Sitting of 28 July 1965

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

    A.1 Road (Roundabouts)
    Mr. Kitsonasked the Minister of Transport how many accidents took place on roundabouts on the A.1 in 1962, 1963, 1964; and what improvements he intends to make.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Tom Fraser): 118, 123 and 149 personal injury accidents. Of the 47 roundabouts existing in 1962, three have since been eliminated. The Durham Motorway will bypass eight more. Schemes for the elimination or improvement of another 11 are in progress or due to start within the next five years. Further schemes as necessary will be included in future extensions of my roads programme.
    Mr. Kitson: In thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that a great many of these accidents happen when visibility is bad and there is fog? Is it not worth while considering painting on the road warning of the fact that there is a roundabout ahead? Might not this cut down the number of accidents? In addition, will the Minister consider reducing the use of kerbstones at roundabouts which are such hard things to hit?
    Mr. Fraser: I shall be happy to take into account and to consider the suggestions made by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Are not the cuts announced yesterday an ideal opportunity for reviewing the use of roundabouts, which are wasteful of land and were abandoned in America many years ago?
    Mr. Fraser: In many cases the alternative to a roundabout is grade separation, which, I believe, costs five times as much as a roundabout.

    Carlisle Bypass
    Mr. Ron Lewisasked the Minister of Transport, in view of the present heavy volume of traffic passing through the City of Carlisle, and the need for the bypass road, if he will now bring forward the operational date for the starting of the Carlisle Bypass.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): We agree that a bypass is urgently needed. Our proposals for the route have been published and objections are now being considered. When the route is fixed we shall complete the remaining statutory procedures, including land acquisition, as quickly as possible. Until they are further advanced it is not possible to say when construction can start.
    Mr. Lewis: While appreciating the difficulties of my hon. Friend, may I ask him to do all in his power to speed up the provision of this bypass, which is desperately needed for the northbound and southbound traffic?
    Mr. Swingler: Yes, we appreciate the urgent need. The processes required, especially the acquisition of land, are going forward as rapidly as possible.
    Mr. Powell: Is this one of the schemes which will fall victim to the £100 million worth of cuts in the road programme which was indicated yesterday? Is it the Minister's intention to make a statement about his personal position in view of his repeated assurances that the road programme would not be cut and the fact that his colleagues have now thrown him over?
    Mr. Swingler: I do not know to what the right hon Gentleman is referring. Evidently he did not hear yesterday's statement very clearly. There was no reference to any £100 million cut in the road programme. Nevertheless, we are considering the revision of the programme in the light of the Chancellor's statement. We cannot say what its effect might be on any particular project.

    Computer-controlled Traffic Signals
    Mr. Alasdair Mackenzieasked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made towards carrying out the large-scale experiment in traffic control by means of computer-controlled traffic signals.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: The planning stage of the experiment in West London has been substantially completed and tenders have been invited for the main items of equipment. In addition, proposals for conventional traffic measures necessary if the maximum benefit is to be obtained have been put to the Greater London Council as traffic authority. Preliminary planning work began recently on the complementary experiment in the centre of Glasgow.
    Mr. Mackenzie: While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's reply, may I ask whether he is aware that computer control would keep the traffic moving smoothly? Will he, therefore, consider this as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir. That is the object of the experiment that we are carrying out.
    Mr. Webster: Without knowing whether the urban traffic in Ross and Cromarty is worthy of a computer, may I ask the Minister to tell me what advice he has received on this subject from the Minister of Technology?
    Mr. Fraser: I am not sure that I see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's question. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology and I are in the closest touch on this and other matters concerned with the advance of technology in transport in this country.

    Motorways and All-Purpose Roads
    Mr. Alasdair Mackenzieasked the Minister of Transport what are the criteria used to decide whether an urban motorway or an all-purpose road should be built.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: The most important considerations are the function of the road as part of the highway network, the nature and volume of the traffic it will carry, and the relative costs and benefits.
    Mr. Mackenzie: Does the Minister agree that it is far more costly to build all-purpose roads and then convert them into motorways? Does not he agree that it is better to build motorways in the first place?
    Mr. Fraser: There are conditions in which it is out of the question to build a motorway, and in which the needs of the traffic in the area are better served by building all-purpose roads. But there are other conditions in which the opposite conclusion would be reached by a consideration of the problems involved.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Can the Minister say how many urban motorways he is planning to build in Ross and Cromarty?
    Mr. Fraser: I cannot see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's question, but in any case the answer is "None", because I am not responsible for roads in Ross and Cromarty.
    Mr. Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that these questions and answers are fully reported in the John o'Groats Journal?

    Ports (Road Access)
    Mr. Russell Johnstonasked the Minister of Transport what consideration has been given to providing motorway links between the main ports and the present basic motorway network; and what proposals he has made.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: When the first 1,000 miles of motorway are completed, road access to almost all major ports will be greatly improved. Whether the connection with the main motorway network should itself be a motorway or an all-purpose road has to be decided in the light of local conditions. Possible further improvements will be included in my studies of the longer-term development of inter-urban routes.
    Mr. Johnston: Is the Minister aware that it is gratifying to know that he regards this problem as one of such urgency? Will he conult his colleagues at the Board of Trade in view of the fact that a lack of linkage between the main productive areas and the ports is in many cases harmful to the export trade?
    Mr. Fraser: This is one of the aspects of road development to which I am giving

    443
    the closest possible consideration. I think it essential that access to the ports should be speeded up.
    Mr. Strauss: Can my right hon. Friend say what steps he is taking to carry out the promise given yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that urgent action was to be taken to improve access to the ports?
    Mr. Fraser: My right hon. Friend asks what action I am taking in furtherance of a statement made only yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I can only say that in considering any adjustment of the road programme over the past months I have been giving the utmost attention to bringing forward, if possible, those roadworks which are essential for improving access to the ports.
    Mr. Powell: Is it not evident from the Minister's reply that he was taken completely by surprise by what the Chancellor said yesterday, and that he has no idea what is meant by the reference to access to the ports?
    Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman himself does not believe the accusation that he has just made. I was not taken by surprise. My right hon. Friend in his statement yesterday picked up capital projects in the ports, including access to the ports, as being projects which would be given preferential treatment in the allocation of resources in the six months' period to which he said his statement applied.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend realise what a surprise the right hon. Gentleman had yesterday?
    Mr. Powell: Do we understand that there are certain projects relating to the access to ports to which the six months' period of delay is not to apply, and when will the Minister be able to say what these projects are?
    Mr. Fraser: My right hon. Friend in his statement yesterday did not say that there would be an absolute ban on starts on all road projects. He indicated that there would have to be a reduction in starts if we were to make the best use of our resources in the period immediately ahead, and he went on to call attention to the priority that would be given to ports and to the access to ports. I would have thought that that was a
    444
    statement of policy which would have been welcomed on both sides of the House.
    Captain Litchfield: Would not the Minister be well advised to give all possible incentives to get long-distance traffic to the ports off the roads and on to the railways? Could not there be stricter control in this regard so far as the nationalised industries are concerned?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir. I have been giving a lot of attention to this. I have had consultations with the Railways Board, which is engaged in improving the services which it is able to give to manufacturers in this country so that we might use the railways a little more to get goods quickly to the ports.

    Motorways
    Mr. Hoosonasked the Minister of Transport when he expects to have completed the study of future motorway requirements.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: During next year.
    Mr. Hooson: In view of the importance of a network of motorways in this country to the economy of the country and to its economic recovery, is the Minister satisfied that the surveys so far undertaken are adequate for our development? In particular, can he say whether it is intended to cut down the development of motorways, in view of the Chancellor's statement yesterday?
    Mr. Fraser: In view of my right hon. Friend's statement yesterday, it will be necessary for me to review those projects which would have started within the next six months, but I do not expect that my right hon. Friend's statement will affect the prospect of having 1,000 miles of motorway completed by the early 1970s, and it will not deter me from going ahead with the study which I am making at the moment of future motorway requirements.
    Mr. Powell: Could the right hon. Gentleman clear up a difficulty which has been caused by the statement which he made just now? He referred just now to projects which were due to be started in the next six months, and said that they would have to be reviewed. His right hon. Friend's statement yesterday referred to contracts which had not yet been

    445
    signed and said that, in the case of those contracts—that is, of course, all future projects under the five years' programme—the starting dates will be postponed for six months. Can we have some reconciliation of these statements?
    Mr. Fraser: I can understand the right hon. Gentleman's confusion today after what happened to him yesterday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The right hon. Gentleman has quoted what my right hon. Friend said about postponing starts of capital projects, not only for roads but for other projects over the next six months. All I have said this afternoon is that I do not expect that this will make it impossible to complete a thousand miles of motorway by the early 1970s. That is the position.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Has my right hon. Friend anything further which he could tell the House about the Manchester-Liverpool motorway and that for the so-called "missing link" between the M.1 and the M.6?
    Mr. Fraser: I have said that I expect the Midlands link to be completed by 1970–71. In the light of what my right hon. Friend said yesterday, I cannot repeat with any assurance that it will be completed by then, but I hope that it will not be long delayed beyond 1970–71. I wish that the House would recognise, however, that the programme on which I am now working is a programme which my predecessor based upon a 4 per cent. growth in the economy. I inherited the programme, but I did not inherit a 4 per cent. growth in the economy.
    Mr. Powell: May I ask the Minister to make this clear, because it is a point of vital importance? It relates to the words in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement yesterday:
    "… the starting dates will be postponed for six months."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1965; Vol. 717, c. 228.]
    Does this mean that, during the next six months, starting dates will be postponed or does it mean that, in the case of projects for which contracts have not yet been signed, there will be a six months' postponement of the starting dates?
    Mr. Fraser: I do not recognise the difference—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I
    446
    do not. We are in a period of great economic stress. We have been advised many times by hon. and right hon. Gentlement opposite to make a cut in public spending. We have undertaken—the Chancellor made his statement to this effect yesterday—to do a holding operation on some projects which would have gone ahead in the next six months. Let us see how we get on and let us all do—[Interruption.]—I should have thought that hon. Members in all parts of the House would have wanted to see our economy grow and that they would have wanted to see it so strengthened that we could carry through all the essential public works which we have lying ahead of us. I want to see them carried through with the minimum of delay.
    Mr. Thorpeasked the Minister of Transport what is the estimated annual rate of completion of the motorways at present proposed; and what is the rate necessary for them to be completed by the early 1970s.
    Mr. Swingler: Work in hand should result in the completion of about 210 miles in this and the next two years. To complete the 1,000 miles by the early 1970s would require an average rate of 70 to 80 miles a year.
    Mr. Thorpe: Does not the hon. Gentleman's reply indicate that we are falling behind many of our Continental neighbours in the construction of motorways? Would he accept that the absence of fast communications between centres of production and ports of exit is one of the great obstacles to the export drive in this country? Does he not think that there is a case for reviewing the priorities, in view of the urgent need to step up exports? Finally, what questions and discussions with the First Secretary of State have there been in order that the road communications in this country can help exports?
    Mr. Swingler: It may well be that, owing to a considerable amount of negligence in the past, we have fallen well behind other European countries. We are faced with a very difficult situation in order to try to make our way forward. These are regarded as essential projects for communications. We are getting along with them as speedily as we can, according to the economic resources of

    447
    the country. We are in constant discussion with our colleagues in the Government about how to improve them.
    Mr. Powell: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate broadly the value of the motorway projects which will be affected by the Chancellor's statement of yesterday, as now interpreted by his right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Swingler: We are engaged, as I told the right hon. Gentleman before, in reviewing the programme at the moment in the light of the criteria stated by the Chancellor yesterday, and, in particular, the points made by the Chancellor about improving communications to the docks and everything connected with the export drive. Announcements will be made shortly about the effects on particular projects.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does my hon. Friend realise that every hon. Member of the Opposition—whether the Conservative Opposition or the Liberal Opposition—is wholeheartedly in favour of reducing public expenditure, on the terms that nothing in which he is interested himself is reduced at all?
    Mr. Swingler: I realise that very well.

    Classified Roads (Grant System)
    Mr. Hoosonasked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has for modifying the grant system for classified roads, in view of the extra demands being made on such roads through continually increasing traffic.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: I will shortly be putting proposals to the local authorities associations as part of the general review of local government finance.
    Mr. Hooson: In putting forward proposals to the local authorities, will the Minister bear in mind that it is because of the absence of motorways and the closure of many railways that there is an increasing amount of traffic on A and B roads and that this particularly affects constituencies and areas like mine? Has he any proposals to increase the grants available to local authorities to improve the standards of these roads, which bear such a heavy amount of traffic?
    Mr. Fraser: The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of the general review
    448
    of local government finance. Discussions have already started with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and with the local authority associations. In the course of these discussions I shall be putting forward some proposals about further road grants, but, obviously, it is impossible for me to say, at present, what these will be.
    Mr. Webster: Without worrying the Minister too much about ways and means, may I ask whether he is aware that, on 3rd and 10th March, he said that the road programme would be maintained in real terms? In view of what has now happened and the six months' postponement, which is probably worth about a £75 million loss to the road programme, will he now reconsider his position and his resignation?

    West Country
    Mr. Thorpeasked the Minister of Transport if he will make provision for an increase greater than the national average in the amount of funds to be made available for road development in the West Country.
    Mr. Swingler: Not unless the studies of the longer term needs of the country as a whole show this to be justified.
    Mr. Thorpe: But the hon. Gentleman has referred to the needs of the country as a whole. Is he not aware of the plans of the First Secretary to stimulate the growth of the neglected regions of this country, which is rather different from that Answer? Would he not agree that the main obstacle to attracting industrial investment and extending the tourist trade in the West Country is our appallingly bad road communications? Will he accept that those in the West Country will not be satisfied if all that this Government do is catch up with the backlog of the Tory Administration which preceded them?
    Mr. Swingler: I appreciate the needs and difficulties of the West Country, which we hear about weekend after weekend in the holiday season. We have in hand at the moment £12 million-worth of trunk road schemes in the West Country and are making grants of £5 million on classified roads. We have just published a line for the extension of the M.5 into

    449
    the West Country. I think that this shows a fairly good record of progress at the moment.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, in view of what has been said this afternoon, there is apparently a complete lack of co-ordination between his Ministry and the Chancellor, and that the figures which are being given are quite worthless? When can the House expect a White Paper or some such document telling us what is to be done, with the leave of the Government, before the Recess?
    Mr. Swingler: I find it extraordinary that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not acquainted with the facts. The facts which I have just stated are about money which is actually being spent now, and construction work which is going on in one part of the country. We are in constant consultation with other Departments in the Government about how to improve these communications.
    Mr. Bessellasked the Minister of Transport in view of the importance of tourism to the economy of the West Country, if he will initiate a study of the economic effect of road conditions on the tourist industry, with a view to improving the system of roads in the West Country.
    Mr. Swingler: The effects of road conditions on the tourist industry will be taken into account by the Economic Planning Council for the South West when formulating proposals for future economic development in the region.
    Mr. Bessell: Will the hon. Gentleman use his best offices to urge his right hon. Friend the First Secretary to speed up the review so that we can get the roads which are so necessary for the general development of the South-West, particularly bearing in mind the undertakings given by the Government to develop this area as a matter of priority?
    Mr. Swingler: I am well aware of the importance of the area and of tourism especially, which I myself have indulged in in the South-West. We have now—which we had not before—a highly intelligent planning council in the South-West, and I am sure that it is coming to grips with the priorities. We shall be
    450
    governed by its advice and the scale of priorities that it draws up.
    Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: In considering the South-West, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, apart from the tourist trade, there is very substantial long-distance carriage covering both the china clay and the horticulture industries? Therefore, we have an industrial user of the roads, not merely a tourism user.

    Vehicle Breakdowns
    Mr. Bowenasked the Minister of Transport what is the statistical average of vehicle breakdowns expressed in vehicle-miles; to what extent this factor is considered in designing urban and rural motorways and all-purpose roads, respectively; and what account is taken of it in deciding whether an emergency hard shoulder is to be included.
    Mr. Swingler: I apologise for the length of this Answer.
    The rate of vehicle breakdown is not capable of precise calculation but is within the range of one for every 10,000 to 20,000 vehicle miles. This is taken into account in the design of motorways. Continuous hard shoulders are provided on all rural motorways. On urban motorways, where traffic speeds are lower hard shoulders will be provided where this is physically possible and not disproportionately costly.
    Breakdowns are a less significant factor in the design of all-purpose roads, where drivers have in any case to allow for stationary vehicles, turning vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. On the more important all-purpose roads it is the policy to provide lay-bys at frequent intervals.
    Mr. Farr: Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the fact that with three-lane motorways there is the great advantage of being able to use the central reservation as an additional draw-in for vehicles in an emergency?
    Mr. Swingler: The question of the use of the central reservation and its rôle is a matter which is under constant discussion. We are persistently being pressed to erect anti-dazzle and anti-crash screens on the central reservation. We give high priority to the carrying out

    451
    of experiments into this important subject.
    Mr. Bowen: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the suggestion put to him by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) is fraught with danger, and should not the Ministry reconsider its whole attitude towards the three-lane motorways?
    Mr. Swingler: That is another question. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is correct in that it is far more important for us to experiment to find the right answer to the question of the use of the central reservation as a means of preventing accidents and safeguarding motorists against dazzle.

    Parking Facilities
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to compile statistics and data on the provision or otherwise of, or need for, parking facilities by local authorities in view of the wide difference in parking policy between authorities.
    Mr. Swingler: No, Sir. Parking policy must fit local needs, which vary from town to town. In a planning bulletin issued last March, we and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government gave local authorities advice on all aspects of parking and urged them to adopt positive and comprehensive policies.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that on the outskirts of Greater London different local authorities adopt very different pricing policies in relation to the parking facilities which they provide and that these are in no way co-ordinated with the parking facilities which are provided by either London Transport or the British Railways Board? What steps is the Ministry taking to see that the policies of all the various authorities which provide parking on the peripheries of our major cities, particularly Greater London, are properly co-ordinated?
    Mr. Swingler: I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman that we want a co-ordination of policy on this matter, co-ordination which we have sadly lacked in the past. We are endeavouring to get this co-ordination, particularly among the nationalised boards. However, traffic
    452
    conditions vary considerably from town to town and, as I said to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) the other night, the parking policy of one authority—such as the use of disc parking—may not be suitable for others. We must, therefore, depend on the local highway authorities to adopt the policy which is best suited to their local needs.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Is the hon. Gentle-aware of the increasing irritation in the London area because of the parking of heavy lorries in residential roads and streets? Is it not time that the Ministry took a lead in attempting to solve this problem?
    Mr. Swingler: The local highway authorities and local police have a considerable degree of responsibility here. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to enforcement, then that is the responsibility of all concerned. If it is an offence—and it often probably is—for heavy lorries to be parked in residential streets in the way described, that is a matter for police action.
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Minister of Transport if he will initiate research into the effect on property values in town shopping and business areas of the absence of adequate parking facilities.
    Mr. Swingler: My Department is already sponsoring a research group whose work includes the inter-relationship between transport facilities and urban development. My right hon. Friend does no think he should give special priority to this particular aspect of the problem.
    Mr. Lubbock: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in many suburban areas around Greater London parking facilities which were originally provided for the benefit of people using the shops are being used by commuters who leave their cars there the whole day while they are in London and thereby prevent people who come in by car using the shopping areas? Does this not indicate that the imperative need is co-ordination between British Railways and the local authorities in outer London?
    Mr. Swingler: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It emphasises the imperative need for a policy of co-ordination, which we have lacked for so many years. We are trying to come to

    453
    grips with the problem of having parking facilities available at the rail terminals.
    Mr. Speaker: Lord Dalkeith.
    Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did not hear me. I called Lord Dalkeith.
    The Earl of Dalkeith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Question and other Questions today mark an historic occasion, namely, the sudden and belated transition of the Liberal Party from the horse and carriage age to the motor car age?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Minister's responsibility extends to that degree of historical research.
    Mr. Bowenasked the Minister of Transport what study he has made of the extent to which town shopping centres with adequate parking facilities attract shoppers from towns without such facilities.
    Mr. Swingler: In the joint planning bulletin "Parking in Town Centres" issued last March, we and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government advised all local authorities that towns without an adequate policy for both on-street and off-street parking are likely to lose trade to those that have.
    Mr. Bowen: Is it not extremely important to stress not only the convenience aspect of the matter but also the basic commercial value of providing adequate parking facilities in urban areas?
    Mr. Swingler: Yes, Sir. It is extremely important that all local highway authorities should consider this, and a bulletin was issued as a matter of urgency in the light of the continued build-up of ownership of vehicles. This is something which will be essential in the co-ordination of transport in the future.
    Mr. Powell: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the time is approaching when it would be wise to have a full-scale and thorough investigation into the economics of parking from every point of view—charging, land use, and so on—and that this is a task which might usefully be entrusted to an independent body?
    Mr. Swingler: It would have been wise to have had this many years ago. With the advantage of the advice of his Transport Advisory Council, my right hon. Friend is considering this matter as one of urgency. That is why we have issued a bulletin to local authorities.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: How does the Minister explain the fact that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who we thought was a 100 per cent. capitalist, is now demanding public initiative?
    Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Transport has no responsibility for giving such explanations.
    Mr. Goodhew: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Labour Party suggested that they were poised and ready to swing many policies into action? It is no excuse for him to say that the Conservative Party did nothing for 13 years. What have hon. Gentlemen opposite been doing for 13 years?—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Swingler: We have swung policies into action. That is why my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Housing and Local Government issued a bulletin on car parking facilities last March to local highway authorities. It indicates to them the policies that we wish to see adopted.
    Mr. Speaker: I would remind the House that parking, whether by discs or by meters, seems to be rather noisy, and that we have had the Answers to 20 Questions only by 17 minutes past three o'clock.

    Roads (Night Work)
    Mr. David Steelasked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the continually increasing traffic, he will encourage the carrying out of more road work at night, and so help to relieve daytime congestion.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: I am aware of the need to minimise traffic congestion caused by road works. But, in addition to other objections, more general night work would add substantially to their cost.
    Mr. Steel: While the right hon. Gentleman's last remarks are undoubtedly true, may I ask him to bear in mind that the obvious extra costs of night work might be offset by reducing the hidden costs of increased congestion during the day?
    Mr. Fraser: The cost is quite an important factor, but there are other objections. There is the constant objection to night work of this kind made by residents, who complain about the noise occasioned by the work that is going on and by the traffic which is engaged for the purpose of that work.
    Mr. Ford: Has the Minister any plans for carrying out road works, at night if necessary, to accommodate the Liberal juggernaut which only today appears to be on the move?

    Parking (Disc Schemes)
    Mr. David Steelasked the Minister of Transport what local authorities have now approached him regarding parking schemes based on the use of discs.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: Only Cheltenham.
    Mr. Steel: Has the Minister carried out a study of the use of disc schemes in Continental cities? Is any comparative work going on between the use of discs and parking meters, in relation to the financial outlay and efficiency in the provision of parking space?
    Mr. Fraser: We are well aware of what is going on in Continental cities and, over the years, the Government have advised local authorities of these developments. The former Government sent out a memorandum in 1961 and a circular in 1962. In March of this year the present Government sent out a bulletin called "Parking in Town Centres" to all local authorities. In that bulletin we suggested the various systems which might be employed by them to deal with this problem.
    Mr. Bellenger: Would my right hon. Friend welcome additional schemes from local authorities which desire to try out other methods of parking, or is he inevitably wedded to the idea of parking meters?
    Mr. Fraser: In the bulletin which we sent out a few months ago we indicated that disc parking was one system which might be considered by local authorities. If local authorities put forward suggestions, as Cheltenham did, we, of course, shall be glad to consider them. I assure my right hon. Friend that we do not impose our wishes or possible prejudices on local authorities in this matter.
    Captain Litchfield: Would the right hon. Gentleman look at his records again to see whether the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has not put forward proposals of this kind? Would he accept two points: first, that the introduction of parking meters in residential districts can create real hardship for residents and, secondly, that the interests of residents from the parking point of view should take priority in any scheme which is in the interests of others?
    Mr. Fraser: I will certainly look at my records again to see whether I have misinformed the House. I have given the House the information which is now available, that only Cheltenham has proposed such a scheme. However, on the wider question raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I must leave some work to the local traffic authorities and the matters to which he has called attention are matters within the responsibility of those authorities.

    Popham-Winchester Bypass
    Mr. Mitchellasked the Minister of Transport what he estimates would be the cost of providing dual carriageways on the existing main road between Popham and the Winchester Bypass.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: About £650,000.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that parts of this road are now narrower than in Roman days, when the road was first put down? Will he consider with his Department the possibility of extending the M.3 from Popham to the Winchester Bypass, for I fear that if he does not do so now he will have to do so ultimately at greater expenditure of money than is otherwise called for?
    Mr. Fraser: I think that the part of the road which the hon. Gentleman has asked me to extend as a motorway—that is, south of Popham to the Winchester Bypass—is the most lightly loaded part of the whole of the London-Southampton road. I should have thought that the proposition which has just been made for the expenditure of resources on it is one which I could not reasonably pursue.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Does the Minister realise, in the context of the statement made by the Chancellor of the

    457
    Exchequer yesterday, that this road, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) refers, is an essential link with the Port of Southampton and is vitally necessary for exports through that port?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir. I did not say that we would not spend any money on this road. Indeed, we shall spend money on it.

    Land (Compulsory Acquisition)
    Mr. Bessellasked the Minister of Transport what steps in the process of land acquisition for motorways and all-purpose roads can be carried out simultaneously; and if he will make such a procedure standard practice in order to eliminate unnecessary delays.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: Proceedings for the compulsory acquisition of land for motorways and trunk roads are, so far as practicable, taken concurrently with the proceedings for making the schemes and orders which settle the lines on which those roads are to be built and the consequential alterations of the existing roads.
    Mr. Bessell: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the amount of time it takes to acquire land for motorway and all-purpose road construction? Will he consider introducing the necessary legislation to speed up this process?
    Mr. Fraser: It might be desirable to speed up the process. This matter is constantly under review and it is only proper that I should inform the House that as the road programme has been planned for some years—in other words, this is not something that has happened only recently—Governments have always given themselves time to carry through all the procedures, statutory and administrative, by the time it is anticipated that it will be possible to find the necessary resources to put the project in hand. That is the position at present, and it would be foolish of me to pretend that I could speed up the road programme merely by speeding up these processes.
    Sir C. Osborne: Instead of spending almost unlimited money on new roads in one way or the other at a time of financial crisis, would not the right hon. Gentleman be better employed in trying
    458
    to get more traffic back on the railways, which are only half-used? At a time when we are really up against it financially, would it not be wise to use the railways more fully instead of spending money in this direction?
    Mr. Fraser: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I think that I shall be serving the interests of the country well if I can get some traffic off the roads and on to the railways.
    Mr. Costain: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that I recently sent him a letter from a constituent—I have had another today—saying that the railways are losing so many of his goods that he is having to send them by road? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to improve the efficiency of the railways in carrying goods?
    Mr. Speaker: The Question is concerned with land acquisition.

    Motorways (Emergency Telephones)
    Mr. Bostonasked the Minister of Transport if he will now install telephones along the M.20.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: Yes, Sir. Following a review of policy I have decided to install emergency telephones on all trunk road motorways, including the Maidstone Bypass.
    Mr. Boston: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this decision about the M.20 will be warmly appreciated? Will he bear in mind when siting the telephones that the nearby M.2 has one telephone per mile on either side?
    Mr. Fraser: It is my intention to install telephones at this distance, one telephone per mile, on all trunk road motorways.

  TRANSPORT

    Motor Insurance (Claims)
    Mr. Newensasked the Minister of Transport if he will consider introducing legislation to lay down a code of conduct by motor insurance companies in meeting claims.
    Mr. Swingler: Claims on motor insurers arise under insurance policies which are contracts enforceable at law.

    459
    We see no need for further legislation on this matter.
    Mr. Newens: Does not my hon. Friend recognise that there is widespread discontent among the clients of many insurance companies and those involved in accidents with the clients of many insurance companies at the frustration and delay which they encounter in getting their claims settled? Is there no appropriate action that my hon. Friend can advocate in these circumstances?
    Mr. Swingler: If my hon. Friend is concerned about any particular case, I shall be glad to take it up with the motor insurance companies. I am aware that there is frustration, but it is not a matter which we think can be dealt with by legislation.
    Mr. Mapp: Is my hon. Friend aware that the position concerning highway liability generally is unsatisfactory? Can he say, in the wider context, whether his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has any further comment to make to the House about an inquiry, promised some weeks ago, over the wider field?
    Mr. Swingler: I am not quite sure to what my hon. Friend is referring. We are, however, at present discussing with the Motor Insurers' Bureau the possibility of changing the law to overcome certain difficulties and anomalies which are well known.
    Mr. Tiley: Will the Minister tell his hon. Friend that British insurance companies have a reputation throughout the world for the manner in which they carry out business, and that this is why we do the most insurance business in the world?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it is the Minister's responsibility to tell his hon. Friend that.
    Mr. Newensasked the Minister of Transport if he will set up an inquiry into the conditions on which motor insurance companies are prepared to allow a no-claim bonus on insurance premiums, with a view to legislation on the subject.
    Mr. Swingler: We see no need for the Government to intervene in this matter. Policy conditions, including no-claim bonuses, are a matter of contract, and
    460
    there is no reason to suppose that legislation to control the present insurance market in this respect is either necessary or desirable.
    Mr. Newens: Is my hon. Friend aware that some motor insurance companies do not allow a no-claims bonus to their clients who are involved in an accident in which they are completely innocent? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with this state of affairs? Does not he consider that some action is required to satisfy the needs of the public?
    Mr. Swingler: It may be that some action is required by the citizens themselves, but this is a matter of contract between the motorist and the insurance company, and it is not a matter than can be dealt with by legislation.

    Rural Bus Services
    Mr. Mitchellasked the Minister of Transport what steps he will now take to help the maintenance and expansion of rural bus services.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: The reports of the local inquiries and experiments which were undertaken in selected areas of England and Wales will be published early next week.
    As I have previously announced, I intend to discuss the results with the local authorities' and bus operators' Associations.
    The inquiries and experiments have shown a number of interesting results and possibilities, which will be worth exploring further. They point to the conclusion, however, that the financial problems of providing bus services in rural areas cannot be dealt with in isolation from the general problems arising throughout the country of maintaining efficient public transport services.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman is going to publish the reports. Three months ago, in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), he said that he would do so very soon. In reviewing this matter, will he give very careful consideration to the possibility of using school buses which often go with vacant seats through rural areas which sadly lack transport for the carrying of fare-paying passengers?
    Mr. Fraser: This is one of the matters dealt with in the reports to which I shall have to give consideration, particularly in consultation with the local authorities.
    Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us who represent rural areas do not very much like the sound of his answer? Unless he is very careful, he will run into the same danger of the delay in dealing with rural transport which we experienced for 13 years on the part of the Conservative Party. Is he aware that if there are financial difficulties, they must be faced up to, especially in the overspill areas where there is a substantial traffic increase potential?
    Mr. Fraser: I think that my hon. Friend would, however, wish us to give proper consideration to the reports made following these local inquiries and experiments. I should have thought, too, that hon. Members in all parts of the House would want to read what is contained in those reports before they start jumping to conclusions about what we should do in implementation or otherwise of any recommendations contained therein.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Minister in touch with the Postmaster-General who, as he may have heard, is engaged in experiments and research into the possibility of co-ordinating rural services with postal services in certain areas where people are so scattered that it would be totally uneconomic to run an actual bus service?
    Mr. Fraser: I am in touch with a great many of my right hon. Friends who have responsibilities for services in the rural areas, with a view to seeing if we can co-ordinate services to make them more economic, and in some cases to run them more efficiently.

    Goods Vehicles (London Area)
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will take steps generally to restrict the hours during which road goods vehicles shall be allowed within an eight mile radius of Charing Cross;
    (2) if he will introduce legislation generally to prohibit the loading and unloading of goods vehicles in the streets of London during the daytime.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Transport what restrictions he has decided to impose on the entry of goods vehicles and private cars into Central London.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: I think that any such far-reaching measures can be considered only in the light of the study of restraint of traffic generally which I announced on 14th April.
    Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the inner part of south-east London traffic congestion caused by the presence of heavy goods vehicles is notoriously bad and that some streets are almost completely congested by parked heavy lorries, especially during rush hours, when the unloading of heavy goody vehicles is a notorious practice?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir, but I think my hon. Friend will appreciate that he is raising a matter with me which is the responsibility of the Greater London Council. I think he knows that there are at present many schemes which restrict the use of roads by commercial vehicles during certain hours and restrict stopping for loading and unloading in many other streets during given hours. The speech I made on 14th April, to which I have referred, mentioned a further study which we are making of possibilities for further restraint of traffic in cities. I am in the closest consultation with the Greater London Council. I am hoping very much to be able to say something positive on this matter before the end of the year.
    Mr. Lipton: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the day has already come when we must decide that certain categories of road traffic have got to be kept out of central London altogether, at least during certain hours of the day? This is an inevitable decision which we must come to, particularly in regard to the use of private cars coming into central London, which must be severely restricted.
    Mr. Fraser: It is because I believe that restriction will be needed that I have been making speeches in recent months and that the study I have mentioned is under way.
    Mr. Dance: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very great burden we

    463
    put on people receiving goods in this way if they have to do so out of ordinary hours? Is he aware that it will make a great increase in the cost of running these businesses?
    Mr. Fraser: What I do know is that if one looks round many streets in London at present one finds pubs at nearly every street corner and at 9 o'clock in the morning lorries are unloading at those pubs, hindering the traffic not only of private cars, but of public service vehicles.
    Mr. Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the great complexity of the purposes, economic and other, which vehicles of different kinds are serving and therefore the necessity for a most careful study before any restrictions of the kind implied by these questions are imposed?
    Mr. Fraser: What I recognise is that we have to make better use of the road space in the centres of cities than we are doing at present. I believe that we shall do that only by working out carefully—I did not say that I would be doing it without care—the restraints that will have to be put upon certain traffic using those roads. I honestly believe that we shall get proper use of these busy streets, particularly in city centres, only by curtailing the use that can be made of them by commercial vehicles, I should have thought that not only commercial vehicles but private cars would have to suffer some restraint on the use they make of city streets—[An HON. MEMBER: "Too long."]—This is what I think and this is the object of the study I am having made at present.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order. You did refer to the slow progress with Questions today, Mr. Speaker. Is it not almost entirely due to the waffly answers we are getting from the Government Front Bench?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the epithet "waffly" has any part in a point of order.

