room for everyone; but as the population grew so did the process of appropriating common land into private ownership. During the eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth century enclosure seems to have been usually by Private Act of Parliament, and the process amounted to an agrarian revolution resulting in some 6½ million acres of land in England and Wales ceasing to be used as an open field or common. Legislation from 1836 onwards has led to the protection of the commons, partly in the pastoral interests of the commoners and partly in what I may call the access interests of the public. The Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society was founded in 1865, and celebrates its centenary this summer. In 1898 the Corporation of the City of London bought some 6,000 acres of Epping Forest and, two years later, nearly 500 acres at Burnham Beeches.
As your Lordships will gather from those purchases, the importance of land open to the public near London was by this time becoming fully appreciated, and in 1866 the Metropolitan Commons Act forbade any enclosure of Metropolitan commons. Ten years later, the Commons Act of 1876 put further restrictions on the enclosure of commons, and made some special provision for suburban commons. There was, however, no general right of public access except

87
where commons had been set aside by enclosure awards for the recreation of the inhabitants of the parish. There were customary rights of access to town or village greens, which are separately treated in this Bill.
Even to-day the public has no right of access to a common in every case, but the Law of Property Act, 1925, provided for public access in some cases—those of Metropolitan commons, of commons which are wholly or partly within a borough or urban district, and of waste land of a manor similarly situated, whether or not that land is subject to rights of common. Moreover, the same Act allowed the owner of the soil of any common to declare it open to public access if he deposited the appropriate deed with the Minister of Agriculture. This last provision has now been applied over a total area of slightly more than 120,000 acres. Another section of the same Act forbade any building or fencing except by the consent of the Minister, if such building or fencing hindered access to common land; and the Minister for this purpose had to take into account both the benefit of the neighbourhood and private interests, those interests being obviously the interests of persons having rights in the common. The view has been taken that the Minister's power to consent is a restricted one, and less than 3,000 acres in all have been allowed to be fenced or built on.
It seems, therefore, that although people sometimes think that anyone can go on to a common, there is no right of access except in a minority of cases; but, of course, the minority includes the commons particularly important for this purpose in the Metropolis and in other borough and urban areas. These urban commons amount in England and Wales to just over 150,000 acres, and if we add the commons which have been declared open by the owners of the soil, we get about 270,000 acres in England and Wales open to public access out of a total extent of about 1½ million acres of common land.
To turn from one use of commons, for public access and recreation, I would point out that many of them, particularly in the upland areas, are still most important for agriculture; but their very nature as commons has led to a steady
88
diminution of their agricultural use. I do not think I can do better than quote paragraph 163 of the Report of the Royal Commission on Common Land, published in July, 1958 (Cmnd. 462). It is as follows:
"Taking common land as a whole we are left with the impression that it is the relic of an ancient system of land management which has caused it to lag well behind other land in agricultural production. To a large extent. the commoners have remained outside the scope of recent agricultural legislation, ineligible for either its benefits or penalties, and incapable, as commoners, of contributing to the industry's increased productivity. The administrative machinery through which their use of the land might have been adapted to modern conditions has mostly disappeared, and they themselves have in consequence become increasingly uncertain of their rights and unable to co-operate. Lacking vitality locally, the whole system which legislation over the last century aimed at preserving has tended to ossify instead. The result has all too often been the neglect of the land with the loss of production to the commoners and of amenity to the public."
Public anxiety about the state of commons has led to various inquiries and Commissions, of which for the moment I need only mention a return made in August, 1873, to the House of Commons by the Inclosure Commissioners, and the 1958 Report, from which I have just quoted. The 1873 return shows well over 1½ million acres of common land in England, as against the 1958 total of slightly over 1 million; and the Welsh total in 1958 is also about two-thirds of what it was in 1873. This reduction is too large to be explained by lawful enclosures, having regard to what was lawful at the time, and there must have been a great deal of eating away of common land by neighbouring proprietors—and also, indeed, some actual disappearance for practical purposes of the treatment of common land as such. Some of the reductions in individual counties are startling. In England, the West Riding is said to have had about 226,000 acres of common land in 1873, and just about half as much in 1958. In Wales, 109,000 acres in 1873 in Montgomeryshire had been reduced to under 9,000 acres of common land in 1958. It is more than doubtful whether we have any accurate general picture of what is now treated as common land throughout the country. It is certain that we have no such picture of what is in law common land.

89
There is a similar uncertainty about rights. In some cases the Lord of the manor is well known, the commoners are well known, and the common is managed carefully by them or on their behalf; but in many other cases the Lord of the manor has been lost, and goodness knows who the commoners are. There is always the prospect that an improvement of the common may be made at the expense of those known to be interested, and that others unknown may then appear to prove their rights and claim the benefit of the improvement. There is even the wider prospect that no one interested can be found and that there is no one concerned to make the improvements required, whether in the interests of agriculture or of public access.
I now turn to the 1958 Report, which was made between December, 1955, and July, 1958, by a distinguished and expert body of Commissioners under the chairmanship of Sir Ivor Jennings. Their terms of reference were:
"… to recommend what changes, if any, are desirable in the law relating to common land in order to promote the benefit of those holding manorial and common rights, the enjoyment of the public, or, where at present little or no use is made of such land, its use for some other desirable purpose."
The Commissioners collected a mass of evidence, including evidence from some noble Lords who are Members of this House, and they produced a Report which itself is the best possible tribute to their industry, their expert knowledge in various fields and their sound judgment in forwarding, through all this difficult and complicated material, the public purposes in their terms of reference. I have rarely, if ever, seen such an excellent and interesting Report, and I am sure that the public are indebted, not only to the members of the Royal Commission, but also to those who so carefully gave evidence. I may perhaps add that the Report is well illustrated throughout, and, if I may be allowed a personal word, I took particular pleasure in the photograph of the jury of the Court Baron of Painswick and in that of the members of the Potboilers' Management Committee looking over Hatherleigh Moor in Devon.
The extensive recommendations of the 1958 Royal Commission are contained in two chapters and summarised in a third, at the end of their Report. The first
90
is concerned, as is this Bill, with the registration of rights, land and title. The second is concerned with public access and the management and improvement of common land. The recommendations in the latter chapter are not within the scope of this Bill, but I hope that I have indicated the lines on which action is required.
The Report was published in July, 1958. Two years later, on July 26, 1960, the Minister of Agriculture, in a Written Answer to a Question in another place, stated that the Report brought out clearly the difficulties caused to all concerned, including commoners and the general public, by uncertainty as to the nature, ownership and extent of common land and common rights. He commended as valuable the recommendations for establishing the facts and interests by means of registration. He thought it possible that the Commission's proposals for registration might be effected in a shorter time than they suggested. There would then be much to be said for making provision in a later measure for the better management and improvement of common land, its preservation, the public right of access and the wholesale repeal of existing legislation. It would be difficult to make worthwhile progress on those matters until more was known about the facts and interests involved. A further statement was to be made after discussion with local authority associations and other interests. In fact, the Minister of Agriculture also organised a Working Party in which valuable help was given by some distinguished local government officers.
More than a year later, on November 6, 1961, the right honourable gentleman's successor in the Ministry stated, again by way of written reply, that suggestions had been made to the local authority associations and other interested bodies for a scheme of commons registration, broadly on the lines recommended by the Royal Commission, but taking considerably less time than the twelve years envisaged by the Royal Commission. He said that he was now satisfied that such a scheme was practicable, and legislation would be prepared for the purpose, though it could not be introduced that Session—that is to say, the Session 1961 to 1962. He had it in mind to allow three years for the registration of claims and two years for the registration of