    Motor Cars (Printed Slogans)
    Mr. Atkinsonasked the Minister of Transport whether, in the interests of road safety, he will take steps to ensure that political and other organisations refrain from distributing printed slogans
    464
    to be stuck in the rear windows of motor cars, in view of the fact that they obscure vision and act as a distraction to other road users.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: I have no power to prohibit the distribution of printed slogans. The Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1963, already require the driver to have a clear view through the windows of a motor vehicle.
    Mr. Atkinson: Would not the Minister agree that a more definite instruction is necessary in view of the present vogue? Would he also agree that now that motor car designers are attempting to get maximum all-round visibility the need for this instruction is becoming increasingly apparent? Would he not agree that when a motorist is involved in an accident it is no consolation for him to learn that the motorist in front is not to blame because he voted Conservative?
    Mr. Fraser: As I have said, I have no power to prohibit the distribution of printed slogans. I think it would be a mistake for me to contemplate putting a ban on the insertion of messages in the rear windows of motor cars. I can think of some which fulfil a very useful purpose, such as, "Disabled Driver" or "Running In, Please Pass." Quite a number of these messages are useful and I would not want to ban them.
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Would not the Minister agree that the motives which prompted this Question are not road safety but political safety in view of all the excellent signs which have been put on our cars for so long warning everybody of the chaos of Socialist Government?
    Mr. Fraser: I am reliably informed that the car which bears the label, "Don't blame me. I voted for Enoch", is not the car of the hon. and gallant Member.

    Dipped Headlights
    Mr. Bostonasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that many motorists fail to dip their headlights when approaching oncoming traffic; and if he will take further steps to see that they do so.
    Mr. Swingler: The law already provides penalties for driving without reasonable consideration for other users of the road. We do not consider that there

    465
    is need for legislation making failure co dip headlights when meeting another vehicle a specific offence. The Highway Code provides that when meeting other vehicles drivers should dip their headlights and should slow down or stop if they are dazzled.
    Mr. Boston: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that a substantial number of drivers using the motorways fail to dip their headlights and that perhaps some research is needed in this direction? Will he also bear in mind that a substantial minority of motorists, when approaching oncoming vehicles, undip their lights in the split section before the vehicles pass and this makes a great hazard? Will he look into this matter and see whether or not a publicity campaign in association with the motoring organisations is needed?
    Mr. Swingler: Yes. We recognise that this is a problem on the motorways. That is why we are giving urgent consideration to anti-dazzle devices.
    Mr. Thorpe: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the hazards of undipped lights would be substantially removed if in future all lights were fitted with yellow bulbs, as is done so widely on the Continent?
    Mr. Bossom: Will the Minister stop all driving on sidelights, especially in towns and cities?
    Mr. Swingler: The matters raised in that supplementary question and in the previous supplementary question are being discussed now with the motor manufacturers in relation to the design of lights. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that there are so many variations of conditions in towns, according to the standard of lighting which has been established—or which, as is true in some cases, has not been established at all—that it is extremely difficult for us to generalise and lay down regulations on the subject. Nevertheless, we hope to be able to give more guidance shortly.

CYPRUS (TURKISH-CYPRIOT COMMUNITY)
Mr. Sandys(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what action Her Majesty's Government as co-guarantor of the Cyprus Constitution are taking to uphold the constitutional rights of the Turkish-Cypriot community following the rejection of the representations made by the British High Commissioner to Archbishop Makarios.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Arthur Bottomley): The representations made by the British High Commissioner to the President of Cyprus were an expression of our often stated view, as a co-guarantor of the Cyprus Constitution, that the validity of the Treaty embodying that Constitution should be upheld until it is freely renegotiated.
This remains our view, and it is Her Majesty's Government's earnest hope that the Cyprus Government will do nothing to implement the law in question, or take any other action likely to increase tension in the island.
Mr. Sandys: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the flagrantly illegal action of the Cyprus Government gives to Turkey an unquestionable right under the Treaty of Guarantee to intervene in order to restore the Constitution? In view of the very grave consequences which this might have, may I ask the Government to take this matter immediately to the Security Council?
Mr. Bottomley: I think that for the moment we ought to rest on what I have said, and I would further amplify that by saying that we are satisfied that the terms of our representations were clear and correct and were clearly understood by the Government of Cyprus. I do not consider that anything would be added to them by a public debate at this stage. I would consider further action, should it be necessary.
Mr. Sandys: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is a very serious and a very urgent situation? Can he give us an assurance that the Government are in close touch with the Turkish Government and the Greek Government,

467
who are co-guarantors of the Constitution? Will he think again about the desirability of taking the matter to the Security Council so that the nations of the world may bring pressure to bear on the Cyprus Government not to aggravate this already explosive situation?
Mr. Bottomley: No, Sir. What I said was that we would not take it to the Security Council. However, we have informed the Secretary-General of the position and of the nature of our representations to the Cyprus authorities.
Mr. Shinwell: In view of the possible gravity of the situation which may emerge, is it likely that my right hon. Friend will be able to make a statement before we go into recess, because hon. Members on this side may wish to offer an opinion as to the propriety of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion—in my view, it was a very proper suggestion—for referring this matter to the Security Council?
Mr. Bottomley: I repeat that we are in touch with the United Nations, and if it should be necessary to take any further action I undertake to keep the House informed.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: While the United Nations has its part in this matter, is not the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government very clear indeed? Is not the subject of this Question one of many acts taken by the Cyprus Government detrimental to the Turkish community and in defiance of the treaty arrangements upon which the Republic of Cyprus is founded?
May we take it that Her Majesty's Government will regard this very seriously indeed? We on these benches have been very restrained. There have been so many acts of discrimination. Can we be assured that Her Majesty's Government are in full consultation with the two allies also responsible in Cyprus and that this matter will not just be shuffled off on to a reference to the United Nations?
Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. We are in touch with all the authorities concerned. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a very serious matter. Indeed, last weekend, when I first heard about it, I instructed immediate representations to
468
be made to the Cyprus authorities. I am quite sure that it is the concern of both sides of the House that we should not add to the tension in the island. We will do all we can to keep the peace, and that is what the Government are trying to do.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: In view of the suggestions made to my right hon. Friend from both sides of the House about referring this matter to the Security Council, can my right hon. Friend say whether he has any information that he can give the House about the likelihood of an early meeting of the Security Council? Does he not consider that if there were a likelihood of such an early meeting there are far more urgent and far more dangerous questions than this one to refer to it?
Mr. Bottomley: That is a point of view which is held by many Members of the House. The co-guarantors and the Cyprus Government are in touch with each other about this matter. I think that it is much better to leave it for them to try to settle at this stage rather than to take the matter to the Security Council.
Mr. Hooson: In view of the explosive potential of this situation and our previous experience of the difficulties in Cyprus, would it not be better to refer the matter to the Security Council now rather than to await the risk of an explosion there?
Mr. Bottomley: I have already indicated why I think that that is not the best way to deal with the matter. There are other authorities concerned in this dispute. They, in turn, have apparently decided not to refer it to the Security Council at this time.

RHODESIA (DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVE, PORTUGAL)
Mr. Thorpe(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether the British Government's approval for the appointment of a Rhodesian diplomatic representative to Portugal was sought by the Rhodesian Government prior to their public announcement of this appointment, and whether the British Government have granted, or will grant such approval.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Arthur Bottomley): The Rhodesian Government's request for approval for such an appointment is the subject of confidential exchanges. The British Government's attitude will be governed by the need to preserve Britain's ultimate responsibility for Rhodesia's external affairs and for its diplomatic representation in foreign countries.
Mr. Thorpe: Can we know, first, what the status of this person will be? Will he merely be a trade and information officer, or will he have diplomatic status and be able to bind Rhodesia, and, therefore, indirectly Britain, in matters of foreign affairs?
Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if diplomatic status is given this is a way of giving de facto recognition to the independence and control by Rhodesia over its foreign affairs, which is independence by the back door?
Finally, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that Rhodesia has an ambassador in South Africa in no way creates a precedent? That is a very different situation which has historical and political origins which have no parallel in Portugal.
Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. What the hon. Gentleman has said is true. The fact that Rhodesia has a representative in South Africa is no precedent. The Rhodesian Government had a representative in South Africa when South Africa was in the Commonwealth. When South Africa left the Commonwealth, it was thought unnecessary to make any change in the situation. I repeat that it does not create a precedent. On the other point, the discussions about representation are still continuing. As I have already said, the British Government are responsible for Rhodesia's diplomatic representation in foreign countries.
Mr. James Johnson: Has such an appointment ever been made in Washington? If so, when did this take place?
Mr. Bottomley: There is no such diplomatic appointment in Washington, but it is true that the Rhodesian Government have a representative on the staff of the British Ambassador in Washington.
Mr. Wall: As the Rhodesian Government have representatives in both Pretoria
470
and Washington, will the right hon. Gentleman say why Her Majesty's Government are even considering not accepting an appointment to another capital?
Mr. Bottomley: It is not accurate to say that the British Government are not considering the representations which have been made. It is the status of the accredited representative which is in dispute.

HASTINGS AIRCRAFT (ACCIDENT)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): I will, with permission, inform the House of the findings of the board of inquiry into the accident to the Hastings aircraft of the Royal Air Force on 6th July, and of the action which is being taken following the inquiry.
The board has found that the loss of control which caused the aircraft to crash was due to the failure of the two upper attachment bolts of the starboard outer elevator out-rigger. Subsequent tests at Harefield Laboratories and the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, have shown that the failure was one of fatigue.
The Minister of Aviation and the manufacturers have made a thorough investigation of the Hastings control system and have defined certain work which it is considered should be done on all Hastings aircraft before they are released for flying.
It has been decided to return to the manufacturers in this country, or to suitable centres overseas, for reconditioning and modification all elevators, tailplanes, fins and rudders. While the aircraft are grounded, the opportunity is also being taken by the Service to carry out special checks for any other defects, and remedial action will be taken if necessary.
In parallel with this work, and as a precautionary measure, the manufacturers are making a separate study of the general structure of the aircraft to enable them to give an assurance of its safety for the remainder of its life.
I cannot say at this stage exactly how long the necessary remedial work will take, but the first aircraft should be flying again within a few weeks and the whole programme should be complete in about two months.

471
A detailed study has been made of the effect of the temporary withdrawal of the Hastings on our operational and training capabilities. The main impact is on our training programme which will have to be temporarily curtailed in a number of ways. By means of a reallocation of priorities and increased chartering, additional transport aircraft have been made available for our air forces overseas and this will enable them to meet their operational commitments.
Transport Command is proud of the standards that have enabled its scheduled services to achieve probably the finest airline safety record in the world, and everything possible will be done to maintain these standards.
Sir J. Eden: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving the House the information arising out of the board of inquiry. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the circumstances of this tragic accident are being used by the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough to add to its knowledge of metal fatigue in aircraft generally? Is there any special checking procedure, particularly for older aircraft, by which signs of fatigue can be detected before they are too far advanced? If so, are these methods being used?
The statement referred to additional transport aircraft being made available. Could the right hon. Gentleman be a little more specific as to what aircraft he has in mind for this purpose? Since it is the intention that the Hastings aircraft should come back into service as soon as possible, can the right hon. Gentleman look further ahead into the future and say when they are likely to be replaced altogether and by what aircraft?
Mr. Healey: I think that the hon. Member will know that the question of fatigue is a problem which is not yet fully understood by our scientists and still less by our engineers, but, of course, we are learning what we can from this tragic experience and we will apply the lessons to tests of all other aircraft.
On the question of the replacement of the Hastings, under the new programme which the House approved some months ago, the C130E will begin to come into operational service towards the end of next year and will be completely in operational
472
service in 1968, five or six years before the Hastings replacement would have been in service under the previous programme.
Sir A. V. Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman referred specifically to transport aircraft. In view of the fact that this is the second type, first the Valiant and now the Hastings, that have had fatigue tests within a few months, will he give an undertaking that the full knowledge of the Royal Aircraft Establishment and the industry will be applied to check-inspection of all types, whether military or transport?
Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Lubbock: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and ask him two questions? First, how can he give us an assurance that the first aircraft should be flying again in a few weeks when a study of the general structure of the aircraft is being undertaken to enable an assurance to be given of its safety for the remainder of its life? How is the right hon. Gentleman sure that this study will come up with a favourable answer? Secondly, what arrangements for chartering aircraft for Transport Command have been entered into in anticipation of taking the Hastings out of service?
Mr. Healey: The Hastings represents a special fatigue problem because of vibration in the rear assembly when the aircraft is on the ground. This problem is not thought likely to apply to other aircraft, but it will be fully studied and the necessary steps will be taken to deal with the problem before the first Hastings comes back into service.
Steps have been taken to meet the charter problem, but the hon. Member will understand that the number of aircraft which we charter will depend on the operational situation. The bulk of our worldwide transport arrangements are not affected by the withdrawal of the Hastings.

PORTS (INTERIM PLAN)
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Tom Fraser): With permission, I should like to make a statement.
The Interim Plan for the Ports, prepared by the National Ports Council in

473
accordance with Section 1 of the Harbours Act, 1964, is being published this afternoon. Copies will be available in the Vote Office.
The principal recommendation is the development—which the Council consider to be urgently necessary—of 14 ports, involving the construction of about 70 new berths and the renovation of about 46 existing berths. These schemes, some of which have already been started, are additional to the proposals for the iron ore ports in South Wales. In total, they would cost about £150 to £155 million. This expenditure will, of course, necessarily be phased over a number of years.
The Government welcome these proposals for much-needed modernisation and expansion of port capacity and, in particular, the proposals for providing new deep water berths. Ports are a vital element in the basic industrial structure of the country; their modernisation is of particular importance in helping to speed the movement of exports. Measures for port development must be co-ordinated nationally, but the regional Economic Planning Councils and the Councils for Scotland and Wales are also being asked to consider the implications of the Report.
It is the responsibility of the port authorities to submit individual schemes to me for detailed consideration, in consultation with the Council. The existence of the interim plan will not rule out consideration of other schemes which port authorities may wish to submit, and all these schemes will be considered in relation to the Government's overall planning for ports.
The Council also recommends improvements in port organisation, the early reform of certain charges made by port authorities and the complete overhaul reform by port authorities of their charges structures in the next five years or so. Certain of these recommendations will fall to be considered in conjunction with the report of the Committee of Inquiry under Lord Devlin. Others may be brought to the attention of the Economic Development Committee for the movement of exports, whose work is just beginning. I agree that reform of port charges will be necessary to ensure better and more efficient use of existing facilities and to encourage development of the ports.
474
The Council also recommends that, for the purpose of assisting port authorities to undertake proposed development, the Government should make grants up to £25 million to £30 million in the next five years. I am now studying this recommendation in consultation with the Council.
The Government are grateful to Lord Rochdale and his colleagues for their Report, which is a notable step in planing for the ports on a national basis.
Mr. Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this publication is an improvement on the original intended publication of a mere outline of the Council's proposals? It will facilitate study and debate, which will be necessary. Meantime, there is one point which I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. He referred to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry under Lord Devlin. Can he tell the House when that is expected?
Mr. Fraser: I cannot without notice say when the Devlin Report will be coming out. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Lord Devlin was appointed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and I would prefer that my right hon. Friend should say when the Report is to be expected.
Mr. Heffer: Does the Report reverse the trend of the previous Rochdale Report, which stated that port development should largely be in the South and South-East? May we take it that there is now likely to be further port development in Merseyside, the North-East and other areas apart from those mentioned in the previous Rochdale Report?
Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend will find that this Report recommends considerable developments on the Mersey, but, as I said, individual schemes will have to be submitted by the port authorities to me for consideration under the powers given to me by Section 9 of the Harbours Act, 1964.
Mr. Ridsdale: How much of this investment is to be put into our East Coast ports, particularly in view of the importance of our trade with Europe? Secondly, how much stop and how much go is implied by the words, "phased over a number of years"?
Mr. Fraser: I should have expected even the hon. Gentleman to want to look at the Report and see whether we can consider these matters against the background of national needs rather than make cheap party localised points.
Mr. Wilkins: As the proposals of the Bristol Port Authority for six new deep water berths on the Portbury site have been in my right hon. Friend's hands for many months now, will he say whether he has considered them and whether they are included in the Report, which we have not yet in our hands?
Mr. Fraser: I am considering them, but I have not completed my consideration. My hon. Friend will find that the proposal for development at Portbury is included in the Report of the Interim Plan.
Mr. Bessell: We on this bench also welcome this Interim Plan. The Minister said that the Economic Planning Councils for Scotland and Wales would be asked to consider the implications of the Report. May we take it that they will be considered also by the Economic Planning Council for the South-West, with particular reference to Plymouth and Falmouth? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to do his best to persuade his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to implement the recommendation in the Report as regards grants for future development?
Mr. Fraser: The regional Economic Planning Councils will, of course, consider
476
the proposals which relate to ports within their regions. I had to mention the Scottish and Welsh Councils in particular because they do not like to be referred to as regional councils.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: Will this document include reference to the Government's position as regards the South Wales iron ore ports? The Minister will recall that we had a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee in which the Government were not only unable to give us their policy, but produced a contradiction of their position as stated in the White Paper. Can he give us some information about that?
Mr. Fraser: This would not be the time for me to engage in controversy about what was said in the debate in the Welsh Grand Committee or in the White Paper on the iron ore ports. The iron ore ports are not dealt with in the Interim Plan published today.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock, and, in the case of every Question which, under the provisions of paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply), the Chairman is directed to put forthwith at half-past Nine o'clock, he shall this day put such Question forthwith so soon as the House has resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.—[The Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [25TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]

  SUPPLY
    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1965–66; DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1965–66; NAVY EXPENDITURE, ARMY EXPENDITURE, AIR SERVICE EXPENDITURE, 1963–64
    The CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Order, proceeded forthwith to put severally the Questions, That the amounts of the Votes in the Civil Estimates, including Revised Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, as follow, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Defence (Central) Estimate, the Defence (Navy) Estimates, the Defence (Army) Estimates, and the Defence (Air) Estimates, be granted for the Services defined in those Votes and Estimates; and that sanction be given to the application of the sums temporarily authorised in respect of the Navy, Army and Air Services [Expenditure].
    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1965–66
      CLASS I

        VOTE 3. TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS
        That a sum, not exceeding £3,196,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury and subordinate departments and of the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and two Ministers without Portfolio. [£1,850,000 has been voted on account.]
        Question put and agreed to.

    CLASS I

      VOTE 4. DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
      That a sum, not exceeding £984,000 (including a Supplementary sum of £215,000), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come
      478
      in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, of the National Economic Development Council, and of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and for certain grants in aid. [£399,000 has been voted on account.]
      Question put and agreed to.
      CLASS I
      That a sum, not exceeding £68,149,250, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

      £

      1. House of Lords

      247,000

      2. House of Commons

      1,955,000

      5. Privy Council Office

      38,000

      6. Post Office Ministers

      7,250

      7. Customs and Excise

      17,750,000

      8. Inland Revenue

      46,761,000

      9. Exchequer and Audit Department

      480,000

      10. Civil Service Commission

      547,000

      11. Royal Commissions, &c.

      364,000

      £68,149,250

      Question put and agreed to.

      CLASS II
      That a sum, not exceeding £127,576,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

      £

      1. Diplomatic Service

      20,811,000

      2. Foreign Services (including a Supplementary sum of £768,000)

      12,870,000

      3. British Council

      3,862,000

      4. Commonwealth Services (including a Supplementary sum of £232,000)

      15,805,000

      5. Colonial Office (including a Supplementary sum of £145,000)

      4,822,000

      6. Colonial Grants and Loans (including a Supplementary sum of £5,000)

      7,114,000

      7. Ministry of Overseas Development

      1,541,000

      8. Overseas Aid (Multilateral)

      3,613,000

      9. Overseas Aid (Bilateral) (including a Supplementary sum of £4,210,000)

      35,355,000

      10. Overseas Aid (General Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £1,000)

      14,367,000

      479

      £

      11. Overseas Aid (Colonial Development and Welfare)

      6,500,000

      12. Commonwealth War Graves Commission

      916,000

      127,576,000

      Question put and agreed to.

      CLASS III
      That a sum, not exceeding £118,261,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

      £

      1. Home Office

      11,050,000

      2. Scottish Home and Health Department

      1,815,000

      3. Home Office (Civil Defence Services)

      9,250,000

      4. Scottish Home and Health Department (Civil Defence Services)

      1,393,000

      5. Police, England and Wales

      57,740,000

      6. Police, Scotland

      8,968,000

      7. Prisons, England and Wales

      15,805;000

      8. Prisons, Scotland

      2,166,000

      9. Child Care, England and Wales

      3,230,000

      10. Child Care, Scotland

      780,000

      11. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc. (including a Supplementary sum of £2,000)

      53,000

      12. County Courts

      680,000

      13. Legal Aid Fund

      4,194,000

      14. Law Charges

      693,000

      15. Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland

      375,000

      16. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland

      69,000

      118,261,000

      Question put and agreed to.

      CLASS IV
      That a sum, not exceeding £511,830,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

      £

      1. Board of Trade

      5,740,000

      2. Board of Trade (Promotion of Trade, Exports, etc., and Shipping and Other Services)

      5,043,000

      3. Board of Trade (Promotion of Local Employment)

      27,961,000

      4. Export Credits

      900

      5. Export Credits (Special Guarantees, etc.)

      900

      6. Ministry of Labour

      23,646,000

      480

      £

      7. Ministry of Aviation

      172,200,000

      8. Ministry of Aviation (Purchasing (Repayment) Services)

      900

      9. Ministry of Aviation (Special Materials)

      28,300,000

      10. Civil Aerodromes and Air Navigational Services

      7,866,000

      11. Ministry of Transport

      3,090,000

      12. Roads, etc., England

      124,998,000

      13. Roads, etc., Scotland

      19,881,000

      14. Roads, etc. Wales

      12,430,000

      15. Transport Services

      4,372,000

      16. Transport (Railways and Waterways Boards)

      55,682,000

      17. Ministry of Power

      2,432,000

      18. Ministry of Technology

      8,761,000

      19. Atomic Energy

      9,425,000

      20. Atomic Energy (Trading Fund Services)

      900

      511,830,600

      Question put and agreed to.

      CLASS V
      That a sum, not exceeding £216,579,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

      £

      1. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

      16,374,000

      2. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (including a Supplementary sum of £151,000)

      6,417,000

      3. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies) (including a Supplementary sum of £550,000)

      55,771,000

      4. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies) (including a Supplementary sum of £265,000)

      11,277,000

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

      104,833,000

      6. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Price Guarantees)

      9,704,000

      7. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural and Food Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £26,000)

      7,130,000

      8. Food (Strategic Reserves)

      900

      9. Fisheries Grants and Services

      3,316,000

      10. Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry

      1,757,000

      216,579,900

      Question put and agreed to.

      CLASS VI
      That a sum, not exceeding £1,929,690,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

      £

      1. Ministry of Housing and Local Government (including a Supplementary sum of £200,000)

      16,682,000

      2. Scottish Development Department

      2,705,000

      3. Welsh Office

      1,352,000

      4. Housing, England

      51,736,000

      5. Housing, Scotland

      10,947,000

      6. Housing, Wales

      3,376,000

      7. General Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales

      457,240,000

      8. General Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland

      46,530,000

      9. Rate Deficiency Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales

      113,870,000

      10. Equalisation and Transitional Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland

      16,330,000

      11. Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (including a Supplementary sum of £125,000)

      600,000

      12. Forestry Commission

      8,694,000

      13. Ministry of Health

      3,706,000

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

      371,178,000

      15. National Health Service (Executive Council's Services), England and Wales (including a Supplementary sum of £5,218,000)

      158,558,000

      16. Miscellaneous Health and Welfare Services, England and Wales

      32,171,000

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

      900

      18. National Health Service, &c, Scotland (including a Supplementary sum of £590,000)

      72,003,000

      19. National Health Service (Superannuation, &c), Scotland

      900

      20. Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance

      5,716,000

      21. National Insurance

      205,600,000

      22. Family Allowances

      95,975,000

      23. National Assistance Board

      175,168,000

      24. War Pensions, &c.

      79,552,000

      1,929,690,800

      Question put and agreed to.

      CLASS VII
      That a sum, not exceeding £269,269,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

      £

      1. Department of Education and Science

      3,341,000

      2. Education: Departmental (England and Wales) (including a Supplementary sum of £185,000)

      84,854,000

      3. Awards to Students (England and Wales)

      1,308,000

      4. Scottish Education Department

      17,403,000

      5. Teachers' Superannuation (England and Wales)

      900

      6. Teachers' Superannuation (Scotland)

      113,000

      7. Universities and Colleges, &c., Great Britain

      128,074,000

      8. Science Research Council

      18,090,000

      9. Natural Environment Research Services (Revised sum)

      -757,000

      9A. Natural Environment Research Council

      3,457,000

      10. Medical Research Council

      6,852,000

      11. Agricultural Research Council

      6,208,000

      12. Grants for Science

      326,000

      269,269,900

      Question put and agreed to.

      CLASS VIII
      That a sum, not exceeding £5,529,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

      £

      1. British Museum

      907,000

      2. British Museum (Natural History)

      589,000

      3. Science Museum

      298,000

      4. Victoria and Albert Museum

      529,000

      5. Imperial War Museum

      91,000

      6. London Museum

      50,000

      7. National Gallery

      114,000

      8. National Maritime Museum

      103,000

      9. National Portrait Gallery

      45,000

      10. Tate Gallery

      91,000

      11. Wallace Collection

      44,000

      12. Royal Scottish Museum, &c. (Revised sum)

      102,000

      13. National Galleries of Scotland

      55,000

      14. National Library of Scotland

      89,000

      £

      15. National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland

      25,000

      15A. National Museum of Wales and National Library of Wales

      497,000

      16. Grants for the Arts (Revised sum)

      1,900,000

      5,529,000

      Question put and agreed to.
      CLASS IX
      That a sum, not exceeding £235,316,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, viz:—

      £

      1. Ministry of Public Building and Works

      21,100,000

      2. Public Buildings, etc., United Kingdom

      39,785,000

      3. Public Buildings Overseas

      5,811,000

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

      20,837,000

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

      41,415,000

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

      29,078,000

      7. Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Aviation

      6,965,000

      8. Works and Buildings for Royal Ordnance Factories

      868,000

      9. Houses of Parliament Buildings (including a Supplementary sum of £90,000)

      583,000

      10. Royal Palaces

      580,000

      11. Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

      965,000

      12. Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments

      1,009,000

      13. Rates on Government Property (including a Supplementary sum of £2,103,000)

      15,045,000

      14. Stationery and Printing

      13,775,000

      15. Central Office of Information

      6,200,000

      16. Government Actuary

      29,000

      17. Government Hospitality

      100,000

      18. Civil Superannuation, etc.

      31,170,000

      19. Post Office Superannuation, etc.

      900

      20. Additional Married Quarters for the Ministry of Defence

      900

      235,316,800

      Question put and agreed to.
      CLASS X
      That a sum, not exceeding £5,376,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

      £

      1. Charity Commission

      250,000

      2. Crown Estate Office

      133,000

      3. Friendly Societies Registry

      99,000

      4. Royal Mint

      900

      5. National Debt Office

      900

      6. Public Works Loan Commission

      900

      7. Public Trustee

      900

      8. Land Registry

      900

      9. Office of the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements

      132,000

      10. Ordnance Survey

      2,729,000

      11. Public Record Office

      157,000

      12. Scottish Record Office

      51,000

      13. Registrar General's Office

      615,000

      14. Registrar General's Office, Scotland

      96,000

      15. Department of the Registers of Scotland

      900

      16. National Savings Committee

      1,109,000

      5,376,400

      Question put and agreed to.
      CLASS XI
      That a sum, not exceeding £71,129,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class XI of the Civil Estimates, viz.—

      £

      1. Broadcasting (including a Supplementary sum of £11,600,000)

      56,497,000

      2. Carlisle State Management District

      900

      3. State Management Districts, Scotland

      900

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

      3,991,000

      5. Supplements to Pensions, &c. (Overseas Services)

      1,232,000

      6. Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, &c.

      641,000

      7. Irish Land Purchase Services

      451,000

      8. Development Fund

      495,000

      9. Secret Service

      6,000,000

      10. President Kennedy Memorial Appeal

      500,000

      11. Miscellaneous Expenses (including a Supplementary sum of £19,000)

      781,000

      12. Winston Churchill Memorial Fund

      500,000

      13. Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

      40,000

      71,129,800

      Question put and agreed to.

    DEFENCE (CENTRAL) ESTIMATE, 1965–66
    That a sum, not exceeding £19,059,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for the salaries and expenses of the Central Defence Staffs, the Defence Secretariat and the Central Defence Scientific Staff and of certain Joint Service Establishments; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, including international subscriptions; and certain grants in aid.
    Question put and agreed to.

    DEFENCE (NAVY) ESTIMATES, 1965–66
    That a sum, not exceeding £391,737,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, viz.:—

    £

    2. Royal Naval Reserves

    1,377,000

    3. Navy Department Headquarters

    11,856,000

    6. Naval Stores, Armament, Victualling and other Material Supply Services

    191,120,000

    7. H.M. Ships, Aircraft and Weapons, New Construction and Repairs

    177,993,000

    8. Miscellaneous Effective Services

    9,391,000

    391,737,000

    Question put and agreed to.

    DEFENCE (ARMY) ESTIMATES, 1965–66
    That a sum, not exceeding £322,720,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, viz.:—

    £

    3. Army Department Headquarters

    6,600,000

    4. Civilians at Outstations

    117,140,000

    5. Movements

    23,320,000

    6. Supplies

    45,960,000

    7. Stores and Equipment

    115,000,000

    10. Defence Lands and Buildings

    14,700,000

    322,720,000

    Question put and agreed to.

    DEFENCE (AIR) ESTIMATES, 1965–66
    That a sum, not exceeding £138,560,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during
    486
    the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, viz.:—

    £

    3. Air Force Department Headquarters

    4,780,000

    4. Civilians at Outstations and the Meteorological Office

    45,820,000

    5. Movements

    19,600,000

    6. Supplies

    50,750,000

    9. Non-effective Services

    17,610,000

    138,560,000

    Question put and agreed to.

    NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1963–64
    That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £3,187,789 12s. 2d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Navy Services for the year ended 31st March 1964, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes, as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 1st February 1965 (H.C. 81) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 224).
    Question put and agreed to.

    ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1963–64
    That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £1,161,976 4s. 11d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Army Services for the year ended 31st March 1964, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to one Vote for those Services and to meet a deficit in receipts on the same Vote not offset by a saving in expenditure, as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 29th January 1965 (H.C. 96) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 224).
    Question put and agreed to.