91
objections. Registration, he said, was a desirable step in itself, and the establishment of the facts would pave the way for action on the remaining recommendations of the Royal Commission.
My Lords, the road to General Elections is paved with good intentions, but in this case, at any rate, the good intentions were not followed up. There was unlikely to be great dispute about the need for registration, or indeed about the form and scope of it. But more than three years have now elapsed since the last-mentioned statement, and it now falls to a Labour Government to find time, pending the introduction of much more controversial legislation on other matters, to bring forward what I suggest is a much-needed Bill and one which is unlikely, I trust, to be contested in principle, even if there may be differences on minor details. I am not, of course, suggesting that there is no room for controversy about what will be required at the next stage, after registration.
I now turn to a summary of the clauses of the Bill, some of which necessarily reflect the involved character of the whole subject. I will not try to deal with minor points, but I will, of course, do my best to answer any questions which may be put in the course of our discussion. The Bill does not apply to Scotland (there are no commons there), and it will come into force not immediately but on an appointed day or days. Clause 1 deals with the registration, which I have already mentioned, and provides that if, after a period, land which could have been registered has not been registered, that land shall cease to be common land or a town or village green. Similarly, after the same period, any rights of common which have not been registered will lapse. The period is to be fixed by an order of the Minister and must be at least three years from the day when the Act comes into force. My right honourable friend intends the period to be a minimum of three years, and I shall have more to say about that later.
A further provision relates to land to the ownership of which no claim is made. As regards unclaimed town or village greens, there is provision later on in the Bill, in Clause 8, for vesting in borough or county district councils and in one
92
event in parish councils. The future of unclaimed common land, however, is left to be determined by subsequent legislation. Some rights of ownership have been registered under the Land Registration Acts; so, too, have some rights of common. The rights of ownership or of common so registered are safeguarded; but there is to be no further registration under those Acts of rights of common capable of being registered under this Bill.
Clause 2 constitutes the Greater London Council and county or county borough councils, as the case may be, as registration authorities. Clause 3 makes it clear that in the first place registration shall be provisional, and ensures that the local authorities concerned shall take steps to inform the public. Clause 4 is concerned with the arrangements for provisional registration, and enables a registration authority to register as common land, or as a town or village green, land about which no application for registration has been made.
Clause 5 deals with objections to entries made by way of provisional registration. Unless such objections are withdrawn or conceded, the registration authority is to refer the matter to a Commons Commissioner. Where no owner is registered, the registration authority itself may lodge an objection to a claim that land is common land or to a claim of rights of common. Clause 6 deals in a general form with the disposal by Commons Commissioners of disputed claims and with arrangements to cancel or confirm them, as the case may be. Undisputed registration claims—that is to say, registrations to which no objection has been made within the period allowed for objections—become final under Clause 7.
Clause 8 deals with unclaimed land. To begin with, mere must be an inquiry by a Commons Commissioner as to ownership, and if he succeeds in finding an owner appropriate entry will be made in the register. If he does not, then, as I have already indicated, a town or village green vests in the local authority. Clause 9 provides that, subject to the machinery for objections, an entry in the register shall be conclusive evidence that the land is common land or, as the case may be, a town or village green

93
and conclusive evidence of any rights registered over it, but not, of course, of ownership.
Clause 10 exempts from registration not only the New Forest, Epping Forest and the Forest of Dean, but also any land indicated in an order of the Minister. The Minister, however, in making such an order is restricted to cases where the land is already regulated under other Public or Local Acts and where no rights of common have been exercised for at least thirty years past and the owner is known. Clauses 12 and 13 provide for the amendment of the registers under regulations in certain rather special cases, or by the High Court in cases of fraud in connection with the withdrawal of objections or the failure to make them, as also in some other special circumstances. Clause 14 deals with a rather technical matter, the quantification of indefinite grazing rights; while Clause 15 is concerned with some special points in the application of the doctrine of prescription.
Clause 16 prescribes the appointment by the Lord Chancellor of the Commons Commissioners, who will have legal qualifications, and one of whom will be the Chief Commons Commissioner, as well as with the appointment of Assessors to help them in cases calling for special knowledge. There is provision for costs, on a county court scale, and for the fees and allowances of the Commissioners. Clause 17 allows appeals from the Commissioners to the High Court on points of law. Clause 18 deals with regulations that the Minister may make and Clause 19 with his orders. The regulations will be mainly concerned with questions of form and procedure, and with information for the public and local authorities. Both regulations and orders are subject to the usual Negative Resolution procedure.
As to the closing clauses of the Bill, all I need say at this stage is that, while in Clause 21 the definition of "common land" and the reference to "rights of common" are not as clear as ideally one would like them to be, that comes from the nature of the subject. They have been drafted on expert advice and after full consideration of possible alternatives. On past experience we do not expect that they will give rise to any serious practical difficulties, and the best advice I can give
94
to those concerned is: "If in doubt, claim—or at least consult a solicitor; and remember that claims may be not only for rights of grazing, but for rights to cut turf, to take fish, brushwood or sand, and so on." An explanatory note will be made available to and by the Commons Registration Authorities.
My Lords, I must now indicate the principal departures from the recommendations of the 1958 Royal Commission. The most important point is the shortening of the time for registration. The Commission recommended the following timetable: first, a year between the coming into force of the Act and the opening of the registers; then eight years, during which claims and objections could be made; and then a further four years only for objections. The period of one year corresponds to the arrangements now made for an appointed day on which the Act will come into operation. The remaining twelve years seem unnecessarily long; and they so seemed to both the Ministers of Agriculture whose statements I referred to earlier in my speech. It is now proposed to have three years for registration and two years afterwards for objections. It seems convenient, however, to divide the three years registration period into two equal periods of eighteen months, and it is hoped that those periods, between them, will run from the beginning of 1967 to the end of 1969.
In order to keep the public fully informed, there will have to be an interval of three months or so before each objection period begins. It is hoped that most of the claims will be put forward in the first eighteen months' period so that any objection to them can be disposed of by October, 1970, and during the first registration period there will be no charge for registration. There will be a charge of £5 for claims notified during the second claims period, but the fee will be waived if prior notice has been given.
The reason why the Commission recommended as long a period as twelve years for claims and objections seems to have been that they intended the register, once finalised, to be conclusive not only as to the status of the land, whether or not it was common land, and as to rights of common over it, but also as to the ownership of the land. I think, however, as did the two Ministers whose statements I have quoted, that that is an unsatisfactory reason for long delay. We