    AIR SERVICES EXPENDITURE, 1963–64
    That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £656,417 16s. 11d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Air Services for the year ended 31st March 1964, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes, as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 15th February 1965 (H.C. 104) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 224).
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported.
    Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee.
  [Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, the sum of £4,434,965,450 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  COST OF LIVING
  4.8 p.m.
  Sir Keith Joseph: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the Government's policies which have caused the steep rise in the cost of living since the General Election, a rise which is causing widespread anxiety as well as real hardship, particularly to public service and armed forces pensioners.
  Keeping prices steady in a fully employed and growing economy is not an easy matter. It is, therefore, only right that I should freely admit at the beginning of my speech that we, the Tory Party, did not achieve full success ourselves in keeping prices stable. On average, over 13 years prices rose under Tory Governments just over 3 per cent. per annum. During the first six years they rose at the rate of 4½ per cent. per annum and during the last seven years at the rate of 2½ per cent. per annum.
  The country did not think this record good enough. It had had time to forget that, under the Socialists from 1945 to 1951, prices rose 6½ per cent. per annum. When the election came, one of Labour's firmest pledges was to keep the cost of living steady. Its election manifesto, "The New Britain", promised
  "… new and more relevant policies to check the … rise in prices … Labour will attack …"—
  the problem of rising prices—
  "… at its roots …".
  The First Secretary of State, whom we are glad to see here, gave the pledge triple emphasis. He said:
  488
  "The continued rise in cost of living can and must and will be halted."
  In opposition, the Labour Party criticised rising prices time and again. It fastened on rates, on interest rates, on house prices, on land prices and on prices in the shops. It gave firm pledges on all these.
  The Labour Party promised to transfer a large slice of the rate burden from the ratepayer to the taxpayer. It attacked the 5 per cent. interest rate that was normal under the Tory Government so savagely as to give the public the impression that it would never tolerate a rate of interest as high as 5 per cent. let alone a rate of interest higher than that. It gave a firm pledge that it would not increase taxation. These were all categorical pledges and all related to the cost of living. They were given in the manifesto, in election speeches by the party leaders—and we are glad to see the Prime Minister here—and in speeches made, I am sure sincerely, by hundreds of Labour candidates.
  Now let us see what has happened. During the first eight months of office of the Government, there has been an increase in the cost of living of 4·4 per cent.—an annual rate of 6·6 per cent. We are back again to the same pace as took place in the period of office of the Labour Government after the war. Over these eight months, grocery prices are up 6 per cent., an annual rate of 9 per cent. There is not a sign of the Government's famous land price policy—not even a White Paper. Indeed, the Minister of Land and Natural Resources is not even attending this debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I see that he is here.
  Houses are up in price, although not in number, at a rate of 14 per cent. per annum. Rates are up 14 per cent. The interest rate is now at 6 per cent., but for month after month it was at the panic level of 7 per cent. Nationalised industry prices are up—railway fares by 8 per cent., electricity by 8 to 14 per cent. and hard coke by 18s. 6d. a ton.
  The surcharge put, first, 15 per cent. and now 10 per cent. on to the prices of imports, including essential ones. Sixpence has been put on cigarettes, 1d. on beer, 4s. on spirits, 33⅓ per cent. on stamps, 50 per cent. on the excise duty on goods vehicles, £2 10s. on the car tax

  489
  and £1 3s. to £3 10s. on motor bicycles. In addition, television and radio licences have been increased. Income Tax has risen by 6d. and there was a 6d. increase on the petrol tax. Many of these rises enter into costs not once but at many stages of production and distribution. The Socialists are doing worse, much worse, even than their previous record.
  It is true that, in 1951, the Socialists found the terms of trade turning savagely against them due to the Korea War. Therefore, part of the explanation of the 6½ per cent. average rise was due to that which was beyond their control. But now there is no such excuse. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer last month said that import prices are tending to fall. World food prices were 12 per cent. lower in May this year than they were in 1964. Import prices as a whole were 2·3 per cent. less this spring than last spring. In fact, there can be no doubt whatever that our rising prices are home made.
  I must warn the Government and the House that it may possibly be that, with Vietnam taking, we hope, a far smaller and far shorter place in the world scene than Korea, commodity prices may tend to harden. The terms of trade which have recently moved gently in our favour may start to move against us and thus make our home prices situation even worse.
  The prices prospect is worrying. Professor Paish shows in an article in this quarter's issue of the Irish Banking Review that, in previous similar stages of the economic cycle, the rise in prices has continued long after Government checks on the pace of the economy. Certainly, the Government, by their package announced yesterday, intend to check the pace of the economy and this phenomenon results, of course, from the fact that increased earnings already granted to the bulk of the population continue to be received even after the output of goods has been checked. There is, therefore, at that stage in the cycle over the next few months more money to buy fewer goods, and the result can only be one of two things or a combination of both—a further rise in prices or an increase in imports. This must continue until, of course, the earnings curve flattens out to follow the output curve.
  490
  Many of the price and tax increases I have listed have not yet had time to work their way fully through the economy and into the shops.
  So the present position is one of a widespread rise in prices at an increasing pace. Nearly every item on every shopping list of every household has risen and is rising in price. Nearly every bill has gone up. Nearly every service costs more. The only exceptions, broadly, are the results of the courage of this side of the House in passing the Resale Prices Act last year, with no help from the Labour Party. The prices have fallen, for instance, of sewing machines, nylon goods, light fittings, vacuum cleaners, petrol, tyres, razor blades, paint, wallpaper, sports goods, refrigerators, heaters and other electrical appliances and drink—although, of course, the Chancellor put the price up again by extra taxation. Yet, despite the beneficial beginnings—and they are only beginnings—of the Act, the cost of living is rising now at a rate of nearly 7 per cent. per annum.
  The prospect is that the rise will continue. The Socialists may well beat their own 1945–51 record with prices rising not just at 6½ per cent. per annum, as now, but at 7 per cent. or even 8 per cent. per annum. Our Motion refers to widespread anxiety. The public seems to feel that the rapid price increases will continue. It feels that the Government are floundering out of their depth and out of control.
  Although actual pensioners are still substantially better off from their increased pensions, those on fixed incomes are inevitably suffering. Our Motion refers, in particular, to one group of these, most on fixed incomes—the Armed Forces and public service pensioners, whose case was put in a recent Adjournment debate forcefully by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) and supported, as usual vigorously and effectively, by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward).
  During the election, promises were made to the Armed Forces and public service pensioners in terms which gave the clear impression—and they were promises by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Prime Minister and by his right hon. Friend who is now the Colonial Secretary

  491
  —that a Labour Government would look very sympathetically on giving to these pensioners what is called parity. These promises were made before the election in answer to specific applications from the associations representing these people.
  What has happened since? Absolutely nothing. In reply to the Adjournment debate which I mentioned, the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy gave a completely empty reply. We shall expect during this debate to have a firm answer to what the Government intend to do to honour the pledges which they gave to the Armed Forces and public service pensioners.
  How did the Government get the country into this mess? In charity, the first thing which needs to be said is that the problem of governing a country is not as simple as it looks in opposition. Prices are the result of supply and demand. One of the first duties of a Government is to get supply and demand into the right balance. I am glad that there is no disagreement about that.
  In October, it was the considered opinion of the present Government that on the home front the balance was right. I quote from paragraph 7 of the White Paper issued on 26th October, 1964, 10 days after the election, which said that there was
  "no undue pressure on resources calling for action".
  So, in the view of the present Government, they inherited a fully employed, but not over-stretched economy, with a balance of payments problem; but it was not in the Government's view, expressed unambiguously in this White Paper, overstretched.
  They put as the first priority of their economic policy on the home front an incomes policy, and the whole country will pay tribute to the energy and sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary. The Government concentrated on getting an incomes policy going, but meanwhile, by a series of inept blunders, they shattered foreign confidence. They exposed sterling to extreme pressure. They took no action at all on a whole series of wage increases far beyond any productivity gain and they allowed the economy to overheat and confidence to evaporate.
  492
  But the extraordinary thing is that, with an economist as Prime Minister, they never seemed to assess the true economic state which they—in the light of that assurance of 26th October—had allowed to develop. Instead of dealing quickly and relatively painlessly with what in those early days were controllable home problems, they have dribbled out a whole series of ineffective doses of ill-judged, ill-timed and ill-managed expedients.
  Let me list the instalments to the House. There was first the November Budget, when petrol tax was put up. Later in the same month, Bank Rate went up to 7 per cent., despite all the promises. In early December, the credit squeeze began with a letter from the Governor of the Bank of England. In April, there was the Budget with taxes up all round. Later in the same month, special deposits withdrawing £90 million from circulation were required. Then there was a pause of a few weeks, but in May another turn was put on the credit squeeze screw, as though already the prognostications of the Government in the Budget had not developed, and in June hire-purchase deposits were raised.
  But the culminating tragi-comedy, because that is what it is, is that only 13 days ago, in early July, on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he did not propose to take any further action to restrain the economy. Yesterday, within a fortnight, he produced what, in effect, was his third Budget in eight months. I ask the House to recognise what a floundering Government it must be who make nine separate attempts to get back to the right level of pressure on resources which, by their admission in the White Paper of 26th October, they found on taking office.
  It is this balance between supply and demand which is at the heart of the problem of prices. Prices are the result of supply and demand. On the supply side, whether production, distribution or services, there are a number of factors—skill of management, techniques, innovation, design, marketing, good labour relations. But one of the most important is the cost of labour per unit of output. The cost of labour does not just

  493
  reflect the cost of wages. Earnings include fringe benefits. They include the effect of overtime resulting from shorter hours and they reflect above all earnings drift. Wages drift, earnings drift, we are told, has been higher in the last few months than in the whole of the previous 13 years.
  It is primarily the employer's job to cut costs by every proper means, but it is not always possible even for the best employers and managers to offset the scale of earnings increases now current. The Government promised to attack the problem of rising prices at its roots, but what are its roots? I suggest that they are the ability of wage earners to extract from employers earnings larger than practicable increases in productivity.
  The Government have totally failed to restrain disproportionate leaps in earnings and to insist on productivity bargains. They have totally failed to control the balance of supply and demand, so that employers just cannot put up prices without losing profitable turnover.
  New and relevant policies were promised and we now know what that promise meant. It meant the Prices and Incomes Board.
  I have a great respect and admiration for Mr. Aubrey Jones. I admire his emphasis on the productivity-pricesearnings bargain by which consumers, workers and investors all benefit. But Mr. Aubrey Jones stresses that his powers are inevitably limited. I was impressed by a speech which he made on 9th July when he spoke of two therapies being needed, one to deal with the immediate fever—and that lies with the Government—and the other, which is his Board's responsibility, to operate on the relations between productivity, incomes and prices.
  How have the Government carried out their side of the therapy? On 42 major settlements so far, only one is below the norm of 3½ per cent. set by the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary. Ironically, that is an award to 204,000 hospital workers of 2½ per cent. In the Labour manifesto I find:
  "Labour's incomes policy will not be unfairly directed at lower paid workers and public employees."
  The average rise in wage rates has been 6 per cent., to which must be added about 2 per cent. for drift. On the general task
  494
  of getting supply and demand into balance, the therapy of dealing with the immediate fever, in Mr. Aubrey Jones's phrase, I have already listed the nine dithering instalments of Government ineptitude.
  What is the proper policy? Prices and earnings interact on each other. Changes in one produce repercussions in the other. That is why Governments must use policies that bite on both. They must get the balance of supply and demand right first. Secondly, they must stimulate and enforce competition. It is competition which should enforce better management or bankruptcy. Thirdly, and hardest of all, the Government must try to persuade the workers just how quickly earnings could rise and prices could fall if, and only if, workers would co-operate fully with good management—the good management that competition should produce.
  We on this side of the House believe in a high earning, low-cost, competitive, compassionate society. We want high earnings just as much as we want low costs.—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Witty or angry interjections from time to time are in order, but not running commentaries.
  Sir K. Joseph: We want high earnings just as much as we want low costs. The two can go together, given good management and workers' co-operation. But the Government must get supply and demand right, or it is too easy for the inefficient business and management to flourish. "It is not we", said the First Secretary on 11th May, "who are stopping industry being more competitive." But it is the Government who are putting an obstacle in the way of competition if they allow demand to get too high. Speeches and White Papers cannot be a substitute for action.
  The Government have now produced their third Budget. My right hon. Friends will be commenting upon it, and the whole House will hope that it will achieve its purpose of improving the financial position. But if the energy put into the incomes policy had gone into a more accurate assessment of the country's needs, and more stimulus given to competition, this long series of floundering

  495
  and irresolute expedients would not have been necessary. People cut costs not because of White Papers, but because they must cut them to survive. If competition is really biting, employers just will not agree to pay wage increases and drift which they cannot absorb. But the Government have failed to put competition in the forefront of their policy.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): We hear a lot about competition and about the need to get supply and demand into balance so that competition becomes effective. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what he means by getting supply and demand into balance; what he intends to cut and what levels of unemployment he is proposing?
  Sir K. Joseph: In the words of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what I understood the Government's intention to be was to redeploy some labour from home industries to the export industries, and that we believe is the proper objective. Part of the necessary means of getting there is to achieve supply and demand in the right proportions. I admit this is very difficult. The Prime Minister asked how. The answer is by a proper assessment, which, as an economist, he should have been competent to perform, of the real state of the economy.
  I did not intend to say this, but it has been forced from me. Time and again we have had policies announced from the Dispatch Box and then totally contradicted within days, or weeks. The assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, that he contemplated no further cuts on our demand at home was contradicted within two weeks by the package he gave us yesterday.
  To get stable prices the Government must encourage personal effort. They must encourage new investment and growth industry, and they must attack restrictive practices. The Government have done the exact opposite. They have decreased personal incentives by raised taxation, they have devalued investment allowances, damaged growth industries by the Corporation Tax and they have struck restrictive practices out of the
  496
  terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions.
  The Government have flinched from effective action, just as they flinched from resale price maintenance. They have made nine dithering attempts to balance supply and demand; competition they have avoided like the plague—civil airlines strangled; the Geddes Report shelved; coal given more protection. Let the Government get their priorities right. Competition, and efficiency. Stop distracting businessmen with complex and often damaging new taxes. Stop the farce over steel; and let the First Secretary laugh about that. Clarify investment allowances, act on the Geddes Report, be tougher with disproportionate wage demands, and insist on productivity bargains.
  The Government may say now how hard it all is, but they gave the country a very different impression before the election.
  The Government won votes by promises that they are now brazenly breaking. What the country was promised was no higher taxes, lower rates, lower interest rates, no more stop-go and, above all, stable prices. What the country is getting is higher taxes, higher rates, higher interest rates, the toughest of all credit squeezes, back to building licensing and ever-higher prices, which will go on rising.
  The Government have smashed their election pledges; they smashed the aircraft industry, they smashed the civil airlines, they smashed foreign confidence. They even smashed their record for rising prices and they grabbed £500 million extra in taxes. It is a smash and grab, stop, stop, stop Government. Not go with Labour, but Labour should go—and the sooner the better.
  4.59 p.m.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): Even though the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) forgot to move his own Motion, he has apparently been trying to persuade the House, and the country, that if the Tories were in power today we should automatically achieve some sort of price stability. He did not sound to me as if he had even persuaded himself of that. If that is not what he was trying to

  497
  argue, it would help if he would say so straight away and then we could conduct this debate rather less on party lines.
  Nobody in the country believes at this moment that the party opposite has any recipe whatsoever, except outright deflation, for keeping prices steady. Everybody remembers what happened during the 13 years of Tory rule. Between October, 1951, and October, 1964, the cost of living rose by 51 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman was candid enough to admit this quite clearly at the beginning of his speech. That was what the Conservative Party really meant by talk about mending the hole in the housewife's purse. In the very last year, from October, 1963, to October, 1964, the cost of living rose by 4 per cent. in 12 months.
  Sir K. Joseph: But the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "SO soon?"] What the right hon. Gentleman has said so inaccurately states the position that I must intervene. In our 13 years of office, although the cost of living rose by 50 per cent., earnings rose by 100 per cent. and pensions by 140 per cent. Under the present Government, earnings have risen less than half as much as the rise in the cost of living.
  Mr. Jay: If the right hon. Gentleman interrupts too often, he will do very great damage to his own case.
  The fact is that in those 13 years, when the cost of living rose by 51 per cent., we had recurrent deflations and stagnations and a very slow rise indeed in production and output. We had in those years neither stability of prices nor a steady rise in production. During the past year, although certainly prices have risen, we have at least achieved a marked rise in output and employment at the same time.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East, that the problem before us is to secure growth in output without a rise in prices. But at least in the past eight months we have achieved a rapid growth in output. In the previous 13 years we had rapidly rising prices and a miserably slow growth of the economy at the same time. Today, at this moment, output is higher than ever before and unemployment is down to the extremely low level of 1·2 per cent. over the whole
  498
  country. The Index of Production was 4 per cent. higher in May this year, which is the latest month for which we have a figure, than it was in May, 1964.
  According to the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman failed to move the rise in living costs in this country since last October is wholly due to the policy of the Government. How does the right hon. Gentleman explain the fact that living costs between last October and April this year in Holland rose—more steeply than in this country—in Belgium, in Denmark—as steeply as they rose here—in France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland, if the rise in the cost of living is due to the policy of the Government? In all those countries, as the right hon. Gentleman must know perfectly well, the rise in the cost of living last year was manifestly due to the rising level of demand which has gone hand in hand with the growth of the European economies, including our own, during this period.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East, mentioned the level of import prices and the terms of trade, but he failed to tell the country this. Despite all the talk which we hear about falling primary produce prices in the world, the fact is that the United Kingdom's import prices today are over 7 per cent. higher than they were in 1962 when the Conservative Party was in power and, indeed, 4 per cent. higher than they were even in 1963. However, we are told by the right hon. Gentleman—this was one of the implications of his speech today—that it is quite wrong of the Government to use the instrument of higher indirect taxes to restrain purchasing power when it becomes excessive. This is a very extraordinary argument to be advanced by the Conservative Party.
  Right hon. and hon. Members opposite, during their years of office, repeatedly increased indirect taxes in order to moderate what they regarded as inflationary forces. The tobacco tax was raised by Mr. Harold Macmillan as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget of April, 1956. It was again raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) as Chancellor of the Exchequer in April, 1960. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, knowing that he is the guilty man in this debate,

  499
  absconded from the Chamber before we came to this part of the argument. He raised the tobacco tax yet again in July, 1961, and the tax on beer, and the tax on spirits, and the tax on petrol. In April, 1962, I regret to say that the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who at least has had the courage to stay here and to face the music, raised Purchase Tax on the whole range of items taxed at 5½ per cent. to 10 per cent. in one fell swoop.
  However, if right hon. Gentlemen opposite are now converted to a new doctrine and believe that higher indirect taxes should never be used to cream off excessive demand, what do they advocate we should do in the present situation? That is what the country would like to know. Can they possibly deny that if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not raised taxes in both November and April Budgets of last winter and spring demand would have been wildly excessive today, that prices would have been out of hand, and the balance of payments no longer in control? We should like to know whether they agree with that or not. If they deny it, there is no informed economic opinion either at home or abroad which agrees with them.
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: The point that we have been trying to make is that the timing of the tax changes has been so hopelessly wrong. It is because the timing has been wrong that we are in the present situation, with the build-up of wage claims pressure and the Government having to clamp down.
  Mr. Jay: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman: the timing was wrong. These steps should have been taken by the Conservative Party years ago.
  If hon. Members opposite do not deny this, and if they would not have raised indirect taxes, what would they have done in the circumstances of last winter? Would they have raised direct taxation more steeply? If so, I find it difficult to understand the point of all their votes against the Finance Bill throughout this spring and summer. Or do they want a tougher credit squeeze and still more hire purchase restrictions? If so, perhaps we could be told this afternoon. It
  500
  does not seem as if we are to get an answer. [Interruption.] If we have an answer, we shall be very grateful. We should like to know what hon. Members opposite think should have been done.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East did not tell us what policy he thought should be pursued. However, he paid a tribute, which I share, to Mr. Aubrey Jones, in his position as Chairman of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. But he entirely failed to make clear whether the Conservative Party supports the general purpose of the Government's prices and incomes policy. Representatives of both sides of industry support this policy. Are we to understand that the official Opposition alone are against an agreed incomes policy? If they are the only opponents of this policy, do they think that this is a very public-spirited contribution to the country's economic recovery? Perhaps right hon. Gentlemen opposite, either now or later in the debate, will tell us whether they support the general purposes of our policy.
  I had supposed until recently that at least responsible members of the Conservative Party agreed with the leaders of the Confederation of British Industry, and the other industrial organisations that a general and collective effort to restrain the rises in prices and incomes all round was necessary. However, we have just had a remarkable contribution to wisdom on this subject from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who, also, has not stayed with us this afternoon.
  The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, a would-be leader of the party opposite. It might be said that he does not get much support in that effort, but he is at least some sort of shadow spokesman for something or other and he therefore speaks for his party. According to The Guardian of 22nd July, speaking at Hove on the evening before, he said:
  "Anyone who deliberately gets less than the best possible return for his labour, anyone exercising restraint is guilty of a kind of sabotage."
  That is fine, patriotic advice to give to a laggard exporter or an unofficial striker at the present time.
  The right hon. Member, who sits on the Front Bench opposite, then described

  501
  the prices and incomes policy, which is supported by almost all the responsible industrial organisations on both sides of industry in the country, as "a most monstrous pantomime". That is the sort of advice given to the public today, to wage earners and profit earners alike, by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite and that apparently is the sort of selfish free-for-all which we should have to expect if right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Would the right hon. Gentleman say at this juncture where his right hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins) fits in?
  Mr. Jay: The hon. Gentleman sits below the Gangway, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West sits on the Front Bench, and, there again, I do not think that he is authorised to interpret the views of his right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Paul Bryan: May we ask where the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Nuneaton sits?
  Mr. Jay: He sits above the Gangway, and he is very well qualified to answer for himself. I say that much, therefore, in view of the utterances of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and the sort of speech which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North-East himself in opening the debate.
  I see that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology is now in his seat. We shall be delighted if the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West also comes into the Chamber. I believe, frankly, speaking for myself and not for any others of my hon. and right hon. Friends, that what the country wants at this moment is not to listen to a great deal of party argument, but to understand the causes of the economic differences which beset us, and see the road out of them, however hard and uphill that road may be.
  First, I believe that we have got to realise that economic growth and high employment necessarily involve a high level of demand and, indeed, in the case of the United Kingdom, a tendency for pressure on the balance of payments and
  502
  for imports to rise and exports to be held back. Unless, therefore, we relapse into stagnation, which is to give up the problem and not to solve it, we must expect that from time to time, if the economy is to be intelligently managed, the Government must restrain an increase in the flow of purchasing power which has become or is likely to become excessive.
  I am endeavouring to enlighten the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. If restraint is exercised through credit restriction, then it can be said that that restrains investment instead of consumption, and that what we ought to do is to put taxes on personal spending. If that advice is accepted and indirect taxes are raised, then it can be said, as the right hon. Gentleman tended to argue this afternoon, that the Government is itself pushing up the cost of living. That dilemma is inescapable with indirect taxes.
  If one tries to mop up demand inflation by such taxes, one is bound to some extent to inflate prices and cost inflation at the same time. But if, for those reasons, one concentrates solely on increasing direct taxes—and I gather that the Opposition are not asking us to do that this afternoon, and, if they are, they can tell us so—then it can be said that one is striking at incentives and investment.
  There are objections to any measure of restraint, which can very easily be stated. But if one has the courage to act and not just to let things slide and stagnate, the sensible policy, I suggest, is to rely on several of these controls at the same time and not push any of them to extremes. That is what the present Government have done and will do. Let us remember that the whole of the dilemma arises from the fact that output in this country is now growing and that employment and demand are extremely high. If the economy were deflated and stagnant, then, as the price of failure, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would have the great pleasure of reducing taxes all round. But that is not the situation today.
  The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned this afternoon some of the rises in charges by nationalised industries and public enterprises over the last year.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman may not have been in the House when his right hon. Friend the Chancellor made his statement, but he has just made a point about maintaining full employment. His hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) clearly implied that the action taken yesterday by the Chancellor may undermine that, and the Chancellor was not able to reassure him. In the light of that, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to claim full employment as a permanent feature of the Government's action.
  Mr. Jay: I was in the Chamber, and I was coming to that point. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would not waste time.
  I was saying that right hon. Gentlemen opposite complain about rises in charges by nationalised industries during the past year. But, here again, there is a basic dilemma which we have got to face if we are going to be serious about these issues. If public enterprises never raised their charges, they would become a charge upon the taxpayer and, in the end, the enterprises themselves, I believe, would become demoralised.
  Right hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves, on this issue, recognised that by publishing their White Paper on the Finance of Nationalised Industries in 1961, which laid it down that those industries ought to cover their costs, including their capital costs. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite, in so far as they object to increases in charges by nationalised industries, are now simply criticising us and those enterprises for fulfilling the obligations which the right hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves laid upon them in that White Paper.
  Nor, in my view, can anyone who honestly faces these issues really doubt that some sort of incomes and prices policy is necessary today if we are to keep the rise in the cost of living down?
  Mr. Eric Lubbock rose—
  Mr. Jay: I had better get on.
  I admit that I have at times been sceptical myself about the possibility of an incomes policy, and that it might perhaps have been argued until a few years ago that if import prices did not rise
  504
  and if reckless mistakes like the 1957 Rent Act, which the right hon. Gentleman described as "a compassionate and competitive policy", or some words of that kind—could have been avoided, we could have achieved growth and full employment without any sort of incomes policy.
  I do not believe that one can seriously argue that now. If we have an incomes free-for-all, in a fully employed expanding economy prices are almost certain to rise. To allow that to happen would, I agree, be a perfectly possible policy. But the weakest would go to the wall, and those belonging to the strongest organisations or holding the best batch of equity shares would come off best. Export costs would rise and the balance of payments would get completely out of hand.
  Therefore, I would like to ask those who support the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, is that what they really want—a free-for-all in incomes and prices—or do they really want outright deflation as the alternative? There again, it would be more honest if we were told by people who advocate that sort of thing what they are really urging upon the country.
  What we on this side say at least is that if prices can be kept down—and that is what this debate is about—a concerted incomes and prices policy, with all its difficulties and strains, as certainly there will be, is indispensable. If one accepts that, one must accept the central principle of the Government's policy: first, that it must be an agreed and not imposed policy; and, secondly, that it must cover all incomes and prices and rents and not merely salaries and wages. That is exactly what my right hon. Friend the First Secretary has been tire-lessly exerting himself to achieve. If right hon. Members opposite profess to agree with that objective, they will not much impress the country by pretending to disagree with the methods pursued to achieve it.
  Every responsible person knows that that is the right policy. The real question today is whether it will gain enough public support and have enough time to succeed. Those who obstruct it will incur a heavy responsibility for the rise in prices which is inevitable if it fails.

  505
  If this policy succeeds, one of its principal advantages will be to protect pensioners and old people, who would be bound to suffer from the sort of free-for-all advocated by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. In addition to that, however—I say this because the Motion contains references to pensioners—the Government have recognised from the very start of their life that substantial direct help must be given at the same time to pensioners and to old people.
  That is why, despite all the acute economic difficulties which we inherited last autumn from the previous Government, we announced last November the biggest increase in the State retirement pension since 1948 and the biggest increase ever in war pensions. Certainly, that announcement increased some of our difficulties abroad, but in my view it was absolutely right all the same.
  I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we also at that time raised the following other benefits: unemployment and sickness benefits, industrial injury benefits, widow's pension, the 10s. widow's pension and National Assistance rates. The maximum benefit also of the abolition of prescription charges went, as we all know, to old people and pensioners, including Service and war pensioners.
  In spite of all this, the Opposition, in their Motion, profess to feel anxiety about the needs of public service and Armed Forces pensioners. The Government have granted all the increases in benefits which I have described in the nine months in which they have so far been in office and we are now reviewing the needs of public service and Armed Forces pensioners to see what needs to be done.
  Under the previous Government, however, three years and five months was allowed to go by between the operative date of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959, and January, 1963, when the 1962 Act came into effect. Before that, three years and four months elapsed between the operative dates of the 1956 and the 1959 Acts. Hon. Members opposite do not, therefore, have any strong case for criticising us for tardiness in increasing these public service pensions.
  Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, his
  506
  right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—and attention was drawn to this today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph)—made a definite pledge of parity in public service and Armed Forces pensions. In the House of Commons last week, when I drew this to the attention of the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy, he appeared to deny that such a promise had ever been given. Is the right hon. Gentleman now standing positively by that pledge?
  Mr. Jay: What I am saying is that we regard this as an extremely important issue and we are reviewing comprehensively the needs of these pensioners to decide what needs to be done. We are doing this within nine months, whereas the previous Government took more than three years to take any action.
  Sir T. Beamish: That does not answer the question.
  Mr. Jay: That is my answer to the hon. and gallant Member's question.
  Sir T. Beamish: It is a bad answer.
  Mr. Lubbock: The right hon. Gentleman would have been wise to give way to me earlier, because I am sympathetic basically to his incomes policy. My question, however, is how he can expect wage earners to limit their demands to 3½ per cent. per annum and pensioners to demand nothing whatever when nationalised undertakings are allowed to impose increases of up to 13·3 per cent. in their charges without reference to the National Prices and Incomes Board?
  Mr. Jay: I always give way, other things being equal, to the hon. Member. On the other hand, I try to achieve brevity. I assure him that the increases in charges of nationalised industries, in spite of all I have said, are not excluded from reference, where appropriate, to the National Prices and Incomes Board, as, I am sure, the hon. Member understands.
  It is also true that neither a direct incomes and prices policy nor the whole series of export incentive and promotion measures which the Government have introduced during the last eight months, or even the surcharge on imports, can fully succeed if the flow of demand at home is allowed to become excessive. Indeed, during the last few months almost

  507
  certainly—although this is a matter of opinion—the excessive demand in the home market has been frustrating many of the direct measures to promote exports which have been taken by the Government. Therefore, one of the purposes of the measures of restraint announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday was precisely to moderate the present exceedingly high level of internal demand and so to check the rise in prices of which hon. Members opposite are complaining.
  The fact is that the expansionist forces in the economy have proved stronger than anybody foresaw last winter and spring. That "anybody" includes the Opposition. I cannot recall that they told us at the time of the April Budget that the Chancellor should have raised taxes more steeply. If they did, they can say so now. My memory is that they voted against the increase in the petrol tax in the November Budget last year and that they voted against the increase in the vehicle tax in Committee on the Finance Bill this year. Presumably, therefore, they are not arguing that they foresaw the high level of demand which we should be experienceing in the late summer. Therefore, if their advice in opposing all these taxes last winter and spring had been followed, the excess demand of which they are complaining today would have been even greater than it is.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I am quite certain that other right hon. and hon. Members opposite gave the warning that I did. I warned the Government on 11th November that their Budget at that time was inflationary and was bound to lead to rising costs and that by the summer we would be in a dangerous position.
  Mr. Jay: The hon. Member may be much wiser than his own Front Bench, but the fact is that he voted in accordance with the decision of his own Front Bench. From all the indicators and from all industrial reports, there is no doubt that the moderate but real excess demand from which we are suffering is causing shortages, swelling imports and holding back potential exports.
  That is why further restraint is temporarily necessary, and, of course, restraint of less essential projects such as my right hon. Friend announced yesterday
  508
  will enable more essential schemes such as those in development districts, and houses and schools everywhere, and above all exports, to go forward more quickly. The language of priorities, it was once said, is the religion of Socialism. Whatever one thinks about that, it is certainly a necessity of planning at present, and this package of measures is designed to check the rise in prices and to speed up the disappearance of the balance of payments deficit which we inherited from right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite and which has already been halved since a year ago.
  These measures are not deflationary, because what we are doing is merely curtailing a present excess of demand over and above what is necessary for full employment, and we have no intention of allowing it to fall below that level. Indeed, if it turned out that the effect of the measures was much greater than was intended, it would be very easy to relax them, but let us understand that, quite contrary to anything that happened while the party opposite was in power, unemployment today is at the extremely low level of 1·2 per cent. over the country as a whole.
  By exempting development districts and other areas of high unemployment from the present measures of restraint, which was never done by the party opposite, even when it plunged into outright deflation, we shall reinforce the success that we have had in recent months—I gave chapter and verse and the figures during the Scottish debate on Monday—in giving effective priority at last to the under-employed areas.
  If we want to succeed in the essential national task of keeping prices down and keeping our overseas account in balance, we must be prepared at times to use the brake as well as the accelerator, otherwise the economy cannot be intelligently managed. What we must avoid are violent jerks such as the extreme deflation engineered in 1961 by the right hon. and learned member for Wirral, who has also fled from this debate, and the enormous deficit last year engineered by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling).
  From what I heard from the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East this afternoon, it does not sound to me as though right hon. and hon. Gentlemen

  509
  opposite have learned very much from the lessons of the last few years. Judging by the right hon. Gentleman's speech, or all that we get from the party opposite is confused advice, blind opposition to whatever the Government do, and divided counsels. The only positive and precise proposals come from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who wants to lead us back in a headlong plunge into unplanned laissez-faire and every man for himself.
  The real need today is exactly the reverse. What our economy requires at the moment if we are finally to overcome last year's appalling deficit is firm and planned restraint. The choice is between planned restraint, hard work, greater efficiency and clear priorities, on the one hand; and, on the other, a relapse into the old mixture of selfishness and muddle and deflation which is known in this country as Toryism.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: Before my right hon. Friend sits down, will he tell us whether the Government stand by the pledge given to the Armed Forces pensioners with regard to parity in pensions?
  Mr. Jay: We are reviewing—and I hardly imagine that the House would wish us to take a decision without reviewing the matter—the right course to take in the matter of Armed Forces pensions, and when answering the debate tonight my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will give further particulars of what is intended.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman forgot to move his Amendment. Does he wish to move it now?
  Mr. Jay indicated assent.
  Amendment proposed: In line I, leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "approves the Government's policies which have been directed towards bringing to an end the steady rise in the cost of living which had gone on under the previous administration; and in particular welcomes the special and urgent provisions which have been made to meet the claims of those in greatest need".[Mr. Jay.]
  5.18 p.m.
  Mr. R. H. Turton: I am not: surprised that the right hon.
  510
  Gentleman did not move the Amendment. I think that it could have been drafted a good deal better. During the last five years of Conservative Government there was a steady rise of 2½ per cent. a year in the cost of living. I deplored that., but I believe that at the moment none of us can avoid that kind of change when one has an expanding economy. During the last eight months—we have not got the latest figures; curiously enough they have been delayed until after this debate—there has been a rise at the rate of 6½ per cent. per year.
  That is a matter which everbody on both sides of the House, quite apart from party politics, has to attack and find solutions for. Naturally everybody on this side of the House is in favour of an effective prices and incomes policy.
  Mr. Dan Jones: Not everybody.
  Mr. Turton: The view may be expressed that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was directed at a windmill, but whether it was the windmill of Wolverhampton or Nuneaton I was not clear. Broadly speaking, there is general agreement on that. Equally, there is general agreement that if the Chancellor brings in relevant measures to deal with this problem and that of the balance of payments he will get support. The disagreement—and it is not confined to disagreement between one side of the House and another—arises from the fact that many of the measures in the Chancellor's three Budgets have been irrelevant to the problems involved. The right hon. Gentleman concluded his speech by saying that we must avoid violent jerks. In all my experience in the House I have not known three Budgets in eight months, and so I think that the right hon. Gentleman should be very careful about talking as he did.
  What worries me is that the Government have not found a way of dealing with this problem of the steep rise in the cost of living. Certainly, they did—as the right hon. Gentleman said—correct the position of those in receipt of National Insurance payments, but, to be fair, naturally it was the largest increase, because, as benefits keep on rising, one has to give a larger increase to cope with a 2½ per cent. per annum rise. Proportionately, it was a good deal less than many

  511
  of the previous increases. It was a perfectly proper and normal increase. In the whole period 1954–62, National Insurance payments tended to be increased at three-year intervals, so we should not try to take party credit on either side of the House for what is a purely mechanical feature of National Insurance.
  Public service pensions have been increased at three-year intervals. The intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is relevant here. We are not saying that the Socialist Government are slow in raising public service pensions. At the election, they gave a definite pledge, to which in the last Parliament nearly all back benchers on both sides of the House were committed—parity of pensions. We are arguing that that pledge should be repeated, and are not content with the statement simply that the pledge is being "reviewed." That was the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman. Will he, therefore, see that whoever winds up the debate for the Government makes clear where they stand with regard to service and public service pensions? At the moment, the position is unfair. As the cost of living rises, it is growing more unjust to the older pensioners who are concerned.
  There was one point in the Chancellor's statement yesterday which I deplore greatly. The problem is that politicians of all parties have not been able to get complete stability in the cost of living. In the case of this Government through certain measures like the petrol tax, a vast increase of costs was created, which is one of the factors which has precipitated this rise. What is inescapable is that certain people in our community are very much worse off as a result of the higher rise in the cost of living—in particular, those living on fixed incomes and especially those who, for certain reasons, are not in receipt of a pension. I was shocked by the Chancellor's statement yesterday when he said that one of the measures which he was taking in order to get over his difficulty about balance of payments was to postpone the measure for an income guarantee. It is wrong to make these people the victims of the problem which the nation is facing. They are least able to bear it.
  512
  My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Airey Neave) introduced a Bill, which I supported, to see that a partial pension was given to all those of a certain age who were disqualified from receiving pensions. By a Parliamentary trick, a debate on that Bill was avoided, but a debate did take place at about the same time that that debate would have taken place. The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, without having explained why she did not support the Measure which she and the party opposite did not dare to have debated, said then:
  "We, on the other hand, have a clear policy for the old people in our incomes guarantee. We are working very busily on it at the present time. We regard this as a very urgent matter"—
  I underline those words, "We regard this as a very urgent matter"—
  "and it will be introduced as quickly as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 25th March. 1965, Vol. 709, c. 1156]
  This is a complete betrayal of that undertaking. I ask the Socialist Government to reconsider that part of the Chancellor's statement and, if they will not introduce their Measure to deal with those people who are the worst victims of the rise in the cost of living, to support my hon. Friend's Measure or to introduce one on the same lines, so that at least those people shall have that same amount of State generosity which is given to those who qualify for pensions under the National Insurance Acts. Surely, that is not an unreasonable demand.
  now turn to the problem which faces the country. It has not been made sufficiently clear that we are not living within our means. If this had been tackled by an ordinary household, they would have looked to see what they could cut down immediately in order to balance their books. I disagree with the Chancellor's measures in his first, second and third Budgets, in that I do not believe that those measures were sufficiently directed towards curing that imbalance of payments. Many of them were inflationary in character.
  In his first Budget, it is quite clear that the surcharge—which was illegal and which embittered all our allies on the Continent—had the effect of putting up prices in this country but had a negligible effect on the quantity of imports coming in in those categories. In my view, as it

  513
  was not selective, it tended to be of little value. In his second Budget, the Chancellor made a direct attack on overseas investment which will lead to a great decline in our exports to the overseas countries concerned. However, its penal provisions cannot take effect for at least three years, though the loss of confidence will come, as with the surcharge, immediately.
  In his third Budget, the main provision is the postponement of starting dates. This will have a considerable effect, but not for 12 to 15 months, after which it will have a very grave effect on employment in certain areas. It will not have the immediate effect of cutting down our expenditure on luxuries. A very good letter in The Times on 20th July from Sir Roy Harrod drew attention to the fact that what is wrong with this country is the very large imports of luxury goods. I do not think that people realise that, seven years ago, we were spending about £38 million on imports of manufactured goods, according to the Trade and Navigation Accounts. That was in the first five months of the year. If we compare that with the President of the Board of Trade's figures for the first five months of this year, we find that they have risen by nearly 200 per cent. and now stand at £113½ million.
  Mr. Jay: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises that this is the direct consequence of the decision of his right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) when he was President of the Board of Trade in 1958–59 to remove import quotas on these manufactured imports. Having removed them, it is more difficult to put them back than it would otherwise have been.
  Mr. Turton: I do not want to blame anybody but to consider the position and what we can do about it. I have felt all along that, when faced with a balance of payments difficulty, the present Government, on gaining power, would have done better to have adopted the legal method of placing restrictions on selected items of luxury imports for a temporary period. I believe that such an act would have been understood by the exporting countries, which would have regarded it as being in line with our agreements with them. It would certainly have been better than the surcharge,
  514
  which caused bitterness without having any effect.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Perhaps I should remind my right hon. Friend that increased imports should be balanced by increased exports. That undoubtedly took place as a result of the liberalising policies which were clearly and properly adopted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) when he was President of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. Turton: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. I am pointing out that when the emergency stage arrived the course I suggested would have been far superior to the surcharge.
  It is amazing to think that when we have an agricultural policy which is resulting in the production of more and more food—food production is increasing by 6 per cent. a year—the cost of our food imports in the first five months of this year was about £100 million more than the comparable cost seven years ago—£697 million compared with £597 million. It cannot be right, at this time, to discourage farmers from producing more, particularly since their efforts help to solve our balance of payments problem. I also cannot believe that this country requires the quantity of food which we at present import.
  In my view the right way to tackle the present balance of payments problem is to decide that for the next six months the nation will save £200 million on imports; £100 million on the importation of miscellaneous manufactured goods—and, by selection, to pick out what I have described as luxury imports—and the other £100 million on food imports.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: As a temporary measure.
  Mr. Turton: My hon. Friend is, of course, right in commenting that this would be a temporary measure and should be regarded in that light. Our main object must be to so increase our exports that we can absorb our imports without causing balance of payments problems.
  I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade will take advantage of the

  515
  Commonwealth Trade Conference to obtain a complete reappraisal of our trade with the Commonwealth countries. I am sure that great changes could be made, particularly from the exporting point of view. What Sir William McFadzean has done for our exports to Europe could similarly be done by an export council and other measures for our exports to the Commonwealth. I am sure that all hon. Members, irrespective of party, are behind the Government in their efforts to increase Commonwealth trade, but this object will only be achieved if there is sufficient preparation. We must put forward at the Commonwealth Trade Conference specific proposals to deal with the problem of commodities because unless we can get our customers rich they will not be good customers.
  The President of the Board of Trade does not appear to be facing up to the realities of the situation. We must get down to brass tacks. We can get out of our difficulties, but only by producing more and consuming less. Not sufficient people realise this and it must be said in plain terms to the general public.
  5.36 p.m.
  Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I hope that the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) will forgive me if I do not comment on his remarks, because I wish to concentrate on the question of value compared with the price, quality and quantity of certain goods. I intend to deal with three basic commodities which are used in virtually every household and I particularly wish to compare value and price from the point of view of the poorer sections of the community.
  In recent years, particularly since certain orders went out in October, 1964, the quality of bread has gone down while the price of this important commodity has gone up. Although the quality of milk at the farm has been improved, its quality when it arrives on the doorstep has gone down. The third factor is the cost of ordinary day-to-day medicines—the type of medicines which sensible housewives give to their families. I will show that, in terms of quality and price, the housewife is being taken for a real and metaphorical ride.
  516
  I will deal, first, with medicines, a particularly interesting set of commodities to consider. The standards which are laid down by the Medical Council and the Pharmaceutical Society are extremely good, but when one considers the prices of the proprietary brands of the same medicines one finds that they are frequently twice or three times the amount of the equivalent standard.
  In March, 1965, Which? published a list of day-to-day medicines which are used by the sensible housewife. The publication made a comparison between the standard formula obtainable at any chemist and the prices of the proprietary brands. Bearing that comparison in mind, I appeal to the Government to take action to see that greater publicity is given to that list. If that were done the cost of living would be reduced for all families in general and families living on small incomes in particular.
  From time to time we all suffer from indigestion or experience headaches. That applied particularly to hon. Gentlemen opposite last week, although they may think that some of their problems were resolved last Tuesday. If we wish to relieve our aches and pains and use the ordinarily advertised proprietary brands of medicines—and the same applies if we bruise a part of our body and wish to buy something to relieve the pain and heal the wound—we find that we are paying three or four times the price we should be paying.
  Despite this, there seems to be a conspiracy to disguise the true facts from the British public. The President of the Board of Trade would be doing a very great service to all the housewives of this country if he took steps whereby these costs could be clearly brought home to people. For example, it is known that the Macleans brand of indigestion tablets, frequently used in the House, especially by hon. Members opposite, are twice the price of an identical brand which can be obtained on the standard formula. It would be a great step forward if either through educational establishments or through publicity my right hon. Friend could bring this fact home to the public.
  My next point is ever more important. It concerns what in many ways is the basic food of the country—bread. It is called bread but many of us would prefer

  517
  to use the expression "blown up steamed putty", because we have been suffering from automation in the bakeries. As the price of this product has gone up, so its value and quality have gone down rather alarmingly until in the end we find ourselves with an industry with very little growth rate. The bakers are experiencing great difficulty in expanding sales. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) emphasised that it was important to have plenty of competition, but within the last few years the baking industry of this country has got into the hands of monopolies. Four groups dominate 75 per cent. of the bakery industry of this country, with some alarming consequences. Certainly the price has not fallen, but equally certain the quality has gone down. To a certain extent hon. Members opposite must accept the responsibility for this because nothing they did in the last few years, and particularly their new instruments about the control of flour in September, 1964, in any way helped the situation. In fact, the situation has got rather worse.
  We have to bear in mind that in bread there is a very high quantity of water. A near neighbour of mine is a master baker, a man with some pride in producing a good loaf. He said, "We are now producing a tasteless foam rubber substance which we are compelled to eat as bread." He is a man with pride in his job. But there is no longer competition in that craft.
  He emphasises that the old mix for bread was roughly 15 gallons of water to 280 lbs. of flour. With new techniques and new processes we are using today 17 gallons of water for the equivalent amount of flour. It seems to me that this must be about the most expensive wind and water in all history, and yet we are suffering it and we see no desire to change because of a reluctance to try to raise our values and standards. This is why I want to emphasise throughout my speech that not only is price important but so is quality.
  Mr. Dan Jones: Would my hon. Friend add what are the profits of the companies about which he is speaking? How have they risen while the quality has gone down and the price has gone up?
  Mr. Carter-Jones: The four groups are doing extremely well and are not suffering at all. I thank you for that point.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Member but he must not thank me.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: I am sorry for that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was carried away by partial indigestion in waiting to get into the debate.
  Let me make another point—and I seem to be making points all the time. A survey was recently made by the Medical Research Council of the amount of water in bread and some surprising figures were produced. I do not know whether you are aware of it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but 40 per cent. of your bread is water. Our dilemma is that the amount of water in bread is going up and up all the while. That is why it would be interesting if the Prices and Incomes Commission, in reviewing this matter, took account not only of price but also of quality.
  I promised that I would be brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) for year after year has been trying to get the Government to improve standards of bread. May I quote his supplementary question following an Answer which he received on 14th November, 1960, when he called it
  "a steamed concoction of doped flour commonly called bread which is more like steamed cotton wool."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 10.]
  It is high time this was changed.
  For a while I was a lecturer in a technical college which had a bakery department. I am sure that we could improve the quality of our bread in this country and at the same time, by using new techniques, could considerably reduce the price.
  The third factor is milk. I am prepared to pay tribute to the British farmer. Without doubt over the years he has improved the quality and the yield of milk on British farms. This is undoubtedly true. Every piece of research done indicates that it is so. But what we have not experienced is an improvement in the standard of milk going into the homes. Basically for ordinary milk that has been 8·5 per cent. solids-not-fat and about 3 per cent. milk fat. This standard has remained. In my youth the standard of milk going into the home was well above that minimum standard.

  519
  I should like the First Secretary to analyse this point: over the years the standard of milk which has gone into the homes has frequently fallen all too near the basic minimum. Somebody is creaming this industry, and the British housewife is the sufferer. I do not say that they are watering it, but I do say that they are taking out the good stuff. This would bear very close investigation. There is plenty of evidence of this, provided that we can collate it and provided that action is taken to acquire this information. The benefits of the improvement in production should be passed on to the ordinary people. Far from the quality of the milk going into the home rising, in my view it has fallen. The House ought to deplore that and to tackle the problem.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Member is making a very serious charge against the milk distributing industry that they are either watering or creaming off the milk which is being delivered. Could he give some evidence to substantiate his remarks?
  Mr. Carter-Jones: I can supply evidence, but this applies to a highly restricted localised area. In consequence I might be doing harm to that one area. What I ask for is an investigation. This is my main worry. I do not say that water is being added to milk but that some of the quality is being taken out of it and the average quality of milk going into the home is getting all too near to the basic minimum standard. It would be in the public interest if that were further investigated.
  I have been far more critical on bread and medicines. I object strongly to the way in which the baking industry is being run today and ordinary standard medicines should be more readily available to the public. My point in regard to milk distribution is that it could well bear investigation.
  5.51 p.m.
  Dame Edith Pitt: With much of what the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) said I find myself in agreement because the general tenor of his argument was that he would like the housewife to obtain better value for the money she spends.
  520
  I am afraid I do not agree with his recommendation that those on this side of the House should take indigestion mixtures. I should have thought that his own Government needed a jolly good dose in order to regurgitate the load of broken pledges which must lie heavily on their stomachs.
  A large number of people in the country would support the censure Motion on the Order Paper if they were in a position to do so. I hope I may speak for some of them, especially for housewives. Many people voted Socialist in the last General Election because they were misled entirely by the promises on which their votes were bought. It is they who would like to be here today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) referred to the triple pledge given by the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. I have looked up some of the comments made by hon. Members who now represent some Birmingham constituencies which they won as marginal seats in the General Election.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), in his election address, said on the question of prices:
  "Every housewife knows that each week her money buys less and less."
  I wonder what he dares to say to the housewives of Sparkbrook now. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Joan L. Evans), writing in the Birmingham Mail, said:
  "The Government's policies …"—
  He meant the Conservative Government—
  "had led to ever-increasing prices."
  What on earth does he think the policies of the Labour Government have led to? The hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) said in his election address:
  "A Labour Government means to give the housewife steady prices."
  Instead of steady prices we have had a steep rise. What the public were led to expect has not happened.
  I tell hon. Members on the Government benches—although they should know this if they have regular contact with their constituencies—that the weekly wage earners in their areas are the most outspoken on this subject of rising prices.

  521
  The wives say that something goes up in price every week. The husbands say that their wives are always grumbling that they cannot manage on the money their husbands allow them. These people for whom hon. Members on the Socialist benches have always claimed a prescriptive right to speak, the weekly wage earners, are now saying that they are very disappointed with the Labour Government. I hope that hon. Members opposite are collecting that comment in their constituencies.
  Mr. Dan Jones: We are all disturbed about rising prices. No hon. Member is worthy of his position in this House if he is not disturbed about this, but I hope the hon. Lady will remember that in the early part of the year when the 15 per cent. surcharge was applied a number of companies increased their prices, their profits and their dividends. That, more than anything else, has contributed to the unfortunate situation in which we are now. Those people have been appealed to but I am afraid that they have been appealed to in vain. This has been a marked contribution to the unfortunate state we are in at the moment.
  Dame Edith Pitt: The hon. Member cannot pin the blame on one action, and that the action of his own party, for a number of Government Measures have brought about increases in prices. It is true that weekly wage earners are probably able to maintain their standard of living. It is very important to think not only of the cost of living but of the standard of living. Perhaps they are able to maintain that standard and many of them can manage because of the benefit of wage increases referred to by my right hon. Friends. What one has to remember today is that wage increases are lagging behind price increases. This is contrary to the pattern which obtained when my party was in power. It seems that we are getting back to the old Socialist pattern again.
  Even workers who may be able to maintain their standard of living because they have had increases in pay often make the comment that whereas in years gone by there was a margin and they were able to save a little—figures prove that they were able to save under Conservative Governments—they are now having to
  522
  spend more in order to maintain their standard of living. I suggest that the fall in National Savings is a matter of very real and growing concern. That is important, not only in the context of this debate on the cost of living, but in the whole context of our national economy.
  I talked at the weekend with a housewife who has two small boys aged 7 and 9. I thought her case was typical. I know her to be a careful, prudent manager. She bottles fruit and she bakes and her husband grows the vegetables. They are a happy family. I asked her what extra money she has had to spend on housekeeping since the General Election. Because she is a good manager and jots things down, she was able to tell me straight away. She had worked out that the extra cost was between 15s. and 20s. a week. I think that is the general pattern throughout the country.
  Her main grumble was about the cost of children's clothes. She said that they were as expensive in many cases as clothes for her husband. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is true."] I am glad to hear confirmation of that. I would not charge the present Government with this because it is not a new phenomenon, but I charge them that the main part of the high price of children's clothes is a result of labour charges and not actual cost of materials. So far the Government's incomes policy is still only a matter of fine words.
  Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I make this point after a very careful study of the problem. It is true that the cost of children's clothes may be similar to the cost of clothes for an adult over a period, but that is because there is heavier depreciation of children's clothes through wear and tear. That has to be taken into consideration.
  Dame Edith Pitt: I am glad of the confirmation the hon. Member gives. He makes a further point. My point was about initial cost, but he makes a point about durability. We are agreed that the cost of children's clothes is a heavy item in the family budget. It is not only wage earners who are affected by rising prices. They affect all sections of the community. A section less vocal is the younger professional workers. Rising prices hit them especially hard, because they are at the early stages of their

  523
  careers. They are just beginning to climb the career structure ladder. They are probably buying a house on mortgage and thus paying heavily. Their rates have been increased. They have certain commitments, because they are expected to maintain certain standards.
  The real hardship falls on pensioners and those on fixed incomes. To them a reduction of 1s. in the £ in their purchasing power—that is the figure since the Labour Government took office—means going without something. Although it is true that through State pensions—by this I mean National Insurance pensions—an increase has been given by the Government, part of that increase has already been whittled away by rising prices, and the pensioners are afraid that this pattern will continue. Public service pensioners have had no benefit at all from the present Government, despite the pledges which were given. Already in this debate the Minister has been asked to say whether the pledge given so firmly by the Labour Party when it was in opposition is still valid, because the Service pensioners look to the Government for that reassurance.
  The only exception to the sections of the community I have mentioned who are affected by rising prices are the teenagers. They are the ones who seem to have the money nowadays, and they jolly well spend it. I am sorry that the President of the Board of Trade is no longer here, because I would have liked to ask him to confirm my point. I think he is in a position so to do.
  It is a fact that the Index of Retail Prices has risen by 4·4 per cent. since this Government took office. I do not propose to take up the time of the House by giving a shopping list of the various articles which have increased in price. They range from bread to sausages—or are those two so far apart?—and from electricity to bus and rail fares. Housewives always talk to me about the price of meat. What they mean is the price of beef, which is higher than I have ever known it. The price of lamb and mutton is reasonable, though one must qualify "reasonable" by saying that it is relative to one's personal income. Meat is high in price. Good cuts of meat are
  524
  almost impossible for those on fixed incomes.
  Today people are becoming more choosey. They are pondering more over their spending, because they want to get full value for the money they have. This in turn affects the small shopkeepers, who tell me that business is tightening—no more than that. It affects the small business firms, such as the small repairing garage and similar service traders, because they depend on their customers, who themselves are traders and who have a little less money to spend. It affects the smaller employer.
  There are two aspects of this problem. It is not only the question of prices in shops. It is deductions from pay. The workman is interested only in his take-home pay, but the employer has to consider the gross. Increases in taxation and in National Insurance contributions have made it more difficult for employers to keep pace and to reflect this in the take-home pay of their workers. The extra Income Tax and the increased National Insurance charges must go on the price of the commodity. It is particularly difficult for a small firm trying to live in this highly competitive world.
  The Government deserve censure on this matter because their own actions have brought about this increase. Higher taxation and higher transport costs affect everything we buy and sell. Higher fuel costs and higher rates drive up prices and account for the sharp rise in the cost of living—I stress "sharp rise". People are worried about the future. They want to know what is likely to happen because of their concern about rising prices. They are, to use the vernacular, "feeling the pinch"—the pinch of Socialism and the price that must be paid for electing a Socialist Government.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Lady has made a fairly serious charge against three of my hon. Friends—my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Ioan L. Evans) and Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden). Will she tell me what impression she gave the electors of Edgbaston about the balance of payments deficit during the election campaign last October?
  Dame Edith Pitt: The hon. Gentleman must not sidetrack today's debate. We are talking about rising prices. He is endeavouring to defend three of his hon. Friends who are not even present to listen to the debate. However, I will answer his question, if I may do so within the bounds of order. I certainly told my constituents of the difficult situation the country was in because of the adverse balance of payments. I referred them to the figures which were issued during the course of the election campaign by my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  6.6 p.m.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: The Opposition today are having a field day. I am reminded of an end of term session when everyone is anxious to have a go. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) was rather like the overgrown schoolboy, anxious and in a hurry to fall ever himself in what he has to say. The speech of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) was rather more moderate, as was the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt). I must confess that I was somewhat nauseated by the fact that both the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton and the hon. Lady laboured rather heavily on the whole question of pensions and those on fixed incomes. I ask them this question in all sincerity; if they are so keen to help those in receipt of retirement pensions, Service pensioners, and so on, why did not they during the 13 years of Conservative rule badger their own Front Bench until they did something about it?
  Dame Edith Pitt: We did.
  Mr. Lewis: Evidently not with any success.
  Dame Edith Pitt: Five times.
  Mr. Lewis: I do not claim any special privilege to speak in this debate. My only association has been with the co-operative movement, which was the workers' champion in days that have passed because it was their only means of saving. We all deplore the rise in the cost of living. When I was employed by British Railways, I was reminded of this almost every week by my wife. On returning from shopping on Fridays she
  526
  would say, "Another 1d. on so and so and 2d. on so and so". The increases were persistent. That happened under the Conservative Government.
  Today most people associate the cost of living with food. Perhaps our present cost of living index should be looked at again. I agree with the hon. Lady that the average housewife is probably more concerned than the average man about the cost of living. I want to examine the prices of some items of food since 15th October of last year when the Labour Government were elected.
  Over the past ten years the official retail price index for all foods has climbed 30 per cent., and in the last four years of Tory rule the increase was 16 per cent. Increases in the price of food since last October are not in excess of the general rise over the past ten years, despite all the moaning and groanings of hon. and right hon. Members opposite. The basic commodities in the grocery trade such as sugar, butter, lard, cheese, bacon, tea and eggs, which together represent 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. of the total grocery trade, show, not an increase but an overall decrease in retail prices.
  The details are as follows: sugar a decrease of about 15 per cent., butter a decrease of about 9 per cent., lard a slight increase of 1 per cent., cheese a slight increase of 2 per cent., bacon no change in the price, and likewise with tea. There has been a slight increase of about 2 per cent. in the price of eggs. All these figures average a decrease of 2·6 per cent. Even this figure, I would suggest, is somewhat deceptive since far more sugar is sold than cheese and the decrease in the sugar price is about 15 per cent.
  Many price increases during the first few weeks of the Labour Government were obviously motivated by political considerations. I pay my respect and tribute to my right hon. Friend the First Secretary on his appeal to business people and manufacturers to hold their prices. Some readily responded but, unfortunately, others chose to raise prices. I saw a circular from a firm which makes drinking straws for children. This was issued during the first weeks of the Labour Government. There was an insinuation in it against the Government, because it accused them of having

  527
  manipulated a financial crisis with the result that the firm had had to increase the price of drinking straws. In spite of the spate of increases, which we readily admit has occurred, in some instances prices have settled down and in some cases there have been decreases.
  There has been an intensification of competition in the grocery trade, which I welcome. It has meant that many retailers have not passed increases on to their customers and some firms have co-operated in the appeals made to them. Therefore, I suppose that it can be said that increased competition means that the wise shopper can buy her groceries much more cheaply now than she could before October 1964. Coupled with this, a great many people have had wage increases, with which we all agree, and these increases are far in excess of the small increase in the cost-of-living.
  Mr. Anthony Berry rose—
  Mr. Lewis: No, I will not give way. The hon. Member must listen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have looked up some of the Conservative Party manifestoes. In 1951 the party said that,
  "The greatest national misfortune which we now endure is the ever-falling value of our money".
  The manifesto added that the Tories would control the cost of living. In 1955 the Tories said:
  "We accept the obligation to continue to work for more stable prices."
  In 1959 they claimed,
  "We have now stabilised the cost of living."
  When it came to October, 1964 they said:
  "No country has succeeded in keeping postwar prices completely steady."
  During the period from October, 1951, when the Tories came to power, until October 1964 the value of the £ shrank to about 13s. 4d. What did the Tories do? Under the Tories the National Health Service contributions were increased on three occasions, petrol prices were increased on four occasions, and tobacco and cigarette prices were increased on five occasions. Mortgage interest rates were increased variously during the 13 years, and the average rate poundage in England and Wales increased almost yearly under Tory
  528
  administration. In addition, Post Office charges, telephones and stamps were increased and the cost of the combined television and radio licence was raised. In view of the past record of the Tories, their present image appears to be laughing through and spitting at their creed.
  6.17 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) said that the price of sugar in the shops had dropped. This is certainly true, but it is not due in any way to action by the present Government. It is because international commodity prices have generally collapsed in recent months. It is particularly disturbing that the cost of living in this country should have skyrocketed at a time when the cost of basic commodities which we buy overseas is plummeting down and one would expect to see some savings.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): Rubbish.
  Mr. Goodhart: The hon. and learned Gentleman says "Rubbish", but if he will look at the list of commodity prices published regularly on the back pages of the Economist he will see the statistics set forth quite clearly to show that there has been a substantial drop in international commodity prices.
  Mr. MacDermot: Is the hon. Member suggesting that prices of imported food have gone down recently?
  Mr. Goodhart: I am suggesting that the price of sugar and of cocoa, to both of which the hon. Member for Carlisle referred specifically, have collapsed on the international market. The hon. Member for Carlisle said that the Conservative Party had no right to pose as the champion of the consumer because of its past record. In this Parliament we have had a great many narrow Divisions. They were very rare in the last Session. I remember the narrowest Division during the whole period of the last Parliament. It took place in Committee on the then Resale Prices Bill, on an Amendment which affected the livelihood of tens of thousands of chemists, a substantial, worthy and most deserving pressure group. The arguments in favour of exempting chemists from the effect of the Resale Prices Bill were very powerful, and I

  529
  admit that during the debate I had considerable qualms on the subject myself. But, when we came to a Division, the Amendment was rejected by the Conservative Party, albeit with a majority of one.
  That one vote, and scores of others during our proceedings, entitle the Conservative Party to say that it is prepared to stand up for the consumer despite pressure groups and despite all the weighty arguments which important manufacturing and retail interests may bring to bear. I think that that vote on that evening had some effect on another vote which took place yesterday not so far from this Chamber. Although hon. Members opposite may not be prepared to recognise it, I have no doubt whatever that the Press and the public as a whole appreciate that every important price cut which has been made since the election has been due not to any action of the present Government but to the operation of the Resale Price Maintenance Act.
  Sometimes, this Government have stepped in immediately to offset the effect of price cuts brought about by increased competition. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) spoke about milk. I can remember what happened in regard to a somewhat stronger drink. The abandoning of resale price maintenance by the Distillers Company led to an immediate cut, due to the increase in competition, in the price of spirits, but within days the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary stepped in and removed the benefit of these price cuts by raising the duty.
  Virtually every action of this Government has tended to force up prices. We have had the increases in taxation. We have had the import surcharge, to which the hon. Member for Eccles referred, which not only puts up prices directly but shields this country's industry from competition. We have had the price increases in the nationalised industries which were set forth in HANSARD only last Thursday, and we know that there are many more to come because, since the beginning of this year, there have been more than 20 wage increases averaging more than 3½ per cent within the nationalised industries.
  530
  To offset all this, what have the Government done? They have set up the National Board for Prices and Incomes. I admit that, at the time, I gave this a pretty dusty welcome, and I wrote of the proposed Review Commission:
  "Indeed this whole exercise seems likely to become as ludicrously ineffective as the enormous effort which the American State Department devoted in the 1920s to persuading European countries to sign treaties renouncing the use of force."
  But, since the publication of the first Report by this body, presided over by an ex-colleague from these benches, I have begun to think that there may be considerable merit in it. It is unlikely directly to affect the course of prices in the next few months. Perhaps, as so often happens, the best comment on the net result of it was made by Osbert Lancaster when, in one of his cartoons, he showed his usual gloomy idea of an hon. Member opposite talking to Maudie Littlehampton after the publication of this Report and saying, "You see, thanks to George Brown, prices will now go up separately instead of all together".
  Nevertheless, I think that this Report is of considerable value. It sets forth in detail some of the restrictive practices that could well be removed, with beneficial effect on prices. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) has had a bit of a go on this subject at Question Time, and a very dusty answer he has had from the Government Front Bench. The Board set forth in some detail also certain of the effects of increased Government taxation on road haulage rates as a whole. But what I welcome above all is the fact that this Report—I hope that the same will be true of subsequent reports—is a paean of praise in favour of competition. Referring to the road haulage industry, it says:
  "In those sections of this variegated industry where competition is keen, the recommended increase will be passed on only in part, but in those sections where competition is not so keen it may be passed on in whole."
  It seems to me that the road haulage industry today affords a fair test of the Government's intention. Some hon. Members below the Gangway opposite would, undoubtedly, like to see the whole of the road haulage industry nationalised, but then there would be small chance, if any at all, of the consumer shopping

  531
  around for lower rates, as the Board recommended he should. The users of road haulage services have been told that they ought to refuse to pay the increases, but if my constitutents refused to pay the increased charges recently introduced by the electricity board, they would jolly soon find themselves without electricity and in court.
  One does not necessarily have to consider the views of those who are thinking in terms of complete nationalisation. We have now before us the Geddes Report on the licensing of road haulage which recommends greatly increased competition. If the Government really believed in competition, there would be a good chance of action being taken on this Report. But we all know perfectly well that there is no chance whatever of the Government taking any action.
  So I am delighted that the Prices Board has come out so firmly in favour of competition, because I am convinced that this is the only way in which prices can be kept down. I am afraid that this lesson will never be learnt by hon. Members opposite, and that is one of the main reasons why they face another 13 years in opposition.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. James Tinn: I confess that throughout this debate I have experienced a sense of unreality, which has not been entirely absent on other occasions but seems to have been particularly marked today. It seems to have been even more of a "phoney war" than usual, even the two right hon. Gentlemen who opened the debate hardly seeming to believe in everything they were saying, and both typifying this atmosphere by forgetting to move the Motion and the Amendment.
  I believe that in their choice of subject for debate the Opposition have tried to present the House and the country with a snapshot of crisis, a limited picture, trying to present it as a general true panorama of the economy as a whole. This will be, and has been, exposed for the sham that it is. We cannot allow the Opposition to isolate one aspect of our economic affairs and concentrate attention on it as they seem to do. They seem to be seeking to distort the facts by ignoring so many of them. We cannot allow them to get away with this. We must try to
  532
  broaden our view of the picture a little and ascertain where the real responsibility lies.
  Sir Cyril Osborne: Surely after the Chancellor's statement yesterday, the gravest that I have heard in the House for 20 years, the hon. Gentleman must agree that we are facing a real crisis.
  Mr. Tinn: That is precisely the point that I was about to make. I believe that the Opposition stand exposed as having been in the position of the head of a household faced with major illness who has refused to call in the doctor because he did not wish to pay the bill. That was what they did in election year. The charge against them is that in the year when the nation was facing an accumulated crisis of greater magnitude than it has ever faced before, the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) was sitting tight and doing nothing but cover over the facts, and the recently deposed Leader of the Opposition was assuring us that the economy had never been so healthy. The responsibility is inescapably that of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that must be brought home to them time and time again.
  Now that the country has a Government who are tackling problems, we find the Opposition refusing to take their medicine. They are refusing to support the Government in their unpopular but essential decisions which are made all the more drastic and urgent by the failure of the Opposition to take them in time. We can contrast the stage-managed elections of the last 13 years with the purposeful decisions and actions of the present Government. The Government might well have been deterred from many of these urgent and inevitably unpopular decisions by the size of their majority. In spite of their majority, the Conservative Party could not face up to these decisions in an election year. The present Government, with their pitifully small majority, have thrust aside party and electoral considerations and deliberately gone ahead with the course of action which they believe to be necessary for the public good, having sufficient confidence that the British people will approve of it when an election comes. We can contrast this with the cynical neglect by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. We on this side of the House have no