95
feel that it is better to have registration of title to land dealt with only under the Land Registration Acts, and to provide, as the Bill does, for the necessary steps to that end. That is another divergence of a rather procedural character from the recommendations of the Commission.
A third divergence from the recommendations of the Royal Commission is on their recommendation that the ownership of any unclaimed land should vest in the Public Trustee. It seems that such an arrangement would put unfamiliar duties on the Public Trustee; and, in any event, we must surely find out a good deal more about the commons and rights over them before we make any arrangements for their vesting in some public authority. A minor divergence is that the Royal Commission recommended a right of appeal from a Commons Commissioner to the Lands Tribunal, but the limited right of appeal to the High Court seems preferable.
My Lords, the uncertainty about the extent of commons, about the rights over them and the individuals interested has not, of course, applied to every case; but it has been widespread and it has led to a broad acreage of our country being ill-maintained and inadequately used, whether for purposes of public access and amenity or for agriculture. We have let outmoded customs and institutions get the better of us; and in the modern world an element of the traditional or the picturesque is not necessarily a sufficient reason for the preservation of the useless or the harmful. Our first step must be to remove the uncertainty; and that is the object of this Bill. We hope by the means I have outlined to get enough information to see what further action is required. On that subject there are about fifty recommendations in the Report of the Royal Commission, and it is clear that in most cases we shall be called on to strike a proper balance between the need for public access and enjoyment, on the one hand, and agricultural and pastoral needs, on the other; and, while having due regard to all such private rights as are in active use, to take as our final aim the public advantage in the widest sense of those words.
Your Lordships will see why, pending fuller information, I do not wish to comment
96
in detail on the fifty recommendations I have mentioned. They are the fruit of careful inquiry and sensible consideration, and they should not be neglected or overruled without good reason. I will allow myself one comment, and one only. The more I look at the matter, the more impressed I am with the differences in circumstances, not only between one district and another but often in particular cases. It seems possible that the Royal Commission, having cleared away much of the fog surrounding the whole question, may have thought the way forward a little clearer than it may prove to be. We shall have to be sure that future legislation is sufficiently elastic to deal with local and particular differences, and we shall have to give full scope to the knowledge and, I hope, the good will of the local authorities concerned. They took an active interest in the work of the Royal Commission and spent time and trouble to provide it with local information and, in some cases, with suggestions by way of evidence. For that, we owe them warm thanks; and, whatever legislation we pass, it will be largely on their interest and their co-operation that a better use of common land in the future will depend.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—Lord Mitchison)
7.3 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has introduced this Bill, if I may say so, with great detail and great clarity and the House will be very grateful to him for the trouble which he has taken over this. I must say that this is a fascinating subject, although a highly complex one, for the law of commons stretches back, as the noble Lord has pointed out, over hundreds of years. Not only does it become in the process mightily complicated and diverse, but the language it uses seems to come out of a vocabulary entirely of its own. And one of the most valuable parts of the Report of the Royal Commission on Common Land, I found, was the very last part to be written—namely Appendix VI, which provides one with a glossary of all the words used in the law relating to common land and translates them for one.
For one who is not well versed in the law, and particularly in mediaeval law, I

97
found this glossary required almost continual reference to discover who was or what was or what were the duties of such names as "Ffridds" and "heafs", "balks" and "botes". So obscure are the functions of many of these entities that I could not help calling to mind the words of a puzzle poem I remember learning, not on my master's instructions, when I was a child, relating to someone or something whose purpose was not readily apparent from its nomenclature. It goes something like this:
"Who or why or which or what
Is the Aquand of Swat?
Does he sit on a chair, or a sofa, or squat?"
I could not help feeling that that might be applied to some of the people whose names are referred to in this Report. It is interesting to find that a landgrave is not, as the innocent might be expected to consider, a receptacle for the deceased, but none other than a human being who has certain interests in a common in Cumberland; and, as the noble Lord pointed out, a potboiler is not a facet of modern sophisticated engineering, as one might expect, but somebody who may have an interest in a common in Devon.
These names go far back into our history and with them go back a wide spectrum of rights and privileges, permissions and sometimes obligations. The rights of commons and commoners and, indeed, of the public are jealously guarded. In every case, they are individual and by no means universal. Every common has its own specific rules and rights and they may not be the same as that of any other. Frequently, the owners of the commons may be in doubt. Frequently, the rights of the commoners may be in doubt and may not even be known. Frequently, it may not even be known whether a place is in itself a common.
"Common land" conjures up a picture of a village green, and possibly a game of cricket on it, but of course it can stretch from such a common or even a roadside verge right up, as the noble Lord explained, to the vast and rolling areas of Devon and Yorkshire. Often these commons are places of beauty and of agricultural value. Often they require modernisation and better husbandry. But how can one start with this, when often it is not known what the law is or who are the interested parties? Often the law
98
affecting a common may be the custom handed down from one generation to another.
I hope that the law relating to common land will be tidied up, and well tidied up, in future. This Bill can be welcomed as a first partial step in this direction. The preparation and consideration of this Bill has been going on ever since the Royal Commission reported in 1958 and it follows fairly closely the recommendations of the Royal Commission, except for the fact that the period of time in which people may register is greatly reduced. This I would certainly welcome, for I cannot believe that twelve years would be required in order to effect a registration. But this is merely the first step to be taken over common land. It is merely the compiling of a register of people who have interests in the common land—that and nothing more. I hope that the Government will not hesitate to put on their thinking caps and draw up a Bill for the second stage in the modernisation of the law of common land. Of course, there is the probability that they may not be here to present it themselves, but at least they can follow the example of their predecessors, which was to leave to their successors a Bill which, if not ready, is at least very nearly ready to be presented to Parliament.
The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack has frequently castigated the laws of the country for being out of date and inadequate. Indeed, he is setting up law commissioners to rectify this. And if I may, with the greatest and humblest respect to the noble and learned Lord, put forward a suggestion, it would be this: that the law commissioners might like to try their hands out on the law of common land. They certainly could not do any damage. It would occupy them for something in excess of a hundred days. And it would be a long overdue and fascinating reform, which would perform a highly useful service to the Statute Book, to the public and to the people who have an interest in the common land.
It is considered that 1½ million acres of land in England and Wales are common land, much of which is unproductive. Of course, it may be in the national interest that it should be unproductive, but to my mind it is indefensible that it should