  533
  need whatever to apologise for what the Labour Government have done.
  We can also contrast the actions of the Labour Government in this year of crisis of unprecedented magniture with the actions of previous Chancellors in much less serious situations. The Government have taken—we are fully conscious of this—unpopular but necessary decisions. But look at the other things we have done. Could anyone have imagined that right hon. Gentlemen opposite in the middle of their successive credit squeezes would have handed out one of the largest increases in pensions ever? Could one have envisaged that the first act of a Conservative Government after an election would have been to bring in a Bill to give security of tenure to people who have been harassed by landlords and all the evils of Rachmanism? Could we have expected right hon. Gentlemen opposite at such a time of economic emergency to have produced the Rent Bill, which will bring relief to thousands of people? Could we have expected right hon. Gentlemen to produce in such circumstances a Redundancy Payments Bill which contrasts so effectively with the golden handshakes of the Tory years and goes some way at least to give security and justice to the ordinary worker and salary earner?
  Nothing has been more bogus than the crocodile tears which have been shed by hon. Members opposite on behalf of public service pensioners. This has come from the Conservative Party which had so much time in the past to do something about that problem. How much of our policy did they expect us to get through in the first eight or nine months? Let us look at a little more of what we have done. We gave the pensioners, as I said, the largest increase ever, 100 per cent. of what their own association demanded. So far as I know, no trade union leader has ever succeeded in obtaining so much.
  We gave the largest increase ever in industrial injuries benefits. We tackled the vicious earnings rule which reduced the incentives of widows to earn and which, in effect, dipped into the widow's mite for the national Exchequer. That vicious and much criticised rule has been abolished. The 10s. pension for widows has been trebled. All these are emergency measures in an attempt to restore the position
  534
  of this hard-hit section of the community while the Government prepare their major Measures of social insurance. In grappling with the long-term as well as the short-term economic problems, my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State has gone ahead with his plans, despite the constant and carping criticism from the benches opposite. He has kept well up to schedule at each stage. Yet on each occasion hon. Members opposite have said that he will never get over the next hurdle. Nevertheless, he has moved on and has set up machinery which is in strong contrast with the toothless tools of the last Government. He has secured agreement on objectives and the first cases have been referred to the Prices and Incomes Board, which has produced its first reports. The first results are already apparent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Surely the reaction of the road hauliers gives hope that private industrialists are not as blind in their prejudice as some hon. Members opposite, who simply seek party profit from the country's difficulties.
  The Government will continue to govern purposefully and courageously. When the present crisis has been surmounted, they will move on to the truly constructive phase when they will begin to carry out the rest of the programme on which they were elected. Then, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance will produce her income guarantee scheme and the other major insurance Measures which are in preparation.
  When we are free from the difficulties that we on this side of the House inherited from the party opposite, we shall be able to honour our pledge to the house buyers and house builders on land prices, interest rates and rents. We shall be able to do something about the too-long neglected problem of leasehold reform, and thereby alter the situation in which people see their security, their hard work and their money vanishing on the expiry of a lease.
  We have nothing to apologise for. The Government will govern vigorously and effectively and when the time come to return for the verdict of the people we shall be able to do so with confidence and success.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn)

  535
  encroached a little on tomorrow's subject. He will therefore understand if I do not follow him now, except to remark that I think that this week's business has been rather badly arranged by the usual channels because it was almost inevitable that there would be some overlapping between the subjects discussed today, tomorrow and next Monday.
  I do not think that the House is at its best when discussing matters of this kind. People outside who are not familiar with the way the House works often say that it is at its best on general subjects and broad matters of principle. I wonder how many of them have been present to listen to a Supply day debate.
  So far the debate has been rather sterile. It has been limited to the Government saying that they cannot do certain things because they inherited a difficult situation from the Opposition and to the Opposition saying that the Government should have done certain things during their first eight months of office.
  I was disappointed by the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). He did not seem up to his usual form. He spoke mainly in Daily Sketch headlines, finishing up in a thunderous way with "crash, bash" in describing how the Government had destroyed so many things erected by the Tory Party. A little euphoria seems to have come over the Tory Party as a result of its solution of the leadership difficulties which have been plaguing it. I was reminded of the old song,
  "I was walking along, minding my business
  When out of an orange-coloured sky
  Crash, bash, alakazam
  Wonderful you came by."
  That seems to be the attitude of the Tory Party at the moment and I expect that we shall be seeing more of it in the rest of today's debate and tomorrow and on Monday.
  The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) had nothing constructive to say. The depressing thing about the country's situation is that the Opposition have only destructive opinions to offer about the measures taken by the Government, particularly those announced by the Chancellor yesterday. The Opposition cannot put forward any alternative policies that we can take seriously.
  536
  In saying that, I except the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart). I agree with almost every word he said. I believe that the Government must take far greater measures than they have so far taken to stimulate competition if price rises are to be controlled. But I see that I have fallen to some extent into the trap of departing from today's subject, just as other hon. Members have done.
  The President of the Board of Trade raised, in relation to the Chancellor's statement yesterday, the question of areas of high unemployment. These are to be exempted from the restrictions, according to the Chancellor. The terms "development districts" and "areas of high unemployment" were used. The right hon. Gentleman must have in mind some other areas besides development districts. What are the criteria? Would the Chancellor consider extending these areas to cover places which are losing population and which the Government, when in opposition, said should be included within the ambit of "development districts".
  This is the first time during the present Session that we have had a debate on public service and Armed Forces pensions, apart from the Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden). I do not think that we would have had it even today had it not been for the insistence of my right hon. and hon. Friends that a debate on the subject should take place. We Liberals do not arrange Supply day debates. We are not part of the "usual channels". But I want to make it clear not only to the House, but to the public service and Armed Forces pensioners, that we have been pressing for such a debate for many months and my only dispute now is that the subject should be coupled with the subject of the cost of living.
  We should have taken these two subjects separately. A debate on public service and Armed Forces pensions could easily have taken the whole of the day. I am certain that enough hon. Members would have wished to speak on that topic to have made a full day's debate. We Liberals have always made clear our policy on public service and Armed Forces pensions. We reiterated it

  537
  before the last election at a Press conference we held on 7th September, at which I was present.
  We said then that our policy was based on the twin principles of parity and dynamism. The principle of parity is that all public servants should receive the same pension for the same service, regardless of the date of service and the date of retirement, and the principle of dynamism is that pensions should be upgraded in line with current salaries of public servants.
  At that time, I believed that if the Labour Party were successful in the election, it would adopt these policies. Although it was not committed to these twin principles by its manifesto, it certainly gave the impression in public utterances before the election that it would introduce these principles as soon as possible. I believe that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), as well as many public servants, certainly had that impression.
  I need not run through all the statements which gave that impression, since the hon. Member for Kemptown reminded us of them only the other night, but I should like to reiterate what the Prime Minister said at his Press conference and which the hon. Member for Kemptown quoted. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "Pensions will be reviewed so that they will keep their full purchasing power instead of being eroded as they have been in recent years."
  He did not say that after eight months the President of the Board of Trade would say that the Government would wait until they had carried out a review to see whether those promises made by the Prime Minister during the election would be implemented. We should have an answer to that this evening.
  When answering the Adjournment debate on 14th July, the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy had very little to say, but what he said rather discouraged those who would like these changes to be introduced in the near future. He pointed out that the immediate cost of parity for the Armed Forces pensioners would be about £25 million and that the cost of parity for the public service as a whole would be more than £100 million. He admitted that it could
  538
  be introduced in stages, but he said the national economy would soon feel the weight of the ultimate commitment which could amount to as much as £1,000 million in the long term if applied to the private sector as well.
  That is all very well, but as we are speaking about prices and their effect on public service and Armed Forces pensioners, I emphasise that this large group of people have suffered more than any other from rising prices which we would all like to be controlled and which the Government's prices and incomes policy is supposed to be controlling. In the little pamphlet "Changing Britain" issued by the Department of Economic Affairs in June, we read these words:
  "Rising prices have bad social effects, and can have bad economic effects. Socially they inflict injustice on people living on fixed incomes and on a number of other groups in the community, although pensions increases and other adjustments can help to offset the effects of inflation for some people."
  The Tories have at least been honest about this and have never adopted the principle of parity as part of their policy, but they have said that they will attempt to cope by introducing pensions increases legislation from time to time as and when such increases can be afforded. As far as I know, that is still their policy.
  But the Labour Party is committed to the principle of parity as a means of curing this evil to which they themselves drew attention in the D.E.A. booklet which I have just quoted. The Labour Party must be aware of the present position of Armed Forces and Civil Service pensioners. For example, civil servants who have retired since May, 1961, have had no increase in their pensions, while over the period May, 1961, to May, 1965, the Ministry of Labour Wages Index has moved from 124·4 to 145 and the Retail Prices Index has risen by more than 12 per cent.
  It is not about those who have retired most recently that I complain most. As the House knows, it is the public servants and the officers and other ranks who retired long ago who have suffered most from the effects of inflation. That is why the most recent Pensions (Increase) Acts have given them larger increases compared with those who retired more recently. But the substantial fact

  539
  still remains that all Civil Service pensions up to as recently as April, 1957, are still far below the level of currently dated pensions. Much the same is true of Armed Forces pensions. These latter pensioners have the additional disadvantage that most of them have retired at a much earlier age than civil servants and have therefore suffered from the effects of inflation for many years longer. I am reliably informed that more than 45 per cent. of retired officers retired on rates fixed in 1945, or before the war. Although I do not have the figures for other ranks, I believe that the percentage is very similar.
  The pensions increase system which the Tories had and which has not been changed by the Labour Party has remained practically unchanged for the 45 years since it was introduced and it has resulted in all these pensioners having constantly to lower their standards of living, so that those who have been retired longest have received less on which to live when old and least able to help themselves.
  I know that it may be said that the Labour Government increased the retirement pension and that many of these pensioners are receiving that increase, but that is not true of all of them, for many older officers and civil servants did not qualify for the retirement pension. They are in the group which the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) tried to help by his Bill. I am sorry that he did not succeed.
  In view of the grave situation which the country faces, I appreciate that we cannot expect the Government to introduce parity now, or even in the very near future, but, in view of their promises at the election, as an absolute minimum I would expect them to make a gesture now towards these pensioners and to commit themselves in the House of Commons to the ultimate fulfilment of their promises on the hustings last October.
  Mr. Walter Monslow: Would not the hon. Gentleman accept that in our manifesto at least we assured a guaranteed income for everyone? When the economic circumstances are desirable, that will be done.
  Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman knows that the guaranteed incomes scheme has been put off into the indefinite future by yesterday's announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Monslow: Temporarily.
  Mr. Lubbock: I do not know how temporary it is. At least it will not happen in the next session, according to the Chancellor's announcement. What I am about to ask the Government for is something much more short term than the introduction of these changes, promised at the election, some time in the session after next.
  As an absolute minimum, the pensions of those who retired before 1st January, 1956, should be brought up to the levels applicable at that date. The reason I mention 1st January, 1956, is that I have figures showing what the cost of that proposal would be, and it is modest enough in all conscience as a gesture towards the implementation of these promises. The cost is a sum which we can afford, even in our present economic difficulties.
  These figures were given to me by the Financial Secretary in an answer to a Question on 5th February, 1955. For retired Servicemen the cost would be about £5 million a year. Although he could not calculate the figures for the rest of the public service, he estimates that it would be about £2 million a year in addition to this. Altogether we are talking about a sum of £7 million as a first step towards honouring this promise made at the time of the election.
  Secondly, I should like the Government to give me a definite commitment to the principles of parity and dynamism which they espoused at the time of the election, and to give at least a provisional time-scale in which these promises would be carried into effect. No one is going to hold them to within a few months, one way or another. I should have thought that these promises could be carried out over a period of five years, with this initial step of raising pensions to the level pertaining on 1st January, 1956. Unless we get these promises we must, regretfully, say that they have broken the promise which they gave to the pensioners during the election, and that therefore we shall have to vote against them this evening.
  7.2 p.m.
  Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has jumped from twig to twig with the skill of an elephant. First of all he advocated the claims of the Armed Forces and the Civil Service pensioners, then he agreed that parity was impossible at the present time. He went on to a fanciful scheme, entirely of his own, and finished up by asking the Government to give certain assurances, which he knows the Government cannot give, and would be very foolish if they tried to do so.
  Mr. Lubbock: The Government gave them in October. Why should they not give them in the House?
  Mr. Winterbottom: They can give a general assurance in terms of an intention, providing that the kitty will allow them to pay it, and providing that certain other conditions also, of a financial and economic character, have been satisfied. When the hon. Member says that this debate has a certain falseness about it, because it links the cost of living to the question of pensions for the Civil Service and the Armed Forces, he is perfectly right. He could have gone further and made another division. There could have been a division between those who have worked in the Civil Service and those who have been in the Armed Forces, because there may be a stronger case for parity for the Armed Forces than for the Civil Servants.
  This Notice of Motion, put down by the Conservative Party, includes other people as well as the Armed Forces and the Civil Service. We have also to deal with those on fixed incomes. When the hon. Member talks about asking for the intentions of the Government in regard to the Civil Service pension he has to remember that the increased contributions, or the increased cost of that increased pension, may come out of those people on fixed incomes who have to pay the increased cost but who can get no extra benefits themselves. This is one of the points which has to be considered in assessing the whole situation. To a certain extent the whole of this debate can be bedevilled by recriminations. On both sides of the House we can fight the battle of the election all over again. We can
  542
  say what he said and what other people said, and forget the very simple but basic facts of the economic situation which we have to face today.
  I am not going to start apportioning blame anywhere at the moment, though I might have second thoughts later on.
  Sir C. Osborne: They are not always best.
  Mr. Winterbottom: I know that. At the moment I am not starting to apportion blame. What I am saying is that, whether we like it or not, this country is still in a serious economic plight. A balance of payments problem, which started during the lifetime of the previous Government—and I am not trying to blame them for that at the moment—had the characteristic about it that as it went on it grew in intensity until, when a change of Government came about, the rate of deficit was running at over £1,000 million per year. Quite frankly no one knowing that economic situation, knowing that a new Government had taken over the business of this country, and knowing that the Government have to face this serious economic situation and the problems arising from it could honestly say that the Notice of Motion on the Order Paper had not been put down with deliberate political intent.
  It is not in order to benefit the Civil Service pensioner, or the Armed Forces pensioner, or the person on a fixed income. It is in order to gain political capital for the Conservative Party, and it is to ignore deliberately an economic situation for which I am not blaming the Conservatives, although I will say that they were a part of it. Just as a balance of payments situation grows in intensity when it is ignored by a Government, so a policy of prices grows in intensity as the prices advance. There are some manufacturers and some distributors in this country who can be condemned for taking advantage of the Government having to enforce certain measures which have caused increased overheads. Some people have taken more out of the customer than those increased overheads warranted.
  I will give an illustration. A few weeks ago my wife told me on the telephone that she was going to send a birthday card to a friend of ours. That birthday

  543
  card, which originally cost less than 2s., had gone up 8d. The reason for that increase of 8d. was attributed to the 6d. extra charged on petrol. There have been many cases like that. The Government sometimes must face not only the serious economic situation which they have inherited, but those people who do not accept the spirit of the voluntary method and take advantage for themselves. Despite that, there are some increases which are natural, and those increases which are percentage increases, because of the rise in prices, show heavily in the cost of living.
  This applies to the meat trade. The hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt)—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: She is not here now.
  Mr. Winterbottom: I know, but I will not criticise her for that. She mentioned the price of meat, and the price of the best cuts of meat. She did not know that the best cuts of meat do not amount to much in terms of the weight of the carcase of a bullock or heifer and that the price being charged today for the best cuts of meat is not the average price for the meat of the whole carcase. Nevertheless, the price of meat has advanced more than the price of any other food commodity. Much of this is due not to the fact that there has been extraordinary overcharging but because so many people in meat distribution have to have a percentage on the cut that the increased percentage on the cut amounts to a great deal at the end of the transaction.
  Mr. Peter Mills: Could the hon. Gentleman tell me how much the price of lamb, pork and poultry meat has increased in the last year? I think he will find that the price is exactly the same as last year.
  Mr. Winterbottom: I was speaking only of beef. I agree that the price of lamb and pork has been comparatively stable. I should have referred to beef, and I apologise for not doing so.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: I think my hon. Friend will find that the rise in the price of beef has been going on for the last three years.
  Mr. Winterbottom: Yes. My point is that when percentage increases are spread over so many factors, as is the case in beef distribution, they amount to a tremendous sum of money in the final calculation.
  This is one of the things which the Government will have to face. This is the crux of the situation. The Government face a serious economic situation. One way in which the country can recover is by the implementation of an effective policy based on production and productivity, based on the relativity of that production and productivity to wage values, based on a conception of the profit motive which is related to those wage values and based on price stabilisation. In one of my first speeches in the House of Commons I said that any Goverment, whatever their colour, outlook or policy abroad, which ignored the question of prices in this country would commit political suicide. Price stabilisation is not only a good thing for a political party but the only fundamental basis for the recovery of Britain; and that matters to me as much as it does to any hon. Members opposite.
  When I first worked in a shop, a new young branch manager came to me and said, "I have taken over this shop. It is in a bad condition. The overheads amount to far more than the gross profits." After a fortnight, he was asked, "Has the shop recovered? Are we making a profit yet?" This is the situation of this country, and it is the situation which the Government must face.
  In my first speech in the House after the Government took office I said, to the taunts of Members opposite, would to God the Prime Minister, fully realising the economic situation of this country and all its implications, had said, even though the election had taken place only two months previously, that the situation was so bad and the Government could not manage with their narrow majority to carry through the policy which they wanted to implement, and will implement, that we should go to the country and tell the people the true situation and ask them to give us greater representation in the House to enable us to carry through our programme. I wish that that had happened. We should have faced the issue then; and the people would have faced the issue then.

  545
  The alternative is not the voluntary "go as you please and not please as you go" type of system in which manufacturers, behind the pretence of advances which they said had to be made in the interests of the economy, increased prices abnormally, in which there was no relationship between the margins in distribution and good common sense, and in which there was not in reality a correct relationship between various aspects of distribution and the productive effort of the country. Those who have tabled the Motion, who know the economic situation of this country—
  Mr. Monslow: Profess to know.
  Mr. Winterbottom:—realise that what I am saying is true and is the only real way out of our economic difficulties. The alternative is to go back to the chaotic type of Toryism that we had in the last century, the laissez faire of Liberalism. If we go back to the laissez faire situation of Liberalism in which every man's hand is turned against his fellow man and the devil takes the hindmost, this country will lose in competition with other countries.
  Whether we like it or not, we must have a planned economy which relates to margins between productive effort and distributive effort and between one job and another job and which establishes a price system which starts from stability and allows increases according to the increase in the productive effort. The creation of this system has been bedevilled because so many people would not play ball. This is the only system which can get us out of the difficulty of constantly advancing prices followed by applications for wage increases.
  The Government who stabilise prices so that every advance in wages that takes place after that is an advance in real wages are doing a great service to the country and a great service to the population. Until we reach that position, all these resolutions and Motions on the Order Paper are idle and futile and are a waste of time both to Britain and to the people.
  7.21 p.m.
  Sir Alexander Spearman: I can well understand the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) wishing that there had been a General Election when the
  546
  country had only had two months' experience of the present Government.
  The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade attributed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) responsibility for the present situation because he had not sufficiently cut back consumer spending. That is an attack which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite make very often. It seems to be their only method of defence. But I remind them of the old saying that people in glass houses should not throw stones, and I remind the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that in his speech on 16th April last year he roundly condemned my right hon. Friend for raising consumer taxes. In an earlier debate, he complained that the Budget was too timid, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer complained that the Budget was too cautious, and the Prime Minister made it clear in both Budget debates that he agreed with his right hon. Friends.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), in a very vigorous speech, told us today of the very specific pledges that right hon. Gentlemen opposite made about what a Labour Government would do to keep the cost of living stable. They made some very reckless promises. Were these the promises of ruthless men prepared to buy votes at any price or, as I would like to think because it is the lesser crime, were they the promises of foolish men who were ignorant of how the economy works? I am quite sure that if the late Hugh Gaitskell had been Prime Minister, it would not have happened. No one could accuse Gaitskell of a lack of integrity. No one could accuse him of not knowing how the economy worked.
  May I quote two sentences from a speech that he made a lone time ago, at a time when these matters, even on this side, were not quite so clearly realised as they are today? He said this in 1951:
  "If incomes go up more than production goes up, then prices will rise. The truth is as simple as that."
  What the country wants to know is why the Government have failed. Is it due to an incompetent Cabinet unable to understand the economy, or is it due to a divided Cabinet who cannot agree? It is said that the Prime Minister's cure is

  547
  gimmicks. It is said the Chancellor's remedy is to finance expansion by borrowing and that the First Secretary's is going to depend entirely on physical controls, which is a very ingenuous belief.
  The Prime Minister, who is so powerful with words and so singlarly ineffective in action, seems to be unable to control the conflicting views of his Cabinet. So we get the worst of all worlds. The remarkable reversals of policy that we have had time and time again, with the Chancellor saying one thing at the beginning of a month and the opposite at the end of the month, seem to bear out the view that the Prime Minister has not got control of his Cabinet.
  The rise in the cost of living has been considerable. However, the serious factor—and my right hon. Friend touched on this—is not what has taken place but what is going to take place. All experience shows that when output is rising, efficient employers can absorb additional costs by increasing their turnover. But when they reach the state, as we have reached now, where there is no slack left in the economy, increases in output can only come from technological improvements which we all know, however much they are speeded up, are a slow process. That is when we get a sharp rise in prices, and that is what we have to face now.
  I believe that the Government's objective should be to do everything that they can to promote growth and, at the same time, to slow down increases in spending so as to get the two in balance. Governments can facilitate but not initiate growth. They have only a partial responsibility. However, for spending they have complete responsibility. I do not believe that one can stop increases in earnings by exhortation. I do not believe one can do it by pressure on the trade unions. These rises do not occur because of trade union pressures at all.
  Look at domestic wages. They have risen as much as any, and there is no trade unionism there. These rises take place because, if there is excess demand, employers are competing for labour and, when they are competing for labour and when demand is so great, they can afford to pay and will pay willingly higher wages in order to get that labour. The rise in
  548
  wages generates the demand which makes it possible. Therefore it is the prime duty—the first, I believe of all economic duties of the Government—to regulate demand. In this, the Government have utterly failed. Spending is increasing and savings are declining. The Government and the whole country should take very seriously the effects on savings of the Chancellor's measures in his Budget and the Government's measures in general, and I should like again to quote one sentence from Gaitskell. He said:
  "And besides there really does come a point when, if the process goes on swiftly enough, people begin to lose confidence in the value of money, saving is regarded as a useless habit and the rate of spending increases. Such general inflation has occurred more than once in European countries. It could happen here."
  The Government have increased their spending considerably, and they have increased it in a way that has had a particularly severe effect on spending. For example, there has been the abolition of prescription charges. I expect all that money was spent. If the Government increase their expenditure, economically that is a perfectly sound thing to do, providing they offset it by cutting back consumer spending.
  Here I may not be in complete agreement with all my hon. Friends, but I believe that the effect on prices of raising indirect taxes is grossly exaggerated. It has a certain effect, of course, but unless it causes the Government to spend more because of the revenue from those taxes, the effect is very limited.
  But a rise in earnings means a further rise in demand. That means a further rise in earnings, and so you get the vicious spiral going on and on. That is what I am sure Hugh Gaitskell was speaking about when he talked about the possibility of disastrous inflation.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer pays altogether too much attention to trying to match up revenue with expenditure, and much too little attention to trying to match up total demand with total resources. I will give one example of what I mean. In a very interesting article by a member of the Treasury in the National Institute's May Bulletin, Table 9 showed that if insurance benefits were increased by £300 million and contributions were increased by £300 million, there would be no cost to the Treasury at all. In the second year, however, the

  549
  increase on demand, which is what matters, would be no less than £233 million.
  Taxes that come out of savings serve no economic purpose. Taxes that take a long time to operate are entirely irrelevant to the present situation. My right hon. Friend the member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) referred to an interesting article, which I commend to the House, by Professor Paish in the Irish Banking Review of June this year. In that article, Professor Paish compares some of the taxes which we have had to applying a brake on a motor car when going downhill, but the brake does not operate until the car is halfway up the next hill, when the driver should be using, not the brake, but the accelerator. On checking spending, the Government have failed. On encouraging industrial investment, I believe that they will fail. The uncertainties of the Budget plus the credit squeeze will, I believe, bring about a sharp decline in industrial investment next year which will spark off a general recession.
  It is extraordinary when one remembers how, throughout the term of office of the Conservative Government, the Labour Party attacked us again and again for the credit squeeze. Now, they are operating something far more massive than anything that was contemplated in the last 14 years. I wonder whether they have really thought this out.
  If there is one thing about which the country as a whole is worried, it is the inconsistency of the actions of the Labour Government. I should like to remind hon. Members what was said on 10th November last year by no less a person than the Leader of the House, a most respected Minister. He said that if the Conservatives had won the election,
  "we should have been going in for a Bank Rate increase, with a credit squeeze and the whole mixture as before. That is precisely what would have happened."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1964; Vol. 701, c. 965.]
  It is precisely what did happen. I believe that the new plans about which we heard yesterday are a belated—perhaps a disastrously belated—recognition of the limitations of the expenditure the country can afford. Why did not the Government think of all this before?
  I always regard it as presumptuous for a back bencher to quote his own speeches, and I have never done it before,
  550
  but to show that I am not just being wise after the event I should like the indulgence of hon. Members to quote just two sentences from speeches which I have made during the past year. On 12th November last, I said:
  "I am convinced that if the brakes are not put on now they will have to be put on later, and the longer the delay the more drastic the measures will have to be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1964; Vol. 701, c. 1271.]
  Mr. Monslow: How does the hon. Member reconcile what he is saying with the fact that by their election promises the party to which he belongs would have committed us to an additional £650 million expenditure?
  Sir A. Spearman: After the Conservative Government came to power in 1951, the rate of productivity went up very satisfactorily from 2 per cent. to about 3½ per cent. That enabled a careful, well-managed Government to spend more than their predecessors had been spending. However, as I have said before in this House, the Conservative Government had spent right up to the hilt and we cannot afford the extra expenditure of the present Government.
  On 10th May this year, I said:
  "I believe that this year the increase in spending by public authorities and by consumers … will considerably exceed the increase in production. Therefore, this year we are going to have a consumption inflation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1965; Vol. 712, c. 139.]
  If I, limited in mind and body, could foresee these things, why could not those who are expected to have the qualities of Cabinet Ministers foresee them?
  I believe that now the Government should cut consumption. Had they been able to cut their own expenditure, that might not be necessary. Having failed to do it, however, they should cut consumption quickly and severely, simultaneously taking steps to promote an expansion of industrial investment that will take several months to operate. They should start by modifying the credit squeeze in order to give encouragement to industrial investment.
  It is unfortunate that so often what is politically desirable is economically disastrous, and vice versa. To do things that are unpopular requires courage. No one who knows my right hon. Friend the

  551
  Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) will doubt his courage and determination. Indeed, towards the end of the last Parliament some of my hon. Friends thought that he was a little too courageous in his admirable action on resale prices. The sooner that the Prime Minister gives the country the opportunity for my right hon. Friend to take his place, the sooner shall we have a Government of courage and determination and a Government who will consider in advance the economic consequences of their actions.
  7.37 p.m.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I wish to preface my remarks by referring to the speech of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). He is a widely respected Member of the House, especially among hon. Members with much less experience of Parliamentary proceedings than himself. Many hon. Members must, however, have been disquieted to find that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the difficulties of public service pensioners were tinged with a certain measure of humbug. I should have thought that all hon. Members who have considered the effects of rising costs upon those who have to live on fixed incomes are equally concerned about the problem of the public service pensioner, and particularly those public service pensioners who, in saddening circumstances, for example, by the oncoming of a serious illness, have been obliged to retire prematurely.
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade pointed out that a period of three years and five months elapsed between the operative dates of the two Pensions (Increase) Acts of 1959 and 1962. The present Government have been in power for nine months. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton will, I am sure, agree that that is not a period within which one could expect every pledge to have been met. I recall, because I was here at 3.30 a.m., when my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) raised the subject of Armed Service pensioners two or three weeks ago. I hope that both sides of the House will adopt less of a tactical approach to the problem of public service pensioners, because I am certain that there is a wide measure of
  552
  agreement that something ought to be done as soon as possible to improve their position.
  Mr. Turton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has forgotten what I said. I said that I was not complaining that the Government were slow in introducing this measure. I said that I was disturbed by the statement by the President of the Board of Trade that he was still reviewing the matter when the party opposite and the majority of back benchers of my party in the last Parliament had demanded a change to parity of pensions. I asked that whoever wound up the debate should make it clear that the Government stood by their pledge for parity of pensions.
  Mr. Morris: My right hon. Friend spoke of a review, but he also said that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who would wind up the debate, would return to the question of public service pensioners, and one of my hon. Friends has expressed his concern about the need for a definitive statement of the position. I hope that no other right hon. or hon. Member who takes part in this debate will attempt to make what I think people outside will regard as unworthy party capital out of the plight of public service pensioners. I have worked in the public service for a number of years, and I appreciate as much as anyone does the difficult cases that arise.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) also referred in his speech to a recent letter from Sir Roy Harrod to The Times, but the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to that part of Sir Roy's letter which suggested that for a period of time there should be control of wages, salaries and dividends. I think I am entitled to ask hon. Members opposite whether they share Sir Roy Harrod's view that there should be control of wages, salaries and dividends. For my part, I take the view that a dividend controlled is only a dividend delayed, but that a wage claim controlled can be a wage increase lost.
  Sir Roy's views are important to this discussion. While he may be more popular now, the party opposite was very annoyed with him for his comments about the European Common Market. Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not refer to Sir Roy's letters to The Times when

  553
  he was attacking the Tory drive to join the Common Market. I am sure the House will agree that the agricultural policy of the Common Market has proved to be so restrictive and inward looking that, if we had followed the policy advocated by the previous Government and the party opposite, there would have been a drastic increase in the cost of living as well as very serious damage to the interests of the Commonwealth.
  It has been suggested by some hon. Gentlemen who have taken part in this debate that there is broad agreement about the need for a prices and incomes policy. It is, however, a nonsense to say that those who believe in classical free enterprise can at the same time be said to believe in a prices and incomes policy. It was not only the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) who attacked the idea of a prices and incomes policy root and branch. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) said that it was impertinent of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary, with no knowledge of industry or business, to lecture them on their attitude to costs. What the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said as recently as 15th January, 1965, was that:
  "There is only one price which a firm or person is justified in trying to get for his goods and his services, and that is the price which he believes will bring him the best return. … To attempt to get this price is every seller's duty."
  Those two statements represent a central attack on the whole concept of a prices and incomes policy, and I suggest that the Party opposite ought to reconsider its whole attitude to the question of equity in earnings, no less than its attitude to the question of prices.
  I represent a consituency in which more than 20,000 people are faced with a substantial increase in their rents in September of this year. One of the principal reasons for this increase is that there has been a 7½ per cent. rise in building costs over the past two years. I am told that this upward trend in building costs is not likely to be arrested, and that we must learn to live with a constant increase in the cost of building homes. In my submission, this is a subject worthy of consideration by the Prices and Incomes Board. There may well be considerable benefits to be derived from consideration
  554
  by the Board of the effect of recent and projected increases in building costs on the rents of houses in large cities like Manchester.
  During the last day or two I have been reading the monumental Report on the state of affairs in the North-West of England. It points out that 440,000 houses in the North-West are unfit for human habitation. These 440,000 slums were not created during the last nine months. Nor is it right that the cost of clearing them should, for the most part, fall on council house tenants. Such tenants are the people who, in my constituency at any rate, have suffered as much as anybody in the country from slumdom, and it is neither equitable nor reasonable that they should have to bear the cost of clearing up cities such as Manchester in the North-West.
  A Motion such as that before the House today not only degrades those who drafted it; in my view, it also harms the reputation of the House. The people of this country appreciate that there was a desperately serious economic situation when the Government changed hands last October. They did not then appreciate the size of the foreign payments debt, but far more of them appreciate the position now. We on this side of the House will fully document the points made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade at every opportunity open to us.
  People outside the House want us to discuss the real problems facing the country. They do not want exercises in party politics like those we have seen this afternoon. In the matter of prices, they want to see a determination by the Government to see that profiteering is stopped. They want to see the "consumers' charter", which has been promised for the next Session, introduced as early as possible. They want to see people who advance "phoney" excuses for increasing prices and people who bilk the public by all kinds of shady selling methods brought within the law. They want equity between people in different walks of life: no incomes policy can succeed without equity.
  I appreciate the difficulties of the Treasury Bench. I felt for them when I heard some of the speeches which have been made against them today. Their task is correcting the damage done to the