99
be so because the law relating to it is so chaotic that nobody knows how to make it productive or, if they do know how to make it productive, they do not know whether they would be allowed to do so. It is for this reason that the Royal Commission was set up, and it was not long before they realised how complex the law was. It took them three years to deliberate and gather information, and they made a variety of recommendations. This is, of course, the first step, and we welcome it. We look anxiously forward to the second step.
7.11 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, in what I am going to say to your Lordships I am expressing generally the views of the Commons Preservation Society, of which I have the honour to be Treasurer. We welcome this legislation: indeed, we have been asking ever since the Royal Commission reported in 1958 that legislation should be introduced as soon as possible. As regards the Bill and its provisions, we welcome it, so far as it goes; and we particularly welcome the frank and unequivocal assurance that the Parliamentary Secretary has given us that it is the Government's intention to follow this registration Bill with a further Bill which will be of a more constructive kind. It is, of course, impossible to do that until the existing rights have been defined, which is the purpose of this Bill.
Commons, certainly in the parts of this country which are thickly inhabited, have become of immense importance for reasons quite different from those which led to their original growth. The common land was owned by the Lord of the manor, and the commoners had strictly limited agricultural and rural rights in connection with them. But, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, in the 19th century, with the immense increase in population in this country, it came to be seen, particularly by the remarkable body of public-spirited men who formed the Commons Preservation Society—men most of whose names are well-known in Parliamentary history—and by Parliament, that in many parts of the country the greatest importance of the Commons was that they should be available for access for walking and riding by the general public.
100
When we reflect that it was only as a result of the Parliamentary activities of these men that Wimbledon Common, Hampstead Heath, Berkhampsted Common, Plumstead and in large measure the Forest of Epping, were preserved from being enclosed and used as building spaces, it is obvious what an important task it was to preserve them. It is, of course, necessary that agricultural rights should be preserved in places where they can be usefully exercised; and, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, it will be important that the substantive Bill, which is some day to follow this one, should hold a balance beween the rights of access of the urban masses and the rights of the commoners.
I think the machinery of this Bill is well calculated for this purpose. We first of all have the provisional registers in which will be set out, first, the extent of the commons; secondly, their ownership; and thirdly, the rights of the commoners. During the time that these registers are provisional, it will be possible for anyone to raise objection, and matters in dispute will be decided. After the lapse of a period of time, as defined and laid down in Clause 1 of the Bill, the registers will become conclusive evidence of the existence of these rights. That seems fair and practical. But it is important, first, that under that procedure all rights should be registered; and secondly, that registers should be complete and exhaustive of known rights.
It is not clear from the wording of the Bill whether anyone may register rights or whether it is limited to those who have an interest in the land. I am inclined to think that probably it is limited to those who have an interest in the land, because Clause 5 (4) provides that local authorities may, even if they have no right in the land, intervene. If persons who have No 1nterest in the land cannot register, then no member of the public can register a right of access in the case of a large number of commons. In many cases—and the Parliamentary Secretary in his speech said in the majority of cases—the public have no right of access. Under the Law of Property Act, 1925, and other legislation the right of access is given in a number of cases which the Parliamentary Secretary set out, and I need not quote them. But the fact that in a large number of cases no right of access exists

101
as of right, means that no member of the public will be able to register such a right in the case of those commons. I say "as of right", because often there is practically no way of preventing the public from enjoying the use of those lands. But it is important, I think—and I hope in the Committee stage to probe this matter further—that the public should have the right to register.
Will all commoners register their common rights? Many of them may not know what their rights are. A great many of them may not care to exercise their rights. One only has to think of the right of pannage—that of allowing pigs to run freely and gather acorns at certain times of the year—on many of the commons, especially those with modern roads and transport crossing them, to appreciate that it is not a right which is of any value.
Will the owner always register his ownership? What inducement will he have to do so if there is any chance that no one will register common rights? In that case, it might well be that the period of three years will elapse without the fact that this is a common having been registered under this Bill; and I presume that in that case the owner, instead of being the owner of the land subject to extensive commoners' rights, will, in fact, acquire a freehold unencumbered estate in fee simple. The Parliamentary Secretary in his speech lent support to the point that I am making when he spoke of the eating away of common land by neighbouring owners, and of cases where the Lord of the manor was lost and goodness knows what had happened to the commoners. This is an important point which we shall have to pursue in the Committee stage, in order to ensure that the machinery of this Bill does not lend itself to a deliberate act on the part of the owners of commons of not registering in order that they may secure an unencumbered freehold estate.
Will local authorities register? Some of them certainly will, and others may not. The Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society has experience of local authorities, and some of them have been most diligent in seeking to preserve rights of way. Others have been most apathetic in the matter. It is extremely important that we should make certain that this apathy should not result in the loss of valuable rights under this Bill.
102
Those points have been made on the assumption that no one without an interest in the land can register. But if I am wrong in my interpretation of the Bill, and if anyone without an interest in the land may register, I must ask the Government whether it is likely that anyone will do so. In the first place, a person without an interest in the land very likely lacks the information upon which to base an application for registration. Secondly, he has No 1ncentive to do so, and, thirdly, he may well be deterred from doing so because, under Clause 16 (4), he may incur costs on the level of county court proceedings if he does so and fails. Fourthly, where ownership of common land cannot be ascertained, it is not vested under this Bill in any body. It is the view of the Commons Preservation Society that this is almost an invitation to neighbouring owners to seek to extend their property at the expense of land which, ex hypothesi, under this Bill cannot be vested in anyone to hold it in the interests of the public as a whole. That is all I need say at the moment about the danger that rights will not be registered under this Bill. If they are not registered under it then, with the efflux of time, under Clause 1 (2) they will be extinguished for ever.
I now come to the second main point that I want to make. It appears to us that these provisional registers ought to be comprehensive. But they will not be. Clause 4 (3) provides that:
"No person shall be registered under this section as the owner of any land if the land is registered under the Land Registration Acts, 1925, and 1936 … "
Clause 11 (b) provides for deletion from the register if, after land has been registered under this Bill, it is found that it had previously been registered under the Land Registration Act, 1925. We think that the register of commons should be a comprehensive list of all the commons and common rights. It is only in that way that the public can know what is common land.
I would point out to the Government that under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act, 1925, the public have no general right to inspect the land register set up under that Act. The wording of the Section 1s:
"… any person registered as proprietor of any land or charge, and any person authorised

103
by any such proprietor, or by an order of the court, or by general rule, but no other person, may inspect and make copies of and extracts from any register… "
It is therefore a matter of great importance, to enable the public to ascertain what common rights are, that they should not merely be included in the land register set up under the Act of 1925. Even when these registers cease to be provisional (and under Clause 12 they may be amended), there is still no provision in Clause 12 enabling them to be amended to include rights of ownership excluded under Clause 4 (3) of this Bill, which is what is included in the register of the Act of 1925. Finally, the fact that there is no registration of ownership of unclaimed commons also means that there is a serious further lacuna.
Those are three points that I have made: first, that registers may not include all rights; secondly, that registers must not include ownership already registered, and, thirdly, that where ownership of common land cannot be ascertained it may not be registered. In order to deal with these three points we recommend the creation of a Custodian of Common Land. This is a modification of the recommendation referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary in his speech, contained in the Report of the Royal Commission, that in such cases the ownership of common land should be vested in the Public Trustee. We are disposed to agree with the Government that the Public Trustee, with his multifarious responsibilities and financial outlook, is probably not the best person to administer a number of pieces of common land scattered throughout the length and breadth of the country. We therefore make the alternative suggestion that there should be set up a Custodian of Common Land who should be entitled, first, to register all rights that are claimed, including the right of the public to free access, and, second, to claim for himself, and be vested with, ownership of commons if the owner negligently or wilfully declines to register his ownership himself.
While on this point of the law of commons, I should like to say to the Parliamentary Secretary that the Ministry of Agriculture, from which his new Minister has taken over these responsibilities, was, I regret to say, under Ministers of both political Parties, guilty
104
first of requisitioning common land in war time, in order to increase food production; of extinguishing commoners' rights, and then of selling the land, as ordinary freehold, to private individuals. I am not criticising the requisitioning. But I do say that to requisition common land and extinguish the commoners' rights, and then to sell it as ordinary freehold, is the kind of thing that we should regard as reprehensible in private individuals, and we regard it as equally reprehensible in a Government Department.
I need not go further into past wrongdoing, but 475 acres are left and still owned by the Minister. I ask that this new Ministry of Land and Natural Resources will make a good start to its career by giving to this House an assurance that it will not dispose of that land but will restore it to be common land. If the Government, wisely, were to accept the Amendment regarding the Custodian of Common Lands which I propose to move, it would be very appropriate, as a birthday present, if they vested in that Custodian of Common Lands the land of which they remain still possessed.
My Lords, Clause 18 gives very wide powers to the Minister to make delegated legislation. I dare say that it is quite all right; but we shall have to look at it at the Committee stage. I think that perhaps the definition of common rights in Clause 21 is not quite as comprehensive as it should be. We can have very interesting debates on some of those words to which my noble friend Lord Ferrers has referred from the glossary containing the delightful and romantic rights that were exercised over the waste of manors in mediaeval times.
I welcome this Bill, and I believe that the Government's intentions are exceedingly good. But, at the same time, I feel that it does not make sufficiently clear the public interest in commons as a whole, especially those near large centres of population, and I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to any Amendments which my noble friends and I may move in order to try to improve this Bill.
7.32 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I rise to make only a very brief intervention. I have had a long-standing interest

105
in this problem of commons and common land and I must confess that I was one of those who ventured to give evidence before the Royal Commission. I live in a district where large areas of land are grazed in common and are most important to the economy of many farms, and there is also, by tradition, a very wide measure of access; but I hope that noble Lords will see that I shall be speaking rather more from the agricultural point of view than that of my noble friend who has just sat down.
We are, I think, all glad to see this Bill, the first stage of overdue common land legislation. My memory is fairly good, if not such as to remember every detail of a draft Bill I may have seen some time ago, but I do not believe there is very much here in print to-day that was not in print several years ago, and since that time the Bill has been slowly moving up the list, hoping for space in an overcrowded legislative programme. But I am glad that noble Lords opposite have given it their support and a deserved priority, and I should not like to miss this unusual chance of being able to pay tribute to something they have done.
The whole concern of this Bill is registration. Registration is very important, but it is not an end in itself; it is only the means to an end. We naturally cannot expect even an outline of any Bill or Bills which may follow in several years' time, but at least I hope that the Government will give, not only us here but the many commoners up and down the country some idea of their thinking at this stage. Those people are entitled to ask for this. We heard that the Government are going to pay respect to the "proper balance". This is a good Front Bench phrase, but it is very difficult for any individual in a remote part of the country to assess how that is going to be applied to his particular problem.
I take it, from what the noble Lord has said, that the Government are in general support of the Commission's principal recommendations, but I hope that when the noble Lord comes to wind up he will tell us something about Recommendation 25, which is on page 131 and is a recommendation about access which has aroused a great deal of interest in some areas. Nobody wants to see traditional access curtailed but, equally, the noble Lord would not wish, if he had common rights over
106
fell in his home district, suddenly to find that those rights were so crystallised that he could no longer run a bull with his heifers on the common, which is the sort of consequence which could follow turning this traditional permission into a proper statutory right.
More particularly, I hope that the noble Lord, when he winds up, will give us more information on several points which are of the greatest interest to commoners with agricultural interests. While no-one in an area like the Lake District wants to see any diminution of public access which has grown up and been welcomed over the years, none the less, I hope that the noble Lord will make it clear now, to avoid difficulty and misunderstanding later, that common land is not the same as public land. A lot of people think it is. Various interlocking private rights in and over common land, although many are quite small rights, are very valuable to those who enjoy them. I do not think that that distinction is sufficiently clearly understood by many.
Secondly, when we come to common land which has a significant agricultural value, I hope that this will be given full recognition and that those who own the soil and the rights of common will be able to regulate such commons with a view to their improvement and to the increase of agricultural production. At present it is virtually impossible to effect any such regulation; the law is too complicated. I believe there is one successful example somewhere in Northumberland where a scheme of regulation has been worked out in our time, but since any scheme in most districts is liable to be blocked by one awkward man, there is no purpose in embarking on anything so difficult and where success is so unlikely. Time has marched on, as the noble Lord said, and no one to-day can expect a manorial court really to take control over schemes of regulation of commons.
But, having said that, we must admit that common land remains part of the pattern of our countryside, even though there are too many examples of derelict land and overstocked or over-sheeped hill grazings in those areas. The Ministry of Agriculture may be a little timid of seeing increased production of any commodity to-day, but by the turn of the century who knows whether the increased food from the improved million acres or