  555
  economy by the last election being delayed as long as it was. There is serious concern in the country about prices. This concern has endured for many years. We are not likely to have a successful incomes policy unless we also have a successful prices policy, but we will never get that if we follow the advice which hon. Members of the party opposite have given in the debate today.
  7.52 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Berry: We are now approaching the end of the first 300 days of a Socialist Government. We heard a good deal about the first 100 days, and that was marked by the first Budget. During the second 100 days, we had the second Budget, and now, during the third 100, we have what amounts to a third Budget. Instead of a case of one, two, three, go, we have had one, two three, stop. Looking at the faces opposite as the Chancellor made his statement, I could not help contrasting them with the beaming, happy faces which first confronted me in the House last October. Two hon. Members opposite asked two very pertinent questions of the Chancellor. One was about employment and the other about housing. These were very important questions, and I share the concern of the two hon. Members.
  We are talking today about the cost of living. We should not be having this debate if hon. Members opposite and candidates of their party throughout the country had not made the definite promises which they did at the time of the last election. The Labour candidate who opposed me in Southgate used these words in his election address:
  "We shall take drastic action to stop prices rising."
  What has happened about that drastic action? The first drastic action was last November in the first Budget, and we know what effect that had. We know what effect the tax on petrol had. If any one believed that that would have the effect of reducing the rise in prices, they must be like the Queen in "Alice in Wonderland" who said that she once believed six impossible things before breakfast.
  Figures have already been given of the overall increase in prices during the past
  556
  months. I do not want to go into too many details. I asked a constituent of mine a few days ago—knowing that I was hoping to take part in the debate—how she found things. She is a widow on a small fixed income, and I asked which of the prices which had gone up had particularly affected her. She said that her bread had gone up 2d. a loaf, her beef—I know that she does not have the best cuts—1s. 8d. a lb., margarine 4d., flour 2d. If the increases in rates, postage and other household expenses are added on, one can imagine how much worse off she is today than a year ago.
  Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) would not give way when I tried to intervene. I think that it is fair now, although he is not in the Chamber, to put to him the question which I wanted to ask him when he was talking about the rise in prices. I wanted to know what he said in his election address about attacking the cost of living and the rise in prices. Of course, we do not know what he said. Despite what the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), who has also vanished—I apologise to him; he has moved to another place.
  I want to mention very briefly the question of public service and Armed Forces pensioners. I do not see why I should not: I am not speaking with crocodile tears. I have here two letters from constituents of different kinds, who are typical of many people in many parts of the country. One is a public service pensioner who writes about the large number of his fellow public service pensioners who are finding it difficult at this time to make both ends meet. The other is an Army pensioner who writes:
  "In my case, I retired in 1953, after 39 years of service in the ranks, ranging from Gunner in the Royal Artillery to Major. Now I receive a pension lower than that of a Warrant Officer of equivalent service and my widow will, on my demise, receive the princely sum of 38s. 11d. per week."
  Mr. Alfred Morris: My point is that the hon. Member and his hon. Friends should accept that there is deep concern among right hon. and hon. Members on this side. There was so much concern that some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite came to the House at 3.30 in the morning recently

  557
  to raise this subject. Will the hon. Member accept that we believe that these people are more likely to get justice from a party which believes in social justice than from a party which opposes it?
  Mr. Berry: I do not accept the last part of what the hon. Member said. I accept his sincerity and I hope that he accepts mine.
  The Prime Minister has, up to a point, kept his word in what he said of pensions some time ago:
  "We have on a number of occasions given a pledge that they will be reviewed."
  He is reviewing them, but it is time that something was done about it—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
  Mr. Berry: I will just finish this sentence.
  It is time that we had the result of that review. Not only is time going by, but also, because of increases in the cost of living, even the existing pensions are going down in value.
  Mr. Lewis: If the Government were immediately to implement these pensions, could we have an assurance from the hon. Member that, unlike what the Opposition did when the old-age pensions were increased, they will not then vote against the wherewithal for paying these pensions? When this Government rightly came straight in and increased old-age pensions, that side of the House voted against every means and method of raising the money to pay for them.
  Mr. Berry: I will not accept that for one moment—
  Mr. Lewis: It is true.
  Mr. Berry: The hon. Member may think that it is true, but my position is that I will do everything I can to support anything which is done by the Government to improve the lot of these people.
  I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Wythenshawe into his discussion of the letter by Sir Roy Harrod. Any gaps in my education are due to the fact that, in October 1947, when Sir Roy was supposed to be teaching me the principles of economics, Dr. Dalton was Chancellor and Sir Roy spent all his time telling me about the follies of Dr. Dalton.
  558
  The President of the Board of Trade said that if the Government's policy succeeds prices will come down. We now have this word "if" creeping in. There were no "ifs" at the time of the last election. He referred also to unemployment figures. The Government have rightly referred to unemployment figures being wonderfully low. But do they sincerely believe that when the House reassembles at the end of October they will be able to say the same thing?
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to resent the Motion. They seem to resent the fact that we are spending our time today discussing what I believe is an extremely important subject. They claim that they did not know the economic position of the country when they took office last October. They may not have known all about it, but they must have had a fairly good idea. If they had any doubts at all about the economic situation they should not have made the promises they did make at that time. Parliament and the nation would have respected them much more had they said, "We believe that conditions are bad, so we will not make any promises until we are able to put things right". The public will not forget that, and that is why at the next General Election I, for the first time as a Member of Parliament, will be sitting on the benches opposite.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I hope that the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) will forgive me if I do not follow him on the subject of service pensions. I agree with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and others who have said that the two main subjects which have been raised today should have been considered in two separate debates. Parliament could have done proper justice to the question of rising prices and the important matter of pensions had we discussed the two items separately, instead of using one as a sort of smokescreen when the other is of vital importance to a section of the community which deserves great sympathy and consideration.
  Many of the speeches made by hon. Gentlemen opposite today have been contradictory. It is obvious that hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot make up their minds whether or not they believe in the principle of a prices and incomes policy. The

  559
  hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) was in favour of such a policy and his right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) thought that all hon. Members agreed that such a policy was desirable, if it could be achieved. The trouble is that all hon. Members do not agree. There are certain hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite who are opposed to our views on this matter. After all, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) said on 8th January last that it was impertinent of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary, having no knowledge of industry or business, to lecture industrialists and businessmen about their attitudes towards costs. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East—[HON. MEMBERS: "South-West."]—I am referring, of course, to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and not to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short)—I would not want to confuse the two; there would be a terrible row if that happened—because the right hon. Gentleman said that he was concerned about a letter which my right hon. Friend had sent to industrialists. He referred to it as:
  "… tyranny and lawlessness of a kind we have seen too often in too many countries in our own generation".
  I urge hon. Gentlemen opposite to say once and for all whether they agree with the Government in wishing to achieve their prices and incomes policy. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways. Either they accept that policy or they do not. The House and the country have a right to know exactly where they stand and their views are important from the point of view of controlling prices and modernising industry.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) made an interesting and knockabout speech, although he had to admit that it is not an easy matter to control prices. It would, of course, be a relatively simple matter if we lived in a dictatorship, in which force and not persuasion was the order of the day. Fortunately, we live in a democratic society in which my hon. and right hon. Friends believe in persuasion. The present Government are doing everything possible to ensure that persuasion and not force is used.
  560
  The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Labour Government inherited a fully employed but not over-stretched economy when they gained power. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman gets his facts right. When the former Tory Government left office there were more than 380,000 people unemployed in Britain. The only occasion when the total of unemployed fell below that figure was in 1951, when the previous Labour Government went out of office. In 1955 it went down to 1·1 per cent. Apart from that, it has been well above that percentage, sometimes reaching 2·5 per cent. It is now down to the same rate as in 1951. It is, therefore, not true to say that we inherited a fully employed economy. We inherited an economy which had, in certain areas, relatively high figures of unemployment. The new Labour Government have reduced those figures. On Merseyside the unemployment figures are today lower than at any time since 1951. These figures must be borne in mind when discussing this matter.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East went on to say that he and his hon. Friends believed in high earnings. The Tory Party and employers have never accepted a policy of high earnings for the average industrial worker. When I was in the United States a few years ago I studied the situation in industry there and contrasted it with the position here. I returned home knowing that not only do we have differences of attitude about the labour movement but we also have a different attitude in regard to employers.
  Employers in Britain have never accepted a policy of high earnings for industrial workers, although such a policy is fully acceptable to their counterparts in the United States. The reason why such a policy is not acceptable here is because British employers will not accept modernisation, with the necessary technological advances, in the same way as they are accepted in the United States.
  When there is a wage increase in the United States the employers immediately take measures to modernise and so meet the rising costs instead of immediately passing them on to the consumer. In this country such attempts are not even made. Increased wages are immediately

  561
  passed on to the consumer and we will not go in for the highly developed industrial techniques which are necessary to avoid increased costs being passed on. This is one vital difference between the two countries, and hon. Gentlemen opposite should bear it in mind because they say that they speak for industry. They must recognise that industrialists here, even today, do not accept what in the United States has been accepted for a considerable time. Perhaps, with their new leader, the Tories will get down to the problem. Perhaps that is the object of the exercise. That would be all to the good of the country, although they have not a cat in hell's chance of getting elected as a Government at the next election.
  I have listened this afternoon to the speeches of hon. Members opposite. Frankly, the hypocritical crocodile tears which have come from the other side of the House have made me quite sick. I have never listened to so much hypocrisy as I have had to listen to this afternoon, Hon. Members opposite must understand this; that we are in this position in the country economically because of their actions, on the one hand, and their inactivity, on the other hand. Yet they have the effrontery to say that the Labour Government are responsible for our economic difficulties. In fact, it would have been a miracle if the Labour Government had been able to solve the economic problems overnight.
  If the Tory Party had been in office the economic difficulties would have been solved in an entirely different way. There is no doubt about that. By now we should have had a very high level of unemployment. That is always the way in which they have solved their economic problems. Let me give some unemployment figures for Merseyside. In July of this year we had 15,384 unemployed. I consider that this is still a relatively high figure—indeed, far too high. But in July, 1963, it was 29,621 and in July, 1964, it was 22,207. In the City of Liverpool in 1963, it was 17,000, or 4·7 per cent. of the working population. In 1964 it was 13,000. Today it is 9,000. That is significant, and it is very important when we are discussing the rising cost of living. At least those who are working are able to purchase the goods which are being produced and those who are unemployed or on National Assistance
  562
  are getting far higher benefits than they got before, and therefore their purchasing power is greater.
  The Government are trying seriously to tackle the problem. The previous Government failed lamentably, because with them we had both rising unemployment and a rising cost of living. Under the Labour Government it is admitted that the cost of living has risen far too much, certainly far too much for my liking, but at the same time we have not had a serious rise of unemployment, although that is exactly what would have happened if the Tory Party had been in Government at present.
  The average increase in the cost of living was 2¾ per cent. each year from 1956 to 1964. The £ certainly is worth less now than it was in 1946. The goods and services which cost £1 in 1946, cost 31s. 3d. in 1956 and 37s. 4d. in 1964. The cost of living is well over one-third higher than it was 10 years ago. We all know what has been the effect of rising prices. The interesting pamphlet issued by the Department of the First Secretary of State outlines it clearly. I do not think there is any difference on this aspect. Everyone will agree that we have a very serious problem which must be overcome and which the previous Government never began to tackle.
  For example, in the 10 years 1953–63 the rise in imports was an average of 4 per cent. a year. Exports rose by 3·3 per cent. This is the basic reason why we are in our present difficulty. The deficit last year was £745 million, and it is no good trying to run away from it or suggesting that the figure should be covered up and that all the economic ills are the responsibility of the Labour Government. The fact is that we were left with that deficit by the Tory Government and by nobody else. We followed them, and we were left with these economic difficulties and problems. Much of the talk which we have heard this afternoon has been nothing but a smokescreen by the Opposition designed to hide the facts about the economic problems from the general public.
  I accept the Government's policy in setting up a National Board for Prices and Incomes. I accept the machinery established by the Government to carry this out. If I have any criticism of this policy it is that it has not sufficient teeth

  563
  to deal with the problem. I am not too happy with merely appealing to manufacturers to try to restrict their prices. I certainly do not want to see a totalitarian system of society. I do not want to see the type of society which exists in Soviet Russia. But I know that we cannot rely upon the industrialists to decide off their own bat to restrict their prices, their dividends and their profits. It would be a very comforting thought if we could think that that was likely to take place. If the working people in the factories and the mines see that real efforts are being made to limit profits and dividends and to make certain that there is a greater equality in incomes, then they will wholeheartedly support the Government's policy on prices and incomes.
  The situation of the past must be reversed. Let me quote from Table 21 of the National Incomes Blue Book. The share of the top 6 per cent. of personal incomes in 1954 and 1962 makes interesting reading. Pre-tax in 1954 it was £2,810 million. In 1962 it was £4,380 million. Post-tax in 1954 it was £1,950 million and in 1962 it was £3,250 million. The percentage retained after tax in 1954 was 69 per cent. and in 1962 it was 74 per cent. The share of the total post-tax income of the top 6 per cent. in 1954 was 17·6 per cent. and in 1962 it was 18 per cent. By contrast, the share of the total post-tax income for the bottom 40 per cent was only 17 per cent. An economist, well known in the Labour movement, Mr. John Hughes, makes the point that
  "over the years of Conservative rule the cost of living of the pensioner was rising half as fast again as that of high income households".
  He also said:
  "Thus in terms of purchasing power we find that the top 6 per cent. increased their real income by rather more than a third between 1954 and 1962 while the purchasing power of all the other income groups ranked by size rose by rather more than a quarter."
  The 6 per cent. in 1962 enjoyed 18 per cent. of the total post tax increase. These are very important figures, especially for workers in factories. This is precisely what the Government are intending and trying to reverse. This was the whole exercise in the Finance Bill which hon. Members opposite fought so strenuously
  564
  and resisted almost line by line, day after day because they are opposed to greater equality of income.
  The Economist of 23rd May, 1964, stated:
  "A man who was earning between £3,600 and £4,500 in 1956 would need to have secured only a 39 per cent. to 38 per cent salary increase since 1956 to maintain his relative place in the community; a man who was earning between £600 and £2,000 in 1956 would have needed a 54 per cent. to 59 per cent. increase: in each case the man at the bottom needing more."
  This is vital. These facts have to be brought out in order that the policy of the Government can be understood.
  The housing component of the retail prices index showed housing costs to have risen by 62 per cent. from January, 1956, to the defeat of the Tory Government in October, 1964. This is where there were great increases in the cost of living. It is important to bear in mind what my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said on 22nd Jury, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling). He said:
  "It is estimated that in the first quarter of 1965 total gross dividend payments in ordinary and preference shares were 28 per cent. higher than a year earlier. I consider that this rate of increase is excessive and am keeping a careful watch on the position."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1965; Vol. 716, c. 1809.]
  There does not seem to be any great restraint of dividends. Hon. Members opposite should bear this in mind.
  They are constantly talking about competition. One of the great difficulties is that industrialists in our country are not prepared to develop in a modern way with the use of modern industrial techniques as industrialists are in the United States of America. If we are to keep prices down and at the same time to ensure that our workers have sufficient incentive to increase productivity, it is not merely a question of asking the worker to work harder. The worker in British industry works just as hard as, if not harder than, workers in other countries.
  What is vital is that industrialists should introduce modern technological methods in order that we can compete in world markets. Hon. Members opposite smile at that, but I have worked all my life in industry on the shop floor. I have seen obsolete machinery being utilised

  565
  when it should have been thrown out 50 years ago. It is still being used. The scandal is that the industrialists have done nothing about it. They pass on any increased costs to the consumer instead of developing new industrial techniques. Anyone who is serious would agree that this is happening. Of course there are honourable exceptions. Some industrialists have a modern outlook on industrial techniques, but in the main, it must be admitted, this is one of the basic faults of British industry to-day.
  Everyone on this side of the House is more than merely disturbed by the fact that up to now we have not been able to control prices as we should like to have done. We want to introduce tougher machinery than that which has been used up to now, but we cannot get away from the basic fact that the measures which the Government are adopting and which are forced upon them because of the terrible economic problems left by 13 years of Conservative rule—
  Mr. Godfrey Lagden rose—
  Mr. Heffer: I will not give way because other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
  Mr. Lagden: Very wise.
  Mr. Heffer: All right. Then I shall give way.
  Mr. Lagden: I was wondering where the hon. Member has been in the industrial world and seen all these factories which are living so much in the past with so little modern machinery and so forth. I invite him, if he is interested, to come to my constituency, which is in an industrial constituency and has many modern works. I should be delighted to show him the very modern methods used in those factories which the workers appreciate immensely. Before he makes these accusations against industry he should have a look at the order books and find the industries which are waiting for new machinery which is being produced as fast as may be and which will be in the hands of industrialists as soon as possible.
  Mr. Heffer: I thank the hon. Member, because I can give one or two examples. I worked in shipyards on the Mersey, I have also seen shipyards in the United
  566
  States of America. There is no comparison. In shipyards in this country we are living in the past. There is no comparison between them and shipyards in Japan. Is it any wonder that we are losing orders for shipping construction to overseas competitors?
  I have also worked in the building industry and have seen the lack of modern methods there. I have worked in the docks on Merseyside and have seen the complete failure to modernise. I could go on giving such examples. I, too, have modern factories in my constituency. They are the honourable exceptions. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that all British industry is so modern and highly developed that there is no need to worry about this. If that is what he believes, he does not agree with those on his own Front Bench who, I am certain, would never argue that there is no need for modernisation.
  I have explained that the reason why the Government must carry out these measures and the reason why they have not, up to now, been able to contain prices in the way they would like to have done is primarily because of the failings of hon. Members opposite, who were in Government for 13 years.
  8.30 p.m.
  Captain Walter Elliot: I believe that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is one of the new Members who are agitating strongly for an alteration in the procedure of the House. Perhaps he should take to heart his own words, also those of some of his hon. Friends, and bear in mind that short speeches are sometimes greatly appreciated.
  The hon. Gentleman, in common with a number of his hon. Friends, blames us for all the troubles of the Government. Whether that is a just charge or not, what the country wants to know is what the Government intend to do about the trouble. The hon. Gentleman challenged us to say whether we believe in a prices and incomes policy. A prices and incomes policy is only part of the Government's policies. Call it what you like, we are debating the effects of Government policy, which seem to us to be leading to steeply rising prices. We do not doubt the good motives of the Government. We believe that the Government are failing in their

  567
  policies. We believe that it is our duty to pinpoint and expose these failures.
  The general consensus of opinion on both sides of the House in this debate has been that rising prices are automatically a bad thing. A study of economic history teaches us that times of rising prices are times of prosperity, both national and international. The trouble is that the rises fall unfairly on different sections of the community. There are pressure groups who are able to contract out of rising prices. Those without the support of a pressure group, such as pensioners and those on fixed incomes, are the ones who suffer.
  This process has been assisted by the Government. I well remember the Prime Minister in the debate on the Gracious Speech repeating that rather well-known and well-worn phrase, part of which is "to each according to his needs". The Government even have the effrontery in their Amendment to say
  "welcomes the special and urgent provisions which have been made to meet the claims of those in greatest need".
  The Government have taken off the prescription charges, but those have been taken off for everybody, rich and poor. The Government have increased pensions, but those have been increased for everybody, rich and poor. Council house tenants are still subsidised. I quote this from the Sun today:
  "My yacht and cars—by council house man."
  This man is paying 50s. a week rent in a subsidised council house. This may be one case, but there are many cases like it. I accept that they do not all have a yacht and two cars, but there are many people in subsidised houses who do not need the subsidies.
  Mr. Anthony Grant: Is this man a member of the Labour Party?
  Captain W. Elliot: That I do not know.
  Mr. Monslow: The hon. Gentleman is talking about subsidised council houses. Is he aware that the cost of subsidies for council house tenants is much less than the Income Tax rebate for owner-occupiers?
  Captain W. Elliot: That may well be so, but my point is that there are many
  568
  tenants of council houses who do not need a subsidy. The effect of the Government's measures to date is not, as the Prime Minister claimed, to each according to his needs. The effect is to help many who do not need help, whilst many who need help do not get enough.
  It must be recognised by hon. Members opposite that price increases in the last ten months have been an act of deliberate policy by the Government. I am surprised sometimes at the ignorance shown on the benches opposite about this fact. An instance which springs to my mind is the exchange the other day when an hon. Member opposite asked the Minister whether importers, then paying a 15 per cent. surcharge, should refrain from passing the full amount on to the customer. The Minister replied that he thought that they should, but it seems to me that the surcharge was applied precisely in order to raise prices to check imports and that if prices did not rise imports would not be checked. This is an illustration of what the Government are aiming at. There are also the increase in Income Tax, the 6d. on petrol and other taxes which were put on specifically to raise prices.
  Many of these price increases imposed by the Government have still to work their way through the economy. Prices will rise higher still and, if the Government are not careful, they will achieve with the latest clampdown a classic example of rising prices in a deflationary situation. We recognise the balance of payments difficulty. We must reduce demand. It is being done now to a great extent by raising prices, but, as usual, these price increases are being borne unequally by different sections of the population.
  The First Secretary is ostensibly acting fairly in attempting to put forward an incomes policy with a norm of 3½ per cent. increase in wages, but all this is a facade and the Government know it. A great deal of heat is engendered when we consider the effect of wages and salaries on prices and we relegate profits to the background, but the fact is that wages and salaries are normally by far the biggest factors in costs. No argument will conceal that. I say that the Government's incomes policy is a façade for this reason. The main purpose of trade unions is to

  569
  secure the best possible pay and conditions for their members. They want the biggest possible slice of the national cake. There is a fundamental conflict between capital and labour over the share of the fruits of labour and over the size of the slice of national cake.
  I am not one of those who says that there is only one side to industry. I believe that there are two sides and that they are in conflict. We can do much to mitigate that conflict, and much has been done, but there is no point in not recognising the basic differences. The unions have been very successful in the last decade in their aim to get the biggest slice of the national cake. They have not only kept abreast of inflation, they have kept ahead of it and in their approach to the Government's incomes policy they have been inspired by that one same purpose.
  The following is an extract of what was said in the General Council of the T.U.C. as reported in the latest report of the Department of Economic Affairs:
  "The General Council have throughout the discussions made it clear to the Government and to representatives of the employers' organisations that trade unions would co-operate in a prices and incomes policy only if it appeared to them likely to secure broad trade union objectives more effectively than present policies."
  So the T.U.C. decided to co-operate.
  As I see it, there are certain broad rules which the unions adopt when making claims. First, they say that industry can bear the cost, and they refer to profits and the rest. Second, they say that present wages are too low anyway. Third, they apply the principle of comparability. Those three criteria give any pressure group ample room to stake a claim in practically any conditions, indeed, in all except one, and that is when the money is not there.
  If the Government were to have the co-operation of the unions, those three criteria had to be covered in any incomes policy. This was done, and in paragraph 15 of their Prices and Incomes Policy White Paper, Cmnd. 2639, they said:
  "Exceptional pay increases should be confined to the following circumstances:

  "(i) where the employees concerned, for example by accepting more exacting work or a major change in working practices, making a direct contribution towards increasing productivity …

  570

  "(ii) where there is general recognition that existing wage and salary levels are too low to maintain a reasonable standard of living;

  "(iv) where there is widespread recognition that the pay of a certain group of workers has fallen seriously out of line …"

  I make no complaint about those conditions, but that is what is written into the Government's income policy White Paper. Under that policy, therefore, the unions have, in their view quite legitimately, to secure—in their own words—"broad trade union objectives" and I believe that the Transport and General Workers' Union is only being a bit more straightforward and frank in admitting it.
  We have seen the result in the past few months, a complete and utter disregard of the 3½ per cent. norm, a norm which the unions argue, according to Government policy, does not apply to them. The rest of the story we know—rapidly rising prices, exhortations from the Chancellor and the First Secretary and warnings that the nation is paying itself too much, and completion of the circle by the Chancellor's announcement yesterday. We are back to "stop", with deflation, retrenchment, discipline of the market, and a situation in which extra money cannot be paid because it is not there.
  I assume that the money is not there, of course. If it is, these latest measures will fail. We have done it before. We are doing it again, and again we shall fail. No doubt, after a period of stagnation we shall expand again and then, if nothing is changed, in due course grind to a halt. But this is not the way, and it is the responsibility of every Member of the House to find another solution, I shall make my modest suggestion.
  I am glad that the Minister of Labour is here to hear what I have to say. For generations in this country, labour and management have endeavoured to avoid the sanction of the law like the plague whenever disputes have arisen. They always maintain that it will not work. But times have changed. In the first place, whether they like the description or not, the unions are now a pillar of the "Establishment". No doubt, many of their members will resent that description, but I believe it to be right, and no matter how loud the singing of "The Red Flag"

  571
  at annual conferences, it will remain true. Secondly, we have Government acceptance of the policy of full employment. All Governments rightly accept this. Probably they would not last very long if they did not.
  These two facts, in my view, suggest that we must make a change of direction in our consideration of industrial negotiations bearing in mind the effect that they have on costs and prices. We should examine carefully the methods used in such a country as Australia. There, a modern industrial community, although small, provides a model, and it is, of course, an intensely democratic country. I lived there for a few years, and, although I was not directly connected with the unions, I saw something of their work. The days lost through official strikes there are probably as many as, if not more than, those in this country, but to the best of my knowledge the days lost through unofficial strikes, go-slows and so on are almost negligible, and it those, I believe, which do the damage in this country.
  The reason for this state of affairs in Australia is perfectly clear. The unions have a tight—one might almost say "iron"—grip over their members. It might be much too tight for this country, but it has the effect which I have described. The trade union officials control their members. They can order them back to work, just as courts there can order a union to get its members back to work, or they will suffer continuing penalties—and those penalties are effective.
  It is only too clear that in this country many union officials cannot control their members. I am frequently told that the responsible leaders know exactly what should be done, but the members will not accept it. We read that union officials because they are too busy with routine work are often out of touch with the men on the shop floor. In other words, whereas in Australia the control is very tight, in this country it is very loose. It seems to me that a closer examination of the possibility of some effective compromise is justified.
  If we accept the changed status of the trade unions from their early days to their position as a pillar of the establishment
  572
  today, then I believe that their position in relation to the law must be reconsidered, not only to circumscribe the unions but to enable them to exercise increased control over their members. In the Guardian today—I will not waste the time of the House by reading it all out—there is a report of remarks by Lord Robens under the heading: "Unions Must Control Members". There is a short article on what he said, and I agree with him. We are to have a Royal Commission to examine the position, and perhaps it will consider this. But can we wait? I think not. Prices are soaring. We are in for the full rigours of the "Stop". The change, should it be made, will take time. I believe that we have to get busy now.
  8.48 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Walker: I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) took some of his own advice, but I wish that he and his hon. Friends would take some of that advice when they are repeating the attacks upon the trade union movement in general and the Transport and General Workers Union in particular. I trust that the repeated attacks that we have heard in the last week will have been fully reported and brought to the attention of members of trade unions so that when the next General Election comes they will know clearly what they can expect from the Conservative Party.
  The picture is emerging. Clearly, repressive machinery which hon. Members opposite threaten will certainly be brought into action to curb the activities of trade unions. As I have said on previous occasions, hon. Members opposite repeatedly, with hand on heart, pledge their support for freedom for trade unions to operate and the right to strike, but will do everything in their power to restrict our trade unionists in operating this right. I do not want to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in view of the time, into the labyrinths of the alleged responsibilities of the trade unions for the economic ills from which we are supposed to be suffering and for the rising prices with which we are confronted. Suffice it to say that I believe that the celebrated remark made by an equally celebrated trade union official—that, so long as the economy is based on a free-for-all, the

  573
  workers will ensure that they are part of the "all"—is valid.
  We are in a free-for-all economy and one cannot blame the workers if they say that, so long as that is so, they will not be made the scapegoats continuously. I agree that we have to work for the success of the Government's prices and incomes policy but I am equally convinced that we shall not get acceptance of it unless those at whom it is principally directed—the workers in industry—are able to see clearly that the burdens will be shared equally and that distributed dividends and profits will be attacked as much as wages are attacked.
  I waited patiently not to reply to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton but to the speeches by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) who both upheld the virtues of competition, and suggested that, if there were more vigorous competition, many problems from which we are suffering would presumably diminish and perhaps even disappear.
  It is odd that the suggestions about the virtues of competition seem to be confined to competition in the selling of manufactured goods and commodities. Somehow, when the advocates of competition extol its virtues they do not apply it to the working man as well. The only thing that the working man has to sell is his muscle and brain power, but we are told that he must not exercise his right to compete in selling it. I am glad that he does not. If our miners or railwaymen were to exercise the tremendous power that they have, where would this country be?
  The workers have acted in a most responsible manner by not using to the full the tremendous power they possess. After all, this is what the fight is about on the Southern Region. It concerns what price men can have for the labour they sell. The ultimate logic of the sort of argument advanced from the benches opposite today is acceptance of the point of view of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Powell), who has said that there is only one price which a firm or person is justified in trying to get for his goods or services, and that is the price which he believes will bring him the best return, and that it is his duty to get that price.
  574
  By that standard, is it not therefore the duty of trade unionists to get the full benefits of their industrial power? But they are not as irresponsible as the right hon. Gentleman and the 20 hon. Members opposite who share his views. [HON. MEMBERS: "Fifteen."] I am relieved that there are only 15. I do not take such a detailed interest in the party opposite. Perhaps I was overwhelmed by the speculation.
  The hon. Member for Beckenham drew attention to the debates in the last Parliament about resale price maintenance, making special reference to chemists. The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) produced correspondence received from a constituent. I, too, have received correspondence from a constituent who is the proprietor of a chain of very large supermarkets and therefore not a person who would be assumed to have an identity of interests with me.
  My constituent wrote to me enclosing the following correspondence:
  "Private and Confidential.
  The Proprietary Articles Trades Association.
  We have been informed that you are selling"—
  Mr. X's—
  "baby products below the manufacturer's stipulated minimum retail prices.
  If this information is correct, will you please note that the manufacturers concerned … have fixed the minimum retail prices at:"
  The letter goes on to tell my constituent that unless he sells at those prescribed prices, he will be faced with an injunction against him in the High Court.
  He included another letter from Messrs. McKenna and Company, Solicitors, Whitehall, London, which said:
  "Dear Sir,
  We have been instructed by the Phillips, Scott and Turner Company to write to you in connection with sales by you of Andrews Liver Salt … Recently a purchase of the 3s. 9d. size of Andrews Liver Salt was made from your store at the cut price of 3s. 2d. and this sale clearly constitutes a breach of our Clients' conditions of sale.
  Now that our Clients' condition of sale has been brought to your notice we shall be pleased to have from you an assurance that you will, in future, sell our C'lients' medicinal products only at the retail prices fixed by them."
  Another letter concerns Mars Products, the makers of Mars bars, and reads:
  "I am sure you will agree it would be a pity to cut your customers' supplies of Mars Products and will resume normal prices as soon as possible."

  575
  I could give a whole string of similar examples in this correspondence from my constituent.
  This correspondence suggests that business people have some responsibility for high and increasing prices. When recently interviewed by the local Press, my constituent concluded the interview with these words:
  "I, for one, feel extremely grateful for the benefits derived from the efforts of the Socialists and the trade unions. At least they gave us the dignity to stand up as human beings and look forward to a society where there is an alternative to paying lip-service or bowing and scraping to qualify for a flunkey."
  I also clearly recall the debate which followed the announcement of the Price Review by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture who was severely criticised by hon. Members opposite. I recall that one of the consequences forecast was that dairy herds would be slaughtered wholesale, with a consequent shortage of milk. Hon. Members opposite built up a formidable pressure to increase the price of milk and allowances to farmers. They had some success and, as a consequence of their pressure, the price of milk will be increased by ½d. per pint bottle from next Saturday. Hon. Members opposite must accept responsibility for that increase. But, far from dairy herds being slaughtered as a result of that Price Review, they are flourishing and milk production has increased.
  Hon. Members opposite have repeatedly said that farmers do not benefit from subsidies for the sale of beef cattle. A farmer wrote to me last week to say that she had driven to market for slaughter four cattle for each of which she had received f12 for each of the last four years. In addition she had received the winter keep subsidy and the barley subsidy and had therefore benefited from those subsidies in addition to the enhanced price resulting from the shortage of beef on the home market because of Continental buying of beef in this country. That is the answer to those who say that we are unjustly attacking farmers.
  One hon. Member drew attention to the subsidies being enjoyed by some tenants of council houses, but the subsidies received by people being rehoused from the slums is less than that being
  576
  paid in respect of beef cattle which are being exported. What a sad prospect when a beast which is going to be sold in the European markets receives a higher subsidy than a person who is being housed by a local council.
  From my few remarks it will be abundantly clear that, far from the Government, far from the workers, the trade unions of this country, having been responsible for the increases in prices that have taken place, and which are taking place, they are as much the responsibility, if not the sole responsibility, of the business friends of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  9.1 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Walker: May I immediately say that the only thing about the hon. Gentleman the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) with which I agree is that he has a reasonable surname. Apart from that, I must confess that I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour replies he will be announcing the Government's new attitude to farmers. I would be interested to hear that he agrees with the views of his hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster that the subsidy on the price of milk is too high and that there should be a reduction in the subsidy on beef.
  I would like to say a few words about the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade failed to move. I wonder if one of the reasons why he failed to move this particular Amendment was that he had a twinge of conscience about the last few lines of the Amendment which read:
  "… and in particular welcomes the special and urgent provisions which have been made to meet the claims of those in the greatest need."
  I think that it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to claim credit for the increase that has taken place in pensions. It was an increase which was, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) pointed out, in line with the general cycle of increases that have taken place over the years. In the same way, we would take credit for the fact that during the period of 13 years of a Conservative Government old-age pensions were increased by twice as much as the rise in the cost of living. The Amendment specifically

  577
  states that it welcomes the "special and urgent provisions which have been made to meet the claims of those in the greatest need".
  Who are those in the greatest need? I would suggest that those with the greatest need are those people on fixed forms of pensions, such as the public service pensioners, the Armed Services pensioners and those who receive no pension at all. These are the people whom I would have thought all Members of the House would agree are in the greatest need. As far as these people are concerned, I would like to reiterate the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, which is that as a result of this Government being in power for eight months these people are worse off today than when the Government came into power. We do not complain that the Government have not immediately brought in an increase for these people. There has been a rise of more than 4 per cent. in the cost of living and these people have received nothing. Their hope was that expressed by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, who stated that there was going to be a priority to the incomes guarantee proposals. We heard yesterday that this has now been postponed. Therefore, these people must be asking what provisions the Government are going to make to fulfil their definite election promises on this subject.
  The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who I am sorry is not here, implied that the Minister of Labour was going to deal with this subject in his winding up speech. If the Government do have any proposals to make on this subject to the House today, I would have thought it was a courtesy to the House to deal with them in the opening speech. Speaker after speaker has wanted to deal with this topic and has been unable to know what is in the Government's mind. All we have had is the vague hint that the Minister of Labour would say something at the end of the debate.
  I should like to comment on the fact that the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour have been chosen as the Government's Front Bench spokesmen on this topic. We appreciate that the Minister of Labour has a great deal to do with the subject of the rise in
  578
  the cost of living. He enjoys respect on both sides of the House as a sincere, genuine Minister who boldly says what he thinks about problems affecting the cost of living and the attitude of both sides of industry. We welcome him in that context.
  However, I should have thought that a debate on the cost of living should have been attended by somebody from the Department of Economic Affairs. It is remarkable that the Government have a Ministry which they state is responsible for prices and incomes and yet not only do they not put up a speaker from that Ministry to take part in this debate, but for virtually the whole of the debate no Minister from that Department has been present. We had exactly the same treatment throughout the debates on the Finance Bill, when there was virtually never a Minister from that Department involved or even listening to the debates. But to have a debate specifically on the 'subject with which that Department is concerned and for it to treat this House with such contempt that not a member of it even attends is something for which the House deserves an apology.
  This is a remarkably different debate from the debate which we had last July when right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in opposition. That was a Supply day and they chose the cost of living as the subject to be debated. The two Labour Party speakers on that occasion were the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Secretary of State. The Chancellor of the Exchequer opened and the First Secretary of State wound up the debate. Yet a year later, when the same subject is being discussed, those two Ministers have hardly attended the debate at all.
  Mr. Lubbock: Neither the Minister of Labour nor the President of the Board of Trade is responsible for public service and Armed Forces pensioners. We have not had the presence of the Minister responsible for those matters either.
  Mr. Walker: That is perfectly true. It fits in with the general complacency of the Government on this whole topic.
  I do not know why the President of the Board of Trade, who opened the debate, has failed to put in an appearance. Naturally, I wish to deal with his speech, which was quite the most complacent speech we have heard

  579
  from the Dispatch Box opposite—and that is saying a great deal. Here was a Minister defending a situation in which the cost of living had been rising at a considerable rate. He said that in the last year of the Conservative Government the cost of living rose by nearly 4 per cent. What a defence for a Minister speaking for a Government under which the cost of living has risen by more than that amount in eight months!
  The right hon. Gentleman said that under the Labour Government the production figures had improved. Under the Conservative Government, he said, there was not the increase in production that we needed, but at least under this Government there had been an increase in production. I should have thought that the Government would have been anxious to point out not their smugness and satisfaction with the production figures but their real and deep concern.
  When did the production figures rise? They rose, not during recent months, but during the first two or three months after the Government came to power. All the increase in production took place before December. Today, the latest figures show that industrial production is running one point lower than it was in January. Yet the President of the Board of Trade boasts of the Government's record in production. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I can well understand him not wanting to attend the wind up of the debate, for certainly his speech dealt with none of the basic problems concerned. It was also remarkable that in a debate on this subject there should have been no mention whatever of the general subject of savings. As my hon. Friend the Lady for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt) pointed out, savings is of vital importance at a time when one is trying to release [Interruption.] [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on, George."] I am certainly glad that the First Secretary has at last put in an appearance, and may I also give a welcome to the President of the Board of Trade, whom I now see entering the Chamber, who, having made his opening speech, has taken no interest in the debate all day. It is very good of him to arrive albeit, as always, a bit behind the times.
  580
  As far as savings are concerned, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary wishes to talk I suggest that he comes into the House. There has been no comment from the Government on the very real drop in savings which has taken place in the last few months, and the House deserves some explanation. In his speech last November, the Chancellor stated quite clearly that, in order to see that the balance of supply and demand was reasonably returned, he was dependent upon the savings movement. He paid tribute to the savings movement and referred to its great importance in keeping us free from inflation. Yet almost every section of the savings movement has declined during the period that the Government have been in office. National savings, trustee savings banks, investments in equity—all are in decline. The Chancellor appears to show no alarm at all that in the first 15 weeks of the financial year net deposits in National Savings amounted to only £2 million compared with £72 million for the same period last year. He seems to show no anxiety that investment deposits of the trustee banks are reduced to nearly half what they were during the same period last year.
  The significant feature of the debate has been that almost every speaker from the other side of the House has blamed the serious rise in the cost of living upon the economic inheritance of the Government. If I may say so, the real issue at stake and the really vital matter that has been disclosed by the measures announced by the Chancellor this week has been the constant misjudgment of the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) pointed out that we have now had 300 days of a Labour Government and that we have had a Budget for each 100 days: three Budgets during that period of time.
  If the case of the Government is that it is the economic difficulties that they inherited that have caused the inflationary difficulties, they must explain their complete misjudgment in the White Paper that they published on 26th October. In that White Paper, after all the figures and all the facts were known to the Government, they clearly stated in paragraph 7 that, in their view, there was no undue pressure on resources calling for

  581
  action. This was their categoric statement in the White Paper.
  That was followed a few weeks later by the first Budget, when the Government admitted that the White Paper of 26th October was no longer accurate and that there was need for a degree of inflationary taxation. They introduced a Budget which partly provided for the increase in pensions and to the extent of £100 million took extra taxation out of the economy. A little later we came to the 7 per cent. Bank Rate and then to the next Budget, when the Government again decided that the measures taken in their first Budget were not adequate and they had to go in for further taxation. After that, we had special controls and various hire-purchase restrictions, and yesterday we had the latest measures.
  I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not take advantage of this debate. I hope that the Minister of Labour, in his reply, will explain to the House the incredible statement made by the Chancellor only 13 days ago, when, on Third Reading of the Finance Bill, and knowing all the facts and figures concerning our economy, said:
  "There is a temptation to assume, because the effects of these measures are not immediately obvious, that we should rush into further measures which would have the effect of restraining the economy even more. This would be an unfortunate thing to do and I am resisting the temptation to do it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1965; Vol. 716, c. 911.]
  The Chancellor resisted that temptation for 13 days.
  The whole of our difficulty today is concerned with confidence in the Government. How can anybody expect to obtain confidence abroad with a Chancellor of the Exchequer who completely changes his view within 13 days—not 13 days of Tory inheritance, but a further 13 days of Labour Government—and decides that these new measures are necessary? It would have been reasonable, and the Government could have argued the case, that the measures required when they introduced their White Paper in October were needed as a result of the economic position which they had inherited, it is feasible that they could even have argued that the November Budget was in that category, but they can no longer argue that the action which they are now taking results from anything other than a complete lack of confidence in themselves.
  582
  In last year's debate, which took place almost a year ago today, the Chancellor expressed how serious he felt were the increases that were then taking place in prices upon the general situation of the incomes policy. It was interesting how he listed the various items that were increasing in price. He enjoyed himself quoting increases which had taken place in the previous months of the then Conservative Government.
  I thought that tonight the Chancellor might be interested to have a progress report to see how much better he has done in these respects than his Conservative predecessors. Last year, he bemoaned the fact that petrol had gone up ½d. a gallon. He has done much better than that; he has put it up 6d. He pointed out the horrors of the rates going up by 7·8 per cent. in one year. Whilst he has been Chancellor, they have gone up 14 per cent. He commented last year on the penny on beer and 4d. on cigarettes. He has put a penny on beer and 6d. on cigarettes. A year ago he made a witty remark about the Marie Antoinette attitude of the Tories by which a position had been reached that turkey was cheaper than beef. Such is the price of beef under the present Government that it is now nearly twice as expensive as turkey.
  Last year, the Chancellor drew attention to the importance of the basic services and the increases in their price. He claimed that the cost of electricity had gone up. There are millions of people in London who could tell him about the 11 per cent. increase in the cost of their electricity supplies since the Government have been in office.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Since the hon. Gentleman is recalling the debate of a year ago, will he tell the House what was the forecast of the deficit in the balance of payments as prophesied by the Government of that time?
  Mr. Walker: It happened to be a debate on the cost of living, and presumably the hon. Member was absent from that debate, as he has been from this one.
  Mr. Foot: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the question that I put to him?
  Mr. Walker: The balance of payments figures for the first half of 1964 were

  583
  announced on 30th September, 15 days before the General Election, and resulted in no withdrawal of election promises on that side of the House at all.
  The Government are up to the usual form of Labour Governments. During the six years when a Labour Government were last in office the average rise in the cost of living was 6·5 per cent. This year the current rate of the rise in the cost of living is 6·6 per cent. It is no wonder that that distinguished cartoonist, Mr. Cummings, has had to resurrect Mr. Rising Prices, who has now become a regular feature.
  What is the Labour Party's attitude to all this? How do hon. Gentlemen opposite defend this situation? We have heard no proposals today for what they are going to do on this topic. I saw the hon. Member for Doncaster fumbling with the latest little piece of research carried out by Labour Party headquarters at Transport House and produced in a leaflet a couple of weeks ago, no doubt encouraged by the Chancellor's speech of the 7th June. The leaflet is entitled. "Turning the Corner. An Economic Report", and the first paragraph contains this happy note from the Chancellor:
  "But I think we are turning the corner. From now on we can look forward to an improvement that will reflect on everybody."
  My word it has!
  Two pages of this leaflet are devoted to prices. One section entitled, "The Price War", contains two proposals. It says:
  "First, wasteful Government expenditure has been stopped".
  on the day of publication it was announced that Parkinson's Law was rampant in the Ministry of Technology. Its only other definite proposal for the rising cost of living is that
  "plans will be announced shortly to help house buyers."
  They were announced shortly. They were announced yesterday, and these proposals, put forward in a leaflet only ten days ago, have been abandoned by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman mutters "Postponed", but when a Government have a duration of life such as this Government have postponed means abandoned. The Labour Party
  584
  has no policy on this topic. All its policies have been essentially inflationary, and hon. Gentlemen opposite have been responsible for many of the increases that have taken place.
  The First Secretary wound up a similar debate on this subject last year. He is so associated with election promises on lower prices and lower mortgage rates that it probably makes him inappropriate to try to persuade people to comply with an incomes policy, for it was the right hon. Gentleman who was the great propounder of the 3 per cent. mortgage interest rate. It was the First Secretary who said last year that food prices were rising, but they were rising nowhere near as fast last year as they have risen this year. He complained that rates were going up due to the high Bank Rate and the failure of the Government to increase grants to local authorities. Now the interest rates are higher and the loans to local authorities will be lower. He complained that mortgages were going up. He said:
  "Everybody in every commuter area who is buying a house now finds his mortgage going up. Everyone who wants to buy a house now finds that he cannot raise the money to buy a house."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1964; Vol. 699, c. 154.]
  What prophetic words they have proved to be. The increase in mortgages then was nothing compared to what it has been since right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been in power. He ended his speech by saying that the Government had failed. The failures he mentioned in his speech were insignificant compared to the failures of this Government in nine months.
  In five minutes' time—[AN. HON. MEMBER: "You will be finished."] I want to give an opportunity to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour. In five minutes' time, there will be a party political television broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party. Its title is "Go Ahead Year". After the failure of this Government, on the cost of living, it will not be "Go ahead year" but "Get out year".
  9.27 p.m.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ray Gunter): I do not know that the debate has generated much apart from heat. Before I come to the main part of my speech, I want to correct one thing which

  585
  the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), either maliciously or in ignorance, conveyed to the House about the Royal Commission. In the course of his remarks, he said that the Government had been weak enough to give way and remove restrictive practices from the Commission's terms of reference. It would be a very bad thing for anybody to understand that that is right. The Commission understands, the trade unions understand and the employers understand that restrictive practices are fully covered by the words of the terms of reference:
  "… to consider relations between managements and employees and the rôle of trade unions and employers' associations in promoting the interests of their members and in accelerating the social and economic advance of the nation."
  Therefore, I thought that I would immediately correct any misunderstanding that restrictive practices were outside the terms of reference of the Royal Commission.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Sir K. Joseph indicated dissent.
  Mr. Gunter: The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) said that the trouble was that there is a lack of confidence in the Government. It might be a happier situation if that was simply the case. The real problem which faces this nation is that many people abroad are beginning to lose faith in the British people and their ability to adjust and adapt themselves. This is one of the disturbing factors abroad today. It is not only the Government but the fact that we have had so many crises over the past decade or so, we have been so unwilling as a nation—all sections of the nation—to get in tune with modern conditions, re-gear our industry and get away from restrictive practices, so that there is a growing feeling that perhaps we will never get round to doing the job.
  Therefore, I say to the hon. Member for Worcester that the problem, the difficulty of the nation is not simply and solely a lack of confidence in the Government: it is this growing feeling that the British people themselves are not willing to come to terms and get out of bad habits. One bad habit is living in debt. We have reached the stage in this nation when people, even to quote myself, can start talking about the underlying principles
  586
  of getting out of debt, and even a leading article in The Times can refer to it in such a condescending manner as "evangelical morality". It is as simple as the tenets on which we were brought up. We ourselves—the nation—are living in debt. It is bad and sinful and the only answer to it is to find the means of escaping from it.
  I have listened to most of the speeches made today and I have not been impressed. I do not think that anybody honestly believes that we can deal with this problem by saying that the party opposite did such a thing in September of last year or that we did a certain thing in February of this year. The problem goes much deeper.
  The O.E.C.D. Report, which has just been produced, was reported and quoted in The Times yesterday as follows:
  "On last winter's crisis the survey is in no doubt about the major trouble."
  The hon. Member for Worcester insisted that the problem could be solved by getting supply and demand into balance. He inferred that it was only since the Labour Government came into power that this matter had arisen as a problem. The Times then quoted the survey:
  "'The rapid increase in total demand was the most important'."
  and said:
  "This was the responsibility of the Conservative Government in an election year. Unfortunately, the Labour Government made the same mistake on reaching office."
  In my opinion the problems are so fundamental that it is a fat lot of good to argue who was to blame in 1951 or in 1965. For this reason I should like tonight, in my own daft way, to turn to what I believe is the real beginning and the problems which face us in this sphere. Whatever may be the arguments on either side of the House, we all come to the same conclusion in the end—that the key to success in solving these problems is better and more efficient productivity. That, in turn, depends on a properly integrated policy of prices and incomes.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) said that the prices and incomes policy was a facade. That is his opinion, after three months. I do not believe that any responsible hon. Gentleman opposite would deny that at least an incomes policy of some sort is

  587
  necessary. Whether this is the right way I do not know, but I will deal with that shortly. Meanwhile, surely we all accept that some form of prices and incomes policy is necessary.
  It was described as a facade, but whatever may be said, the Government have at least achieved one thing for the first time. It is that members of the Government and of both sides of industry have agreed on a strategy for creating a dynamic and socially just Britain. At least we can claim that the trade unions, employers and the Government have come together and have set down on a piece of paper what they know to be necessary to do this job.
  I submit—and I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree with me here—that if we look back in history we find that incomes policies of the past failed in their objectives because they were not agreed policies, because they concentrated on wages and salaries to the exclusion of other forms of income, because they did not leave room for social adjustments which justice required and, most important, they did not cover prices as well as incomes.
  We have, therefore, at least got to this point since we have been in power. There is the intention. Of course, we all have intentions to live righteous lives and most of us are sinners. I know that. Nevertheless, there is the intention. Following the declaration of intent, and with the establishment of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, the Government has worked out criteria for assessing price increases and the norm against which to assess wage claims.
  I turn from the intent, if I may so put it, to the working out of the policy. Some hon. Members opposite have consistently tried to show that this agreed policy—and I emphasise the word agreed—has been and is ineffective. I will not try to claim for one moment any glorious successes in the first three months. Hon. Members opposite have argued, in many ways justifiably, that prices have continued to rise and that wage and salary increases have continued well above the norm. It is true that there have been rises in prices. Nobody can deny it; the facts and the statistics are there. And it cannot be denied that some of these rises are partly
  588
  due to Government action; they are partly due to measures to reduce the pressure of demand in the economy, and partly due to increases in money incomes which have exceeded the rise in productivity. In considering price trends, it is necessary to remember that there is always some time lag before changes in costs are fully reflected in price changes. As to labour costs, it is true that many settlements have exceeded the norm and also that the rate of increase in average earnings has continued to be high. I will speak more of this in a moment.
  But I think that it would be wrong to assume, after this short period, that this policy is entirely ineffective. It has been fully in operation for only three months, and it would have been very foolish, I think, to expect a solution of the problem of inflation in such a short time when this country and others, as we all know, have been grappling with it for many years past. This policy requires changes in traditional habits and attitudes, and this cannot be achieved overnight, certainly not in this country. It is therefore, in my view, premature to judge such a policy on the experience of three months. In addition, the high level of demand and acute shortage of manpower, the current move towards the 40-hour week and the forward commitments on wages and salaries already entered into have all been obstacles in making this policy immediately effective.
  It is quite clear, however, that prices and money incomes have recently been rising much too fast for the health and strength of the economy. It is impossible to show what prices and incomes increases there would have been had there been no agreed policy. We do not know. We have developed and are still trying to develop further a climate of opinion in this country in which there is a wider understanding and recognition than ever before of the need not only to increase output but also to relate incomes with output if prices are not to be continually forced up.
  I am satisfied that in these new circumstances considerations of the national interest as well as of individual interest enter into particular decisions affecting prices and incomes, and future decisions will without doubt be influenced by the reports of the National Board for

  589
  Prices and Incomes, which will build up a body of case law.
  We must, however, ensure that all individual decisions fully reflect the general considerations which have been agreed. We have said—and I repeat it—that the voluntary method will be given every chance before we try other methods. I believe, and the Government believe, despite the disappointments of the first twelve weeks, that the voluntary system can work and will work. If it does not work, then there will inevitably be some unpleasant alternatives. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are they?"] The unpleasant alternatives will have to be that any Government will have to face statutory action to control it. That is unpleasant action within a free society.
  Sir C. Osborne: Since the voluntary system, which I subscribe to and we all subscribe to, failed under Sir Stafford Cripps in 1947–49 and is failing now, why does the right hon. Gentleman not say straight to the country that there will have to be a package deal imposing a limitation on all incomes and prices affecting everybody?
  Mr. Gunter: I am trying to argue that so far we are not satisfied that this voluntary and agreed system has failed. What I said, and what I emphasise, is that it does not matter what Government are in power if the position goes on and we get further into debt we suffer the consequences of the debt and the Government have to do something about it.
  Sir C. Osborne: Do it now.
  Mr. Gunter: It is no good the hon. Member saying, "Do it now" for we have to take all parts of the nation with us. In a free society this is one of the most difficult problems we have to deal with. There have been critics of the policy throughout this debate. It has been said by one of the leading members of the party opposite, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that it is impossible to have a prices and incomes policy and that to talk of it as if it were possible is dangerous nonsense. We cannot accept that. We do not believe that that is the way to approach our problems. It is certainly necessary to increase competition, as the Government have shown by introducing new legislation on monopolies,
  590
  but, even with strengthened legislation, competition is likely to remain far from perfect.
  Therefore, our submission to the House is that competition and market forces cannot be relied upon alone to achieve price stability unless drastic deflation is accepted. I followed the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East very closely indeed and there appeared to be a suggestion in his mind that in the end a larger measure of unemployment was inescapable. I do not know, but that was the impression, and of course many people honestly believe it.
  Sir K. Joseph: I thought I was following the Chancellor of the Exchequer in interpreting the Government's policy on the redeployment of labour towards the exporting industries. In order to achieve that it is necessary to get supply and demand in the right balance. That is all I was arguing.
  Mr. Thomas Steele: The right hon. Member never said how it can be done.
  Mr. Gunter: I turn to what the right hon. Member said and here I am in agreement. It is necessary to control the general pressure of demand, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made clear. The question is the degree to which it is considered necessary to restrain demand and the level of employment. Naturally, rises in costs and prices can be restrained, obviously, with a sufficiently drastic cut in consumption and a steep rise in unemployment. Let us remember that rises in unemployment tend to fall particularly heavily on those areas where unemployment is already above the average. What the critics of the policy have never done is to admit in effect that their policies would involve unemployment.
  I say on behalf of the Government that we are determined as far as lies within our power to avoid such waste of our national resources and the hardship and suffering it would create, which this Government believe to be unnecessary. They are opposed to a free-for-all society in which the primary concern of everyone is to better his position at the expense of the whole community and the country's prospects of securing faster growth in real terms. A free-for-all society inevitably means that the strong should flourish

  591
  at the expense of the weaker members and that the Government are not prepared to accept. Therefore, I say a few words on the aims of the prices policy. The aim of the prices policy is to secure stability in the general price level. This does not mean that all individual prices can or should be kept stable. It has been estimated that about 3 million price changes a year take place—increases and decreases. A stable price level requires fewer increases and more reductions than have been seen in recent years. This, in turn, requires not only greater stability in the level of wage costs, but also greater efficiency on the part of management and more determined efforts to absorb cost increases.
  Very often hon. Members opposite overlook the fact that men are blamed when a wage claim is granted and prices automatically rise. The public blames the trade unionists. Very often there is not the slightest need to increase the prices to the extent to which they are increased, in the light of the wage award. It is not possible to set out detailed rules to cover the circumstances in which all individual price changes can be made. The application of the general criteria which have been set out in the White Paper must be left to the individual enterprise.
  "What about the nationalised industries?", the Government were asked in one interjection. This is always a sensitive spot. The nationalised industries are expected to apply the same criteria as enterprises in the private sector, while taking account of their financial and social obligations. The Government have already made clear the two sets of considerations which underlie the pricing decisions in the public sector. On the one hand, it is important, if economic expansion is to be secured and a possible misallocation of scarce resources avoided, that the nationalised industries should earn a reasonable rate of return on the capital which they employ. Much importance is therefore attached to the achievement of financial targets agreed between individual nationalised undertakings and the Government.
  On the other hand, it is equally important that the prices and charges of those undertakings should be increased only where this is justified. The
  592
  nationalised industries are expected to make every effort to absorb increases in costs by increased efficiency, as they must if they are to remain competitive. Where a price increase cannot be avoided in the public sector, the Government regard it as important that its justification should be capable of being publicly demonstrated. In some cases these charges are subject to statutory forms of control or to examination by independent consultative bodies set up by statute, whose findings take into account views expressed by the consumers, and whose reports are published.
  The Government do not rule out the possibility of reference of price increases in the nationalised industries to the National Board for Prices and Incomes if this seems appropriate. Indeed, they have already referred increases in London electricity charges to the Board. But such cases are not likely to be frequent—and I am sure that this would be the case whichever party is in power—as the Government are in close touch with the various nationalised industries and have arranged to discuss with them the justification for particular price increases and as many of the decisions have had to be submitted to the independent consultative bodies.
  Mr. Lubbock: The increases imposed by the London Electricity Board have been referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, but those imposed by the South-Eastern Electricity Board have not. The reason given in the House for this was that the body which purports to represent the consumer has not made any representations to the First Secretary asking him to do this. Could we have some other form of public demonstration, which the Minister has said we should have, justifying this large increase amounting to 13·3 per cent., which is much larger than the increase imposed by the London Electricity Board?
  Mr. Gunter: I do not quite know the answer to that. I will have a look at it. [Laughter.] I do not know why the increase imposed by the South-Eastern Electricity Board has not been referred to the Board. I repeat that I do not know. What is the good of pretending you know if you do not know?
  To turn to the productivity side, when all is said and done we must recognise

  593
  that we cannot hold costs and prices down unless we increase our output from the limited resources available to us. The most important of these resources, and the one for which, as Minister of Labour, I am primarily responsible, is manpower. If we want to expand national production and improve our standard of living in years to come we shall, if we go on in our present ways, undoubtedly run into a continuing manpower shortage which will largely frustrate our efforts.
  This is what is referred to sometimes as the manpower gap—rather misleadingly because this seems to suggest that the gap can be filled only by additional manpower. This is not so. The way we should and must fill it is by more efficient and more productive use of our existing manpower resources. This means that we must give up many of our traditional ways of working and abandon restrictive practices which impede the growth of productivity. Before anyone cheers from that side of the House or this, let me say that there are as many restrictive practices on this side as on that side and therefore I refer to the totality of restrictive practices. This is not a matter for the trade unions only. It is something which must be tackled by management as well as the trade unions and, in co-operation with the trade unions, at the national level, at the industry level and, most important, at the level of the individual firm.
  I should like to say something about restrictive practices which have aroused so much fury but which are so little understood. Trade union restrictive practices are not normally used for the deliberate purpose of restricting output. The men are not daft enough for that, because the bigger the output the bigger the pay. The motive behind them is usually the worker's desire to safeguard his relative status, his conditions of work, and, perhaps most important, his security of employment. These are legitimate matters. It is only when they are carried to unreasonable lengths or based on misconceptions that they can lead to practices which are indefensible.
  We must recognise, however, and I ask all my colleagues in the trade union world to recognise it, that practices which were legitimate a generation ago are often indefensible today. The whole employment picture is entirely different. The
  594
  measures which the Government are now urgently bringing forward to provide greater economic security for workers, such as the Redundancy Payments Bill, and the plans for wage-related unemployment benefits, will provide protection that has never been available on so wide a scale before to those who have to change their jobs because of economic and technological developments. It is vital that both employers and trade unions alike should grasp this new opportunity they have of introducing new methods of efficient working and redeploying our labour force to its best advantage.
  I emphasise that phrase "to its best advantage". It is to the advantage of all of us that our manpower resources, and that means the work of every one of us, should be used in the most effective way. One of the difficulties which we always find is to explain that the rise in the cost of living, or the increase in the retail price index figure, is the responsibility of everybody. People sometimes think that the rise in the price of potatoes, for example, is because something has happened—wages have gone up or there has been bad weather and anyhow it is the farmer's responsibility. They never stop to think that sometimes prices have gone up because of restrictive practices in the transport industry.
  Mr. Peter Walker: The time is short and we have been promised a statement about public service pensions.
  Mr. Gunter: On the question of public service pensions, there has been a lot of talk of pledges and counter-pledges. That is one of the curses of general elections. We all get confused [Interruption.]—but the real confusion, of course, is in the mind of the hon. Member for Worcester because there is nothing at all in the Labour Party manifesto about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Where is it? The Motion refers to the question of public service pensions. Under the previous Government, three years and five months were allowed to go past between the operative date of the Pensions Increase Act, 1959, and 1st January, 1963, when the 1962 Act came into effect. Before that, three years and four months elapsed between the operative dates of the 1956 and 1959 Acts.
  Mr. Peter Walker rose—
  Mr. Gunter: Let me finish, boys. You have been very nice to me.
  So far, it is only two years and seven months since the 1962 Act. Now, I look with trembling at the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) when I say that the Government have looked very carefully at this matter and, as has been known, it has been part of a very wide review. The hon. Gentleman did not like that word from the President of the Board of Trade, but it has, in fact, been the subject of a wide review. But would the House, in the light of this debate, whatever has been said, expect me to give any pledges, as have been asked for, or any guarantees that we should spend £100 million—I think that sum was mentioned—for this purpose now? I cannot give any guarantee in this debate. I point out, however, that a lot of these people have benefited from the increases which we gave almost immediately in the National Insurance pension. The great majority of public service pensioners have benefited from these. I do not, therefore, wish to say any more about it, and I would not anticipate—
  Sir K. Joseph rose—
  Mr. Gunter: Let me finish. I was about to say that I would not anticipate the Queen's Speech.
  Mr. Turton: The question is not when a new Pensions (Increase) Bill will be brought in but whether the present Government stand by the Prime Minister's pledge that he supports parity for public service pensioners.
  Mr. Gunter: I understand that such a pledge was never given in terms of parity. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] In fact, I have turned up the guidance which was given
  to Labour candidates at the General Election. [Interruption.] This is what is important, and it is very clear in that document that it was said that for financial reasons, among others, parity could not be guaranteed, but we were quite prepared to look at the whole situation. I repeat, therefore, that I do not wish to enter into the challenge here, and I am sure that hon. Members will have a full opportunity of discussing the question on the Queen's Speech.
  Mr. Paget: At the Dispatch Box, on behalf of the party, I gave a pledge, with full authority, that parity would be accepted for Service pensioners. Will my right hon. Friend tell me—not for immediate implementation but as a matter of principle—whether that pledge which I gave on behalf of the party is adhered to or not?
  Mr. Gunter: I am very sorry to be in conflict with my hon. and learned Friend. [Hon. Members: "Cannot hear."] I am sorry. I was talking to my hon. and learned Friend in reply to what he had said. I was saying that there seems to be some conflict of opinion as to whether the pledge, or alleged pledge, was given with full authority.
  May I conclude the debate in this way? I think that it is rather a pity that, on an issue of this character, a few of the hon. Members who have spoken have not directed their real attention to the fundamental problems which underlie this country at the present time. I invite the House to support the Amendment.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 298.

  Division No. 264.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  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

  Allason, 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, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Blaker, Peter

  Buck, Antony

  Barlow, Sir John

  Bossom, Hn. Clive

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Batsford, Brian

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Box, Donald

  Buxton, Ronald

  Campbell, Gordon

  Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Peel, John

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hooson, H. E.

  Percival, Ian

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hopkins, Alan

  Peyton, John

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Hordern, Peter

  Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth

  Chataway, Christopher

  Hornby, Richard

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

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

  Pounder, Rafton

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Cole, Norman

  Hunt, John (Bromley)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Cooke, Robert

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pym, Francis

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Cordle, John

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Corfield, F. V.

  Jennings, J. C.

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Costain, A. P.

  Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)

  Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Crawley, Aidan

  Jopling, Michael

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Curran, Charles

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)

  Roots, William

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Royle, Anthony

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Dance, James

  Kimball, Marcus

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kirk, Peter

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Dean, Paul

  Kitson, Timothy

  Sharples, Richard

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Shepherd, William

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Lambton, Viscount

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Doughty, Charles

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

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

  Drayson, G. B.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Eden, Sir John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Speir, Sir Rupert

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

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

  Stainton, Keith

  Emery, Peter

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Stanley, Hn. Richard

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Longbottom, Charles

  Stodart, Anthony

  Farr, John

  Longden, Gilbert

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Fell, Anthony

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lubbock, Eric

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Talbot, John E.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Foster, Sir John

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

  Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

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

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Teeling, Sir William

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  McMaster, Stanley

  Temple, John M.

  Gammans, Lady

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Gardner, Edward

  Maddan, Martin (Hove)

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maginnis, John E.

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)

  Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

  Maitland, Sir John

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Marten, Neil

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Mathew, Robert

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Maude, Angus

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mawby, Ray

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Gower, Raymond

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

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Grant, Anthony

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Walder, David (High Peak)

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Grieve, Percy

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mitchell, David

  Wall, Patrick

  Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)

  Monro, Hector

  Walters, Dennis

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  More, Jasper

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Webster, David

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)

  Murton, Oscar

  Whitelaw, William

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Neave, Airey

  Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Wise, A. R.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Hawkins, Paul

  Onslow, Cranley

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hay, John

  Orr, Cast. L. P. S.

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Hendry, Forbes

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Wylie, N. R.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

  Page, R. Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. Martin McLaren and

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Mr. Ian MacArthur.

  598

  599

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Ford, Ben

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Albu, Austen

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)

  Alldritt, Walter

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McLeavy, Frank

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Garrett, W. E.

  MacMillan, Malcolm

  Atkinson, Norman

  Garrow, A.

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Ginsburg, David

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Barnett, Joel

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

  Baxter, William

  Gregory, Arnold

  Mapp, Charles

  Beaney, Alan

  Grey, Charles

  Marsh, Richard

  Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mason, Roy

  Bence, Cyril

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Maxwell, Robert

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Mellish, Robert

  Binns, John

  Hale, Leslie

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Millan, Bruce

  Blackburn, F.

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Boardman, H.

  Hannan, William

  Molloy, William

  Boston, Terence

  Harper, Joseph

  Monslow, Walter

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

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

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

  Boyden, James

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Hazen, Bert

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Sheffield Pk)

  Bradley, Tom

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Murray, Albert

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Neal, Harold

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Newens, Stan

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

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

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)

  Holman, Percy

  Oakes, Gordon

  Buchanan, Richard

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Ogden, Eric

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

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

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Carmichael, Neil

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Orme, Stanley

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Howie, W.

  Oswald, Thomas

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hoy, James

  Owen, Will

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Padley, Walter

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank

  Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)

  Cronin, John

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Parker, John

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Pavitt, Laurence

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

  Jackson, Colin

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pentland, Norman

  Darling, George

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

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

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Prentice, R. E.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Probert, Arthur

  de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Delargy, Hugh

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Randall, Harry

  Dell, Edmund

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Redhead, Edward

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Dodds, Norman

  Kelley, Richard

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Doig, Peter

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Richard, Ivor

  Donnelly, Desmond

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

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Driberg, Tom

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

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lawson, George

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Leadbitter, Ted

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

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Ledger, Ron

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Rose, Paul B.

  English, Michael

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Ennals, David

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Rowland, Christopher

  Ensor, David

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Shore, Peter (Stepney)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lipton, Marcus

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

  Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Silkin, John (Deptford)

  Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McBride, Neil

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McCann, J.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Floud, Bernard

  MacColl, James

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Foley, Maurice

  MacDermot, Niall

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  McGuire, Michael

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  McInnes, James

  Small, William

  600

  601

  Snow, Julian

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Solomons, Henry

  Thornton, Ernest

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank

  Tinn, James

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Tomney, Frank

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Urwin, T. W.