107
thereabouts of common land may not be needed and may not be very valuable, not only for the people of this country but for peoples in other parts of the world? Hence I hope that the Government will not overlook the significance of the opportunity they have of improving agricultural production from this very large area.
There is then the question of the production of timber, which is a subject on which I ventured to give evidence. Commons to-day are mostly bare enough. There were trees on them to give shelter and they added to the amenity, but such timber has largely disappeared to meet our needs in two wars. Although the Lord of the manor in many cases would be within his rights in attempting to replace this timber, he would be a fool if he tried, since he has no right under the law to protect the young trees, and there would be a complete certainty that no young plantation could possibly become established under existing conditions. I would say that there is need for rapid action here for the re-establishment of these lost timber stocks, which were considerable, and, further, to make it possible for willing commoners and their Lord to regulate commons in the interests of agriculture.
There are many facets of this problem which are very complicated and may take a long time to consider, even after all this evidence has been collected, but there are other problems of which I venture to think these are two which are much less complicated. I believed that they could even be brought within the scope of a Private Member's Bill, and I tried in the past to see whether that could be done, but the "Establishment" always seemed to be against me and thought and spoke in terms of comprehensive legislation, of which we are considering the first stage here to-day.
My Lords, this Bill may concern only registration, but I think it is meaningless when looked at from one direction unless we do know a little more. I pay tribute to the noble Lord who introduced this Bill. He gave an immense amount of information in a relatively short time. He was very clear and easy to listen to. None the less, I hope that when he comes to wind up he can tell us rather more about the Government's thinking. I am
108
sure we are entirely justified in asking the Government to confirm their policy, which must be of the greatest interest to the very many commoners up and down this country; and in one particular regard I hope he can tell us something: that it is not the Government's intention to pursue any wide policy of compulsory acquisition of large areas of common land, for whatever purpose. No doubt there are certain nationalisers within the Government's ranks who will urge them to do this, but I should like to think that the others were strong enough to resist this temptation. I would think it a pity, too, if even, in their quest for more land, too large areas of our commons in fact became Forestry Commission land and completely covered with uniform forests. For the rest, I hope we can all make progress, not only with the Bill but also with the registration and with the subsequent stages, and do this with the minimum of controversy and the maximum of agreement.
LORD CHUTER-EDE: My Lords, the House is indebted to my noble and learned friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the disclosure of the Government's intentions that he made in the course of his speech, and I share with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, the feeling with regard to the ultimate end of what we are now embarking upon in this Bill. For it is quite clear that this first Bill will not do more than provide us with a list, and once one has a list it is always very dangerous to wonder what the next thing will be, and particularly to take any steps in making use of the list for the promotion of one's own ideas.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, said that he was Treasurer of the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society. For five years I was the President of that organisation, and from the information that was given to us it is quite clear that that organisation was started about one hundred years ago. It is some proof that at odd times progress is made in this country that, at the end of one hundred years, we have got as far as this first Bill. How many centuries it is going to take us to see through the issues that really arise on this measure it would be very dangerous to prophesy; the only certainty is that one would not be here at the end of any time that one was tempted to mention.

109
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, mentioned several matters that arise on this measure and I hope that the Government will tell us that they intend to tackle this task, not in this Session but in a series of Sessions, steadily moving from the vantage point that they have established for us by introducing this particular Bill. Among the difficulties that will confront us is that not many people know that they have rights of common. In the promotion of two important Private Bills on behalf of local authorities the persons who were associated with me had to advertise for persons who claimed rights of common to notify us that they possessed them, and in neither case did we get a single reply. And one of these was a particularly important Bill that was promoted for the regulation of Epsom and Walton Downs, two very valuable commons, especially to the people of London, although of course they have as such no right in them at all. And the curious thing is that commons are now sought to be preserved in the main for the recreation of the urban population, and all connection with agriculture appears to have disappeared from the agitation in respect of them.
If when people are asked by local authorities to intimate that they have rights of common they take no steps to notify the persons advertising that they possess them, I think it is clear that the collection of the information required for the registers will be a task that will take a very long time, and that we shall have to take some pains to stress the importance of the information being supplied. The society which the noble Lord mentioned has plenty of evidence that it is exceedingly difficult to get any information on the point from people who undoubtedly possess rights of common. In fact, I sometimes thought it all depended on how the people in the big house treated the villagers whether you could ever get any information at all. If the people in the big house behaved as reasonably good neighbours to the poorer section of the population you got No 1nformation at all, but if the people in the big house had acquired the reputation of not being very good neighbours you could get so much information that it would appear that seventy or eighty years ago the main task of very many children in working-class cottages was listening
110
to their grandparents telling them where the rights of way and rights of common were. In such cases there was no difficulty at all in getting the evidence, if you could only find somebody who would believe it when you presented it.
It is important, now the Government have decided to implement at any rate some parts of the Report of the Royal Commission, that we should steadily go forward with it and in future years, no matter what Party may be governing the country, we should have a continuous succession of Acts bringing this matter fully up to date and making the information as wide and as reliable as possible. The reception of the Report when it appeared was sufficiently good to assure the Government that there would be plenty of interest in the matter.
It may be that I am not holding out a very inviting prospect to the Minister, who is not generally anxious to have to ask for time in successive years to carry through a policy, but unless the Government and successive Governments are prepared to regard this as one of the routine tasks to be performed by Government during the next twenty years, the Royal Commission and all the good will that it engendered when its Report was published may very well have been in vain, and that would be an appalling responsibility for this generation to take on in regard to the needs of posterity in the relatively near future.
7.50 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat for rising a few moments ago. However, when I saw that he was on his feet it made me sit down firmly. I had the honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Chuter-Ede, as President of the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, and therefore it is fitting that this evening I should follow him in your Lordships' House. I also wish to have the opportunity of congratulating him on behalf of your Lordships for the contribution which he has made to our discussion, I think his first. It was a great pleasure for many of us to know him in another place. We all know him as an authority on a wide range of matters of great interest