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Stonehouse, John

  Varley, Eric G.

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Stones, William

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

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

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

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

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Wallace, George

  Woof, Robert

  Swain, Thomas

  Watkins, Tudor

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Swingler, Stephen

  Weitzman, David

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Symonds, J. B.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Taverne, Dick

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Whitlock, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

  Mr. Sydney Irving and

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Mr. George Rogers.

  Question put, That the proposed words be there added:—
  The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 298.

  Division No. 265.]

  AYES

  [10.15 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Albu, Austen

  Dodds, Norman

  Howie, W.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Doig, Peter

  Hoy, James

  Alldritt, Walter

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Driberg, Tom

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Dunn, James A.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)

  Barnett, Joel

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Baxter, William

  English, Michael

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Beaney, Alan

  Ennals, David

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

  Ensor, David

  Jackson, Colin

  Bence, Cyril

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Binns, John

  Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)

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

  Bishop, E. S,

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Blackburn, F.

  Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, s.)

  Boardman, H.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

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

  Boston, Terence

  Floud, Bernard

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Foley, Maurice

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

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

  Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Boyden, James

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Ford, Ben

  Kelley, Richard

  Bradley, Tom

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Freeson, Reginald

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

  Broughton, Dr. A. D, D.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

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

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Lawson, George

  Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

  Garrow, A.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)

  Ginsburg, David

  Ledger, Ron

  Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Gregory, Arnold

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Grey, Charles

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Coleman, Donald

  Hale, Leslie

  Loughlin, Charles

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  McBride, Neil

  Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank

  Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)

  McCann, J.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hannan, William

  MacColl, James

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Harper, Joseph

  MacDermot, Niall

  Cronin, John

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  McGuire, Michael

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  McInnes, James

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.

  Hattersley, Roy

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Hazell, Bert

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)

  Darling, George

  Heffer, Eric S.

  McLeavy, Frank

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  MacMillan, Malcolm

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

  Holman, Percy

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

  Delargy, Hugh

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mapp, Charles

  Dell, Edmund

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Marsh, Richard

  Dempsey, James

  Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

  Mason, Roy

  Maxwell, Robert

  Probert, Arthur

  Swingler, Stephen

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Symonds, J. B.

  Mellish, Robert

  Randall, Harry

  Taverne, Dick

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Redhead, Edward

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Millan, Bruce

  Rees, Merlyn

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Molloy, William

  Richard, Ivor

  Thornton, Ernest

  Monslow, Walter

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Tinn, James

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Tomney, Frank

  Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

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

  Urwin, T. W.

  Mulley, Rt. Mn. Frederick (Sheffield Pk)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Murray, Albert

  Rose, Paul B.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Neal, Harold

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Newens, Stan

  Rowland, Christopher

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Wallace, George

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

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Watkins, Tudor

  Norwood, Christopher

  Shore, Peter (Stepney)

  Weitzman, David

  Oakes, Gordon

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

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Ogden, Eric

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  O'Malley, Brian

  Silkin, John (Deptford)

  Whitlock, William

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

  Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)

  Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

  Orbach, Maurice

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Orme, Stanley

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Oswald, Thomas

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Owen, Will

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Padley, Walter

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Page, Derek {King's Lynn)

  Small, William

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Snow, Julian

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Solomons, Henry

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Parker, John

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Woof, Robert

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Stonehouse, John

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Stones, William

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Pentland, Norman

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

  Zilliacus, K.

  Perry, Ernest G.

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

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Prentice, R. E.

  Swain, Thomas

  Mr. Sydney Irving and

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Mr. George Rogers.

  NOES

  Agnew, Commander Sir Peter

  Bryan, Paul

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Eden, Sir John

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Buck, Antony

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

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

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Emery, Peter

  Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.

  Buxton, Ronald

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Astor, John

  Campbell, Gordon

  Eyre, Reginald

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Carlisle, Mark

  Farr, John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Fell, Anthony

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Fisher, Nigel

  Balniel, Lord

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Chataway, Christopher

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Foster, Sir John

  Batsford, Brian

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

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

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Bell, Ronald

  Cole, Norman

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Cooke, Robert

  Gammans, Lady

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Gardner, Edward

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Cordle, John

  Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

  Bessell, Peter

  Corfield, F. V.

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

  Biffen, John

  Costain, A. P.

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Biggs- Davison, John

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Bingham, R. M.

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Crawley, Aidan

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Goodhart, Philip

  Blaker, Peter

  Crowder, F. P.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Bossom, Hn. Clive

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Gower, Raymond

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Curran, Charles

  Grant, Anthony

  Box, Donald

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Dance, James

  Grieve, Percy

  Braine, Bernard

  Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Brewis, John

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Dean, Paul

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir W alter

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Gurden, Harold

  Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Doughty, Charles

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

  604

  605

  Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Royle, Anthony

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  McMaster, Stanley

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Maddan, Martin (Hove)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Hastings, Stephen

  Maginnis, John E,

  Sharples, Richard

  Hawkins, Paul

  Maitland, Sir John

  Shepherd, William

  Hay, John

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Marten, Neil

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

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Mathew, Robert

  Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John

  Hendry, Forbes

  Maude, Angus

  Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Hiley, Joseph

  Mawby, Ray

  Speir, Sir Rupert

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

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Stainton, Keith

  Hirst, Geoffrey

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

  Stanley, Hn. Richard

  Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Stodart, Anthony

  Hooson, H. E.

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Hopkins, Alan

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Hordern, Peter

  Mitchell, David

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Hornby, Richard

  Monro, Hector

  Talbot, John E.

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.

  More, Jasper

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

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

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

  Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Hunt, John (Bromley)

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Teeling, Sir William

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Murton, Oscar

  Temple, John M.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Neave, Airey

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Jennings, J, C.

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Thorneycroft, Rt, Hn. Peter

  Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)

  Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Jopling, Michael

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)

  Page, R. Graham (Crosby)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Walder, David (High Peak)

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Peel, John

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Percival, Ian

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hn. Sir Derek

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Peyton, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Kirk, Peter

  Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth

  Walters, Dennis

  Kitson, Timothy

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Lambton, Viscount

  Pounder, Rafton

  Webster, David

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Whitelaw, William

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Pym, Francis

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

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

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Wise, A. R.

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Longbottom, Charles

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Longden, Gilbert

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Wylie, N. R.

  Lubbock, Eric

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Mr. Martin McLaren and

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

  Roots, William

  Mr. Ian MacArthur.

  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House approves the Government's policies which have been directed towards
  606
  bringing to an end the steady rise in the cost of living which had gone on under the previous administration; and in particular welcomes the special and urgent provisions which have been made to meet the claims of those in greatest need".

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on Government Bills may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Bowden.]

  INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND [MONEY]
  Resolution reported.
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable effect to be given to proposed increases in the quotas of the International Monetary Fund, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of the sums required for the purpose
  608
  of paying, in connection with proposed increases, any subscriptions to the International Monetary Fund;

  (b) the borrowing in any manner authorised under the National Loans Act 1939 and payment into the Exchequer of any money needed for providing any sums to be so paid or for replacing any sums so paid.

  Resolution agreed to.

  INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (PACKAGED GOODS)
  10.33 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I beg to move,
  That the Weights and Measures (Exemption) Order, 1965, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.
  I ask for approval of this Order with some reluctance. The need for it arises from what I can only describe as a defect in the Weights and Measures Act, 1963, which was not foreseen by any of us, neither the then Government nor those hon. Members who, like myself, took part in the Committee proceedings. If the House does not approve the Order, although I am sure that it will, a large number of shopkeepers will be in serious difficulties next week. They will almost certainly commit offences under the Act which may render them liable to prosecution proceedings. If some of my hon. Friends are interested in this, I should think that nearly every co-operative society faces this somewhat perilous prospect.
  The defect to which I refer is in the timing of the appropriate Regulations which carry out the terms of the Act. These Regulations were made a year ago and come into operation on 31st July, Saturday of this week. From then on all the goods, mainly toilet preparations, soaps, detergents, paints, and so on, that are covered by this Order will have to be marked with a net weight or a net measure of the contents of the container.
  As the present Regulations are framed, this requirement to mark the net weight or the net measure on the container applies both to manufactures and to retailers, and this means that manufactures are not required by the law to mark their products until the end of this week, although many firms have anticipated the deadline and have been marking net weights on their containers for some months past.
  I think I should explain, in passing, that practically all these goods are being marked with net weights or net measures for the first time—the Regulations apply to these goods for the first time—so that there is in past experience of marking to draw on in this sphere. Because of this innovation, many manufacturers have been sticking to the strict letter of the
  610
  Regulations and, as far as I know, some of them have been supplying unmarked goods to buyers right up to last week, so that in an extreme case a shopkeeper may receive supplies of unmarked goods on Friday of this week, still within the terms of the Regulations, and if he sells them next Monday, still unmarked, he will break the law.
  This situation was not foreseen during the passage of the Bill, nor indeed during the examination of the Regulations, and naturally enough the shopkeepers who face these difficulties, and perhaps prosecution, through no fault of their own, made representations to the Board of Trade to see whether we could help them out of their difficulties. If we had foreseen what has happened, I feel sure that we would have amended the Bill before it got on to the Statute Book to provide two dates foe the operation of the marking Regulations, an appropriate date for the manufacturers, and then a somewhat later date giving a few months grace to shopkeepers so that they could clear unmarked stocks which they obtained before the manufacturers' marking Order became operative.
  This Order somewhat belatedly provides for this period of grace for shopkeepers, and for the reasons that I have explained I am sure that it will be approved by the House, but in view of some, if I may say so not quite well informed, criticisms of this Order which have appeared in some quarters, I should like to explain briefly why the Order is presented almost at the twelfth hour, and what its effect will be for the shopkeeper's customers.
  First, on the question of timing, when representations were made by some trade associations to the previous Administration about a year ago, I think that there was then considerable doubt about whether the Act allowed what I might call anticipatory amendments to regulations that had not come into operation and it was decided to take no action for the time being because no one knew just how serious the situation might become for the retailers. I think that that decision was right, and indeed I took the same line on somewhat similar representations that were made to me some months ago, but it is now clear that many shopkeepers—perhaps thousands of them—will have unmarked goods in the range

  611
  of Schedule 7 of the Act on their shelves next Monday, and something has to be done about their difficulties.
  Moreover, we have found that some trade associations have misinterpreted the original Regulations and have wrongly advised their members that they already have a year's grace, up to July 1966, in which to clear their unmarked stocks. This arises from misunderstanding paragraph 1(2) of the original Regulations. We have had to do something, and we have found that the way out of the legal difficulty is to amend the Regulations as soon as they come into operation, that is on Saturday morning when, if the House approves, I shall sign this Order.
  I now turn to the consumer's angle on this. We have informed the Consumer Council on these issues and asked for its views. I know that the Council have considered different suggestions for solving the shopkeepers' problems, but it has reluctantly accepted that postponement of the marking date for shopkeepers is the only possible course which we can adopt. Therefore, the Council approves—but with real reluctance and regret—the action which we are taking in asking the House to approve the Order.
  Manufacturers, of course, will have to mark the net weights and net measures on the containers of their products from Saturday, 31st July. They get no relief by this Order. A number of manufacturers have been marking their products for some months, and these manufacturers, I think, have a real sense of being unfairly treated by the Order. There is a wide range of properly marked goods in the shops already and, from Monday onwards, all new supplies to shops direct from manufacturers will have to be properly marked.
  In a few months' time, all these goods on sale to the public will be marked with their net weights or net measures. It will depend on how quickly the shopkeepers can sell the unmarked goods which will have been supplied to them by the end of this week. As the Order gives a year's grace—the Act does not easily provide for a shorter period—it is confidently expected that the vast majority of shops and stores will have
  612
  cleared their unmarked stocks long before the Order expires.
  10.42 p.m.
  Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: I have listened with great interest to the explanation by the Minister of State of the necessity for the Order. Complaints have been made to me that it may not be possible for the shopkeepers concerned to guarantee to get rid of their stocks of these unmarked goods by the date mentioned in the Order, 31st July, 1966. Some of the goods which they will have to dispose of within this period are not goods which are necessarily sold quickly. I am thinking, in particular, of soap, which is very often kept in a small shop for a protracted period. If it is a large quantity of soap, it cannot be easily shifted.
  I should like the Minister of State to tell me whether he is absolutely satisfied by the trade associations that this period is adequate. It would not have been difficult to provide that any goods which had been dispatched from the factory by 31st July, 1965, which had been pre-packed, could be sold after almost any period, provided that it is clearly seen that they have no net marks on them. It does not matter whether they are sold before the 31st July, 1966 or 1976. They are old stock.
  I see no justification for having any limiting date by which the goods must be sold. Long before 31st July, 1966, people will get used to seeing marked on packs the net weight or measure of the article which is being sold. I cannot see the need for a limit at all. It would be adequate for any article dispatched from the factory before 31st July, 1965, to be disposed of at any time. No one will seriously suggest, I hope, that if this concession were given the manufacturers would take the risk of sending out prepacked goods without the correct figures on them. I am certain that no reputable manufacturer would do that. The fact that some goods are "sculling around" without the net weights marked on them is not relevant.
  I cannot see the justification for the limit mentioned in the Order. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give further consideration to this matter with the object of amending the Order so that

  613
  people may sell these goods at any period. I hope—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot propose an Amendment at this stage. He can only argue that the Order ought to be withdrawn so that a new Order may come forward to meet the point he has made.
  Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: I apologise for not putting my point more clearly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not suggesting, when I used the word "amending", that the Order before us should be amended. I was suggesting that it be withdrawn, then amended and brought before the House in its amended form. I appreciate that we are unable to amend this Statutory Instrument so that the limiting date is not mentioned.
  10.47 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: If the proposition of the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir Rolf Dudley Williams) were accepted, the fullest implementation of the implications of the Measure would be delayed for even longer than the period suggested by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
  Like some of my hon. Friends who are in that group which is representative of not only the Labour Party but also of the Co-operative Movement, I have given careful consideration to the Order. The Act was, in the view of my hon. Friends, a step forward in consumer protection, even though it did not go as far as some of us would have liked. Schedule 7 of the 1963 Act provides that a very wide range of goods must bear an indication of the quantity and must be adequately labelled. To indicate the scale of the goods involved in that wide range, it is well to remember that the Schedule covers lubricants, fertilisers, perfumery, toilet preparations, soap, ribbon, tape, sewing thread, pet foods, varnish, enamel, paint, detergents, polishes, cigarettes, cigars, antifreeze and postal stationery.
  The inadequate labelling of pre-packed goods has resulted in the housewife, from the point of view of consumer protection, having been in a weak position for a long time. Many manufacturers and retailers adopted good labelling practices, even before the passage of the 1963 Act.
  614
  No hon. Member will deny, as the Minister of State pointed out, that shopkeepers with stocks of inadequately labelled goods on their shelves and in their storerooms will be inconvenienced if the Order is not carried. Indeed, if retailers are carrying such inadequately labelled stocks in such large quantities now, two years after the Act was passed, we should look carefully at why this position exists.
  I suggest that the former Government, during their period of office and after the Act was passed, manufacturers and retailers—and, to a certain extent, the present Government—have been dilatory and apathetic in effectively carrying out this piece of legislation. After all, the Act received the Royal Assent on 31st July, 1963, although it did not lay down the actual manner in which goods had to be marked. That is one argument in favour of the manufacturers' and retailers' case for delaying this matter the fact that it took another year before the Weights and Measures (Marking) Regulations, 1964, were laid before Parliament, on 28th July, 1964.
  My hon. Friend may say that it is not directly his responsibility, but perhaps hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite may explain why it took a whole year before the Regulations made under the Act could be carried out and why after a year's delay from July 1964 there were further representations from manufacturers, as suggested in recent letters to hon. Members from the Consumers' Association, but principally from the distributors and notably from the Multiple Shops Federation, who claimed that the situation was anomalous and would result in hardship to some retailers. We need further clarification as to what exactly was the nature of the anomalies.
  So far as I am aware, the co-operative societies have made no formal representations pleading for delay of one year in the full implementation of the Act. From long experience of the movement, I know that the 13 million consumer members of the co-operative societies will be considerably inconvenienced as housewives and shoppers by having inadequately labelled goods on sale in our shops during the next year, which will be the case if this Order is carried this evening. After a further year of consultations and a year before the Regulations came out, we are to delay for

  615
  another year, so full implementation will take place three years after the passing of the Act.
  We have heard tonight that goods may still be leaving warehouses inadequately labelled, two years after the Act was passed. I should like to know whether or not the alleged anomalies under the Act will be removed during the coming year and how much further delay there will be. If further representations, however and legitimate they may be, are made on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Exeter, and are given further consideration by the Board of Trade, possibilities of further delay are quite likely. It is true that, as my hon. Friend said, the Consumers' Council has made expressions of view on this problem, but he did not draw attention to the fact that the Council did not only refer to some difficulties involved for retailers but specifically regretted that the Board of Trade had not put enough pressure on the trades concerned to be ready to implement the Act on time.
  One factor to which the Consumer Council drew attention was that the Board itself took a considerable time to bring out draft Regulations after the Act had been passed, thus cutting down the time which manufacturers had to get new labels on their goods. Did the Board of Trade publish notices concerning this matter in the trade Press? If so, where and on what scale? It is extremely important that the Board should make clear exactly what will be the position after the end of this month, because then both marked and unmarked goods will be in the shops. Some retailers may complain that they have a grievance. If the Order had not been brought in this evening retailers and manufacturers who are more conscientious in this matter may feel that they have a grievance because they have carried out the provisions of the Act and get no benefit, but may even be at a disadvantage.
  Mr. John Hall: I am rather interested in the remark about a sense of grievance. I am not sure why a manufacturer or retailer should feel a sense of grievance for doing something which it is obviously right to do.
  Mr. Rhodes: Some may feel that if they are dilatory in adopting the Regulations
  616
  they may get away with it, whereas those with a deep sense of consumer protection will feel that they have been penalised in a negative sense by acting in this way.
  My last point is that this differentiation between goods marked and unmarked is, according to the Consumer Council, a serious matter, particularly in relation to cosmetics. I should like my hon. Friend to comment on this. We suffer a great deal from what I have called on previous occasions exploitation and misleading of consumers. Consumers are in need of protection. The Act would give them a large measure of that protection, but I believe that the present difficulties are not entirely the responsibility—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I warned the hon. Gentleman before that he must not get outside the Regulations. All the rest may be very interesting, but it has nothing to do with what is before us.
  Mr. Rhodes: I appreciate your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The point which I was about to make was that I appreciate that the difficulties in carrying out the Act, which have led to bringing forward this Order, are not entirely the present Government's responsibility. They are largely the result of the delaying period of one year before the Regulations were issued under the Act, but there have been nine months during which there could have been an acceleration in carrying out the processes of the Act. Whilst I feel that at the moment, the situation being what it is, the Order must be approved tonight, we must give approval with considerable regret.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
  House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
  Mr. Rhodes: I was in the middle of my concluding remarks. I was about to say that many consumer organisations feel very much let down in that the Order has become necessary. Whilst I make my remarks not by way of any criticism of my hon. Friend, who I know has this subject dearly at heart, I emphasise that it is with regret that we must accept the Order.
  10.58 p.m.
  Mr. David Price: I am glad that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes), who was not with us when we put the Act on the Statute Book, at least agrees with its main purpose. I think that I am the only Member present who was a signatory of the Act, although the present Minister of State. Board of Trade, played a considerable part in its passage through the House. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East is right in saying that there is a basic defect in the Act which makes the Order necessary. The particular problem was in my mind at the time of anticipating the delay between an Order being made compulsory on a manufacture and the time which the goods would take to go through the trade before they reached the shops.
  I visualised that the time given to the manufacturer at the point when it was then compulsory for him to mark the goods—otherwise he would be committing an offence—was sufficiently in advance for him to be able to get his stocks into the trade through the wholesalers and retailers. Certain products named in the Schedule might be moved slowly by the small wholesaler or small retailer, and individual retailers might have found themselves with a certain residual stock left at a point where it became an offence to sell goods which were not marked with the net weight. But this would not mean that they had to destroy their stocks and accept a complete loss. At the worst, they would have to get the stuff out, measure or weigh it, and put on a sticky label on showing the net weight, which is rather different from having one's whole stock, so to speak, condemned.
  Therefore, even if the Order had not been brought in, it would not have been quite so oppressive a state of affairs as, I suspect, representatives of the trade have suggested. Those of us who have done our stint at the Board of Trade know how persuasive these delegations can be. They bring tears to the eyes of Ministers—as politicians we are sensitive in these matters—but, more than that, they bring tears to the eyes of one's officials, which is a much tougher proposition.
  I am not absolutely satisfied that the strictures of the hon. Member for
  618
  Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East regarding lack of diligence are well founded. The year after the passing of the Act and before the Regulations were approved by both Houses of Parliament was largely devoted to consultations with various trades. The hon. Gentleman read from Schedule 7 the references to some products and he left out certain others, no doubt, for the purpose of brevity, but ii have it here, and it is a very miscellaneous range of products. The Board of Trade took some time and had considerable consultations, and, from the moment when the Act was passed, or even from the moment when it was published, the trade knew that it would have to mark its goods. People in the trade knew broadly what would happen, although they understood that there might be some alterations in Committee, and certainly after the Royal Assent they knew what the scheme was. The only question was the precise manner in which it should be done, and I well recall some of the discussions about how one marked small bottles of scent, for example, which are one of the items covered by Schedule 7 to which the Order applies.
  It was not a wasted year. People in the trade knew that they would have to mark, and they were being consulted on the precise manner of doing it. Subsequently, they have had a further year, and, as both the Minister and the hon. Gentleman pointed out, many of the more forward-looking manufacturers have gone ahead and done it so that, through the normal course of trade, a lot of stock in retailers' hands will be ready marked for the day when the Regulations come into force. As I have said, there is just the problem of residual stock, but one must draw a line somewhere, and occasionally one has to be a little harsh or abrasive on a trade. This is part of consumer protection. The most that would be required would be for the shopkeeper to weigh the products. I know that scent would have to be dealt with somewhat differently, but for the majority of products weighing and marking would be fairly straightforward.
  I know the Minister of State far too well to realise that he would not have given way on this unless he and his officials were persuaded that there was a very good reason. I shall not, therefore, oppose the Order, but I want him to explain why it is necessary to hold back for a year. I should

  619
  have thought that six months, or until the end of the year, would have been sufficient. As the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East said, with this interim year in which the manufacturers are having to mark and with the further year in which the retailers and wholesalers are holding back, this Act for consumer protection, under Schedule 7, will not begin to give protection until the year proposed in the Order has been completed. The Minister of State and I have had too many discussions, in public and in private, for me to doubt his sincerity or his devotion to consumer protection, but I wonder why he found it necessary to give as long as 12 months' grace. I should have been inclined to be a little tougher.
  11.5 p.m.
  Mr. John Hall: We have at least one measure of agreement tonight, and that is the measure of agreement on both sides that the Weights and Measures Act, 1963, designed to give additional protection to the consumer, was a good Act.
  On the other hand, the Minister said that there were some slight defects in the Act which had come to light recently, and that is why we have this Order before us. I am not at all sure that I accept that there are defects. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) has given the view that there is not a defect in the Act. If there is, perhaps it is due to the fact that the then Opposition were not so diligent in their examination of Bills before the House as the present Opposition are.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is fascinating, but the hon. Gentleman must come to the Instrument before the House.
  Mr. Hall: I accept your guidance, Mr Deputy-Speaker, but I think that I have made the point that I wished to.
  There are one or two things about this matter which puzzle me a little. The Minister said, and it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes), that some manufacturers are still supplying pre-packed Schedule 7 commodities without the requisite markings. This means that
  620
  a large number of manufacturers must already have started marking their products. I find it hard to understand why the manufacturers, the distributors and the wholesalers and retailers did not get together on this some time ago, knowing that they were bound at this date to retail goods which bore the requisite markings. I should have thought that the retailer and wholesaler organisations could have made it clear to the manufacturers that they could receive only properly marked goods because they would be bound by the Act, subject to certain penalties, to provide goods properly marked with quantities. So I am puzzled why at a rather late stage the trade has had to ask the Board of Trade for this additional time.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh, I wonder whether a year is not a little too long and whether six months would not be sufficient. Nevertheless, I appreciate that as it took practically a year to introduce regulations giving the form of marking and so on, it is possible that even manufacturers marking their goods after that date might be selling goods which could remain on the shelves for longer than the following 12 months and that some persons might find themselves in difficulty if the strict letter of the law were enforced now. For that reason, I would not suggest to my hon. Friends that we should oppose the Order.
  However, I should like to ask a question which was raised in the other place when this matter was debated. It was suggested that publicity should be given nearer to the time that it will be necessary to mark all Schedule 7 goods and that it should be stated quite clearly who is responsible for so doing if they are not already marked. It was agreed in another place that some consideration should be given to that. Probably one of the problems is that not enough publicity has been given to the requirements of the Act in trade and other papers, and perhaps in some cases this has taken people unawares, because often people do not take as much notice of new Acts and regulations as they should.
  With just that one question to the Minister, I think we must support the Order. Otherwise there may be some hardship and difficulty caused to retailers, possibly through no fault of their own.
  11.8 p.m.
  Mr. Darling: If I may, with permission, reply to the points raised, I should like to deal with the last point first. We shall probably have to enforce an Order at the end of this period to indicate the manner in which the markings are to be put on the containers. During this period, even without this amending Order, the manufacturers can put the markings on in any way they like. That is obvious, because they have to reorganise all their printing arrangements and so on. By July, 1966, markings will have to be effected according to the terms that have been laid down in the Act and the Regulations. At that point, when we come to deal with that situation, we shall certainly carry out the suggestion which was made to us in another place. We shall put out the appropriate press notices and give all the publicity that we can to inform everybody concerned that they must mark everything according to the manner laid down in the Regulations—size of type, display of type, and so on.
  I have to tell the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir Rolf Dudley Williams) that this will not be done at the end of the period—July, 1966—but that those concerned will be informed in plenty of time beforehand, and, if they have clearance sales to get rid of unmarked stocks, then this will benefit both the shopkeepers and the customers.
  Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: But at the end of the period they may well have some of the goods which have left the factory marked but not in the way they will have to be marked after the end of the period. Will they be given any grace to get rid of these items?
  Mr. Darling: Yes. The obligation will be on the manufacturers from that point onwards. We can do both operations at the same time, and the suggestion made in another place will be carried out.
  There is another slight defect in the Act, discovered when we came to deal with the situation. Schedule 7 covers such a comprehensive range of goods that, although we do not need this Order for some of the goods in it because the manufacturers concerned have made arrangements beforehand, we have to cover the whole range. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price)
  622
  and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) said, this is a comprehensive list of products.
  We are primarily concerned with such things as toilet preparations. Here, of course, there would be enormous difficulty if we followed the suggestion, which we discussed in the Board of Trade for a considerable time, of putting an obligation upon the retailer to mark unmarked products—if a person starts buying toilet preparations on any scale after Monday he will find that the quantities are marked in most cases in metric measurements—a concession we gave in order to stimulate the export trade to the continent.
  The measures are so different and cover such a wide range that, quite frankly, the retailer would have enormous difficulty in getting from all the manufacturers concerned the weights of all the different products. How much talcum powder is in a tin? How much perfume is in a bottle? What is the weight of bath salts? And so on. One can imagine the poor retailer trying to find out—he cannot very well empty the containers and then put the contents back. He would have to keep shop assistants fully employed on nothing else for months until everything was properly marked.
  We bring forward this Order with great reluctance. I took the view, perhaps for too long, that we should, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh did when faced with the same situation, stand firm by the original Regulations and not give way. But when we saw more clearly the difficulties that retailers would be up against, we reluctantly came to the conclusion that we had to produce the Order.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East wanted to know how many manufacturers of Schedule 7 goods had done the job before they were in a sense legally required to do it. I cannot give him an arithmetical answer, but quite a number of them have done the job and I agree—I have said it myself before—that they have a sense of grievance, quite rightly, that this Order should be brought forward in order to cover the other manufacturers who have not been so forthcoming and who have not responded to the terms of the regulations in advance of the deadline laid down.

  623
  But we also discovered, as I have said, that quite a number of traders have been led astray by their misinterpretation of the original Regulations. Paragraph 1(2) of the original Regulations said:
  "Before 31st July 1966, nothing in these Regulations shall apply to the manner of marking any container which left the premises at which it was filled or otherwise made up for sale before 31st July 1965."
  We were surprised to find that, in spite of all the press notices which were put out and for which the hon. Member for Eastleigh was responsible, and the further information given to the press increasing the publicity about this matter, quite a number of members of the trades concerned, manufacturers and so on, interpreted that to mean that they did not need to mark net weight or measurement of the goods until 31st July, 1966. Of course, what it means and clearly says is that the manner of marking, which the Regulations themselves go on to define, shall not apply until 31st July, 1966. For this year they can mark their containers any way they like. For the reason I gave, this will help them to get their printing presses and containers, packages and so on, into line with the Regulations.
  My hon. Friend also said that we had been dilatory, both the hon. Member for Eastleigh and I, in carrying out the terms of the Act. If he will read the long discussions which we had in Committee about how the terms of the Act should be carried out, he will see that we discussed at great length the amount of time which should be given to manufacturers to alter their packages and packaging. It is not an easy job. We did not want anybody to lose money over this and we did not want any packages to be scrapped. Manufacturers order packages in bulk and we discussed with them the manner of marking and so on. The time which was taken to produce the first Regulations was not unreasonable. There is some complaint about the amount of time taken to produce this amending Order, but the reason for that is that we were reluctant to produce the Order and were more or less forced to do so in the end.
  My hon. Friend asked how long it would take to clear the unmarked stocks. We have asked about this and there are
  624
  different views in different trades, but my own guess from the discussions which I have had is that in most shops, apart from those in country districts where stock tends to stay on the shelves a little longer, stocks in most of these lines will be cleared in a very few months, and although the consumer will lose something in buying goods which are not properly marked, I do not think that the period will be so excessive as to cause any alarm or despondency.
  The hon. Member for Eastleigh and the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) asked why the Order could not be for less than twelve months. We, too, asked that question. Our legal advisers say that under the terms of the Act—I do not know whether this is another defect—it would be difficult to produce an Order which did not run for twelve months. However, perhaps this is something which we can discuss on another occasion. Of course, it would not be possible between now and 31st July to make an amending Order.
  I think that I have more or less answered the hon. Member for Exeter. Goods still on the shop shelves could be marked by the retailer, and we can help him in that by giving him the actual weights of the goods concerned; or he might have a clearance sale and get rid of the whole lot.
  It is not the retailer who is responsible for the marking of the goods. It is the job of the manufacturer and the retailer has to take what is given to him. With such things as perfumes—I do not know whether the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) can help us here—when the shapes of the bottles and so on seem to change quite considerably and where lines have been discontinued, and apparently they are discontinued quite quickly—it is impossible for the retailer to find out what measure was inside the bottle. In those circumstances, we cannot put an obligation upon him to mark unmarked goods himself.
  I repeat that we can bring this Order forward very reluctantly. The delay is due to the fact that we were reluctant about it. We did not want to bring it forward and we waited till the last moment to see if we could deal with the problem in another way. Unfortunately, this is the only practical way in which

  625
  we can deal with the shopkeepers' difficulties, and therefore I ask the House to give us approval for the Order.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Weights and Measures (Exemption) Order, 1965, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  11.22 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill goes a little further than the normal Consolidation Bill. Therefore there is one matter to which I think I should invite the attention of the House. If the House will look at the Long Title of the Bill it will see that this is described as:
  "An Act to consolidate the National Insurance Acts 1946 and 1964, certain provisions made by statutory instrument thereunder, and certain related enactments."
  That is why I say that it goes a little further than the Consolidation Bills with which we are concerned later this evening.
  I have to invite the attention of the House—and it is only right that I should do so—to the Report of the Joint Committee, which said:
  "The Committee are of the opinion that the Bill, as amended, is pure consolidation and represents the existing law."
  They go on to say:
  "The Committee are further of the opinion that there is a point to which the attention of Parliament ought to be drawn, vizt., whether it is desirable to incorporate existing statutory instruments into a consolidating Act having regard to the fact that these instruments are subject to a different form of parliamentary supervision than Acts of Parliament, and that the right to challenge the validity of an instrument may not survive its transformation into one of the provisions of a consolidating Act."
  This was discussed at some length in another place, and although, as yet, there has been no challenge here, I think it is right to call the attention of the House to that expression of opinion by the Committee. We are dealing here with a very unusual legislative state of affairs.
  626
  Some years ago there were three Acts of Parliament which covered, to some extent, the same ground. There was the Family Allowances Act, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act and the National Insurance Act. I do not want to go into many technicalities, but since then we have had the National Insurance Act, 1959, and there is a provision under which the Regulations made under that Act apply to the Family Allowances Acts. Therefore, we are dealing with this rather complex legislative state of affairs.
  In those circumstances, and since we are dealing with a great many Statutory Instruments, which hon. Members will find set out in Schedule 12 of the Bill now before the House, it has been necessary, if we were to achieve any worthwhile measure of consolidation, to consolidate not merely the statutory provisions applying to National Insurance, but also the provisions of the subsidiary legislation as well. The House will appreciate that Regulations made in pursuance of a Statute are as much a part of the law as is the Statute itself. There are these differences, that Regulations have to be laid. Sometimes they have merely to be laid, sometimes they have to be laid subject to the affirmative or negative procedure in this House. There is also the difference that a Regulation is always open to challenge by the courts on the grounds that it is ultra