111
to the citizens of this country, on which his observations are always of the greatest value. I, at any rate, who have spent a good deal of my life in this movement feel that it is a compliment to the open spaces movement, as I believe Lord Eversley once described it, that Lord Chuter-Ede should have chosen this particular occasion on which to make his maiden speech to your Lordships. There is a wide range of subjects on which he is a great authority, and we hope that on other occasions he will again address us on many of these subjects.
Although it is late and few of your Lordships are left here, I should like to take up a little time this evening on this topic in which I have been interested for a long time. Incidentally, although this Bill itself is, in a sense, a technical measure and within a limited compass, every speech which has been made has encouraged us to look at the wider horizons with which the Bill is concerned. I think it is unfortunate that a matter of this importance should be relegated to a late hour after other measures, and to a House which is, in effect, almost empty. A better time ought to be found for discussion on a measure the implications of which are so wide. I was glad that the noble Lord indicated that, and that it has emerged in every speech which has been made tonight.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, and I approach this with a rather different attitude from that of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, although I do not think there is any necessary enmity between us. I think our common objectives work well in with each other. This enormous area of common land which is left in this country is to me a great reservoir for the ordinary citizens to get the healthy recreation in the country which they need, and which it is imperative that they should have; and it is because it is a preliminary step to that end that this Bill is so important.
It is quite true, as Lord Inglewood says—and of course everybody here knows it quite well, although in the country it is not so well known—that common land is not public land in the sense that everybody has the right to use it. It may be that from time to time, under that impression, damage has been done to
112
agricultural interests, and an enmity for a long time undoubtedly existed between the agricultural interests and those of us who like to go into the country and walk across the commons. To a large extent I think that has disappeared, although not entirely so. To me, one of the really important things is that this right should be extended. I am not going to cross swords at the moment with the noble Lord about the nationalisation of land. I think the needs of the young people of this country, particularly the right to walk across these commons and to enjoy themselves there, can be secured without necessarily going as far as that.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is quite right in saying that there is really not a great deal between us, and he knows that I am a great lover of the Lake District and like to walk around it as he does. Nevertheless, I think we ought to be quite clear at this stage as to what we are doing. I am as proud as he is of the traditional access which, in fact, everybody enjoys over enormous areas of country in the North of England, with the absolute minimum of trouble. I would say that this state of affairs has grown up quite happily by friendly understanding on both sides.
LORD CHORLEY: I am not challenging the noble Lord. It was he who trailed his coat. Both of us do our best to defend the Lake District, which is under considerable pressure from other interests further south, as he and many of your Lordships know.
I was grateful to the Minister for referring to the centenary of the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society. Looking back at the early days of the Society, it was founded by Lord Eversley. He was the principal force behind it a hundred years ago. A most remarkable man, he was in fact a son of a Clerk of the Parliaments. He lived to be 97, and he said that he had known personally thirteen Prime Ministers, seventeen Lord Chancellors and seven Archbishops of Canterbury. That is a pretty good score. He gathered round him some of the most remarkable men of that mid-Victorian period—men like John Stuart Mill, Forster and Leslie Stephens, and others, who are household names in literature and politics. They built up an organisation which, as can be seen from

113
Lord Molson's speech, is still much alive, and obviously would be much alive when it has had the Presidency of Lord Chuter-Ede for all these number of years. There is a mass of informed information there and an enormous experience of this problem, which I hope that the Minister and the new Ministry will feel themselves not only free to call upon but encouraged to call upon, because I am sure that we can give them a great deal of help.
This Bill is machinery, and if it is to work in the right way it will be valuable machinery. But it is not impossible that it will not work in the right way. If it does not, it may prove a two-edged sword and do a great deal of damage, especially when one considers the three-year rule. I am not altogether happy about the three years, because at the end of that period, as Lord Molson has pointed out, rights will be extinguished for ever. This is an area where the interests of the general body of citizens are so vague, and there are so few organisations there to protect them and to forward them, that it might easily be that in the short period of three years rights of the greatest value will be lost to young men and women, indeed to all the citizens of this country. Therefore, I feel that this proposal that it should be the definite job of somebody like a Custodian of Common Lands, is an important and vital proposal, and I hope that the new Ministry, to which we are all looking forward with eagerness and expectation, will be able to see its way to meet us on points of this sort.
I think that the Minister pulled his punches in a way, because it is a scandal that it is now some seven or eight years since the Jennings Report was published, and that we have had to wait for this Government before a Bill was introduced. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was doing a good job of work at the Ministry of Agriculture and was doing his best to get this over. This small Bill is not going to take a great deal of time, either here or in another place. It is a scandal that it should have had to wait so long. I echo what the noble Earl. Lord Ferrers, and other speakers have said, in encouraging the new Ministry, which, after all, has such a wide area of interest to cope with in the Ministry of Agriculture, to devote particular attention to this important problem of the commons, I hope they will not be
114
satisfied with getting this Bill through Parliament and then saying, "We can sit back and spend a lot of time thinking". I hope that they will be thinking hard from the word "Go", because, as my noble friend Lord Chuter-Ede said, unless they are doing so through these coming years very vital and most valuable interests of the community will be lost for ever.
It is late; I have a number of other points I should like to make, but the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has indicated them effectively. Therefore, I hope that this is just the beginning of a long period of intensive thought and work on the protection of these really wonderful areas. Many of them are places of outstanding beauty, some of them in the most lovely areas of the whole country, like the Lake District and Wales—places not just where one can get fresh air and have recreation, but where one can do so in some of the loveliest country in the world. Therefore, I feel that this is, in a sense, an historic occasion, and that in passing this Bill we are at the beginning of a long and fruitful prospect of saving these wonderful parts of the countryside for the people of our islands.
8.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I rise not to address your Lordships on the Bill under discussion but to offer to the noble Lord, Lord Chuter-Ede, from noble Lords on this side of the House, congratulations on his maiden speech. He, of course, comes to us with a great reputation, and I am sure that all of us, wherever we sit in this House, will much look forward to hearing from him often in the future.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
8.4 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I think that it verges on the impertinent for me to congratulate my noble friend Lord Chuter-Ede on a maiden speech, but I know that he will not take it in that way. He has always recognised the real good will which he has had from Members of the other place, on both sides of the House, although I sometimes feel that he has never quite recognised how very large that good will is. On this particular occasion I am especially glad that he chose to speak, for I know his interest in

115
this subject. I know, too, that he understands full well what I believe to be a most important side of it, and that is the r^ le that will necessarily have to be played by county councils up and down the country. I agree that county boroughs are also concerned, but that is a rather different matter. I do not want to develop this at great length, but I have known the noble Lord ever since I have been in Parliament. I have never heard him say a word that was not both wise and timely. I have never known him fail to be kind to anybody who needed kindness. And I have never known him fail to make a really funny remark when it was appropriate to make it. I cannot say more to him than that.
I have listened with great interest to all the suggestions made on this Bill. Some of them will be raised again in Committee, and therefore the noble Lord, Lord Molson, will hardly expect me to deal with them in any detail now. I want to say one or two general things which I hope may help him a little in his consideration of what he has put forward. The first thing I would say is that I do not think there are nearly so many loopholes in the Bill as he thinks he has found. The answer, in a good many cases, is to be found in Clause 4 (2). The local authority is to represent the public, and in those cases the local authority will be the appropriate local council. I mentioned this in my opening speech, but only very shortly.
I agree with the noble Lord that the claim under Clause 4 (1), except for status, must be by someone interested, and I think that he will find confirmation of that if he looks at the provision in a later clause for enabling either a landlord or a tenant to make a claim for registration. That provision would obviously not be necessary if people having No 1nterest could make claims, as they will be able to for status. I think it is pretty clear therefore—indeed, I doubt if it needs amendment—that it must be someone having an interest, save in the case I have mentioned.
Another point which I hope to deal with is this. We came to the conclusion—and I am certain it is right—that one cannot have two systems of registered ownership side by side. Either the registered ownership has no meaning in one
116
case or they will conflict. What, in effect, we have done is to make the registration of ownership here for the purposes of this Bill an inconclusive registration—one which is really a peg, as it were, on which one has to hang a certain amount of other things. But we have avoided a conflict with the land registration authorities on the matter. I feel quite certain in my own mind that that is really inevitable, given the land registration legislation.
I see the difficulty about public access. Possibly something might be done to meet that point, but I think the cases in which owners fail to register will be rare. When one looks at it carefully one sees that it is not in the interests of an owner simply to fail to register because he thinks that no one will claim rights of common, for in that case the local authority would step in and apply to register the land as common land. Consequently he would find himself not with unencumbered freehold but with somebody concerned to have the land registered as common land.
One other point about ownership is that it is not only a case of registering the ownership of the actual land. There may be questions of registering ownership of what I suppose one should call dominant land—that is to say, land to which these rights of common appertain. Though it is not the same land as that over which the rights are exercised, a man holding a farm may have rights of common in the ground in front of the farm and it may be necessary to get some indication of what the dominant land is, as well as of the land over which the rights of common are exercised. We are not quite certain—and I want to look at it again—that we have provided for that being indicated; and this is the point on which we may have to consider an enlargement of the registration-making power. We may have to ask for a little more information from people on that particular narrow, technical point. On the regulations generally I have looked at the clause very carefully, and I am far more afraid that the powers are too little than that they are too large. The Clause 1s very tightly drawn, and if one looks at what it provides for, one sees that it is confined to the things I said: to the giving of information to the public and other important but procedural matters.

117
I turn to the apparent conflict—it really was no more—between Lord Molson and Lord Inglewood, the one upholding the rights of public access and the other saying that agricultural interests were vital. I do not think that there is any real conflict. If one looks at Recommendation 25 of the Royal Commission, one finds that it is subject to the conditions in the National Parks Act. One of those conditions, the last one printed, is that the public in exercising their rights shall not interfere with the rights of other people. So that the apparent conflict is not, I think, there in that case.
But what I think is indicated quite clearly is that there will have to be schemes of management, and so on—the recommendations, in fact, of the Royal Commission—and that they will differ widely in different parts of the country. As regards some of the upland commons in the Lake District there is already in fact, if not in law, public access, and the real difficulty is that it is necessary to go a very long way to get to this land. If I read the Report rightly, not only humans but sheep find it a long way to go, so the commons are neither fully grazed nor fully used for public enjoyment. I do not think these problems will prove too difficult, but I must repeat what I said at the end of my opening speech, which I think answers a good deal of what was said to-day.
This is a case where the success of what we do, however many thinking-caps we put on, is going to depend on the co-operation and good will of local authorities. In my view, they will find more reason for co-operation in the terms of this Bill, and the possibilities it opens to them, than they have found in the past. It is quite true that there is much more inducement in some cases than in others. In Northamptonshire, for instance, I think I am right in saying that there
118
are either no commons at all, or only a very negligible quantity, but a number of village greens, which are rather a different kettle of fish, if I may use that expression. The authorities were, on the whole, good as regards the Royal Commission—or so I understand—and I feel that when you appeal to people to do a thing of this sort you can get co-operation if you make it clear that you really intend business yourself.
May I say to my noble friend Lord Chuter-Ede, and to everybody else concerned, that I hope we shall not have to have periodic legislation. We are trying to avoid that. But I agree that we shall have to keep this business actively going, with or without other legislation, and that it is no use just getting this Bill passed and then sitting back and doing nothing. For one thing, an explanatory leaflet is going to be a very important document. A good number more things may be wanted for which it is not necessary to provide in the Statute but which may matter a good deal in practice.
In the last resort, my Lords, what are we really doing? We are trying to make proper use for public purposes of no less than 1½ million acres in this country, where our institutions or our laziness, whichever it is, have got the better of us in the past; and where people over the centuries have been infringing public rights and the rights of commoners simply because no one was looking and no one bothered. Surely there could be no better subject about which to call for real help from local authorities than 1½ million acres of the country, which, after all, we all love, or we should not be having this debate or this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past eight o'clock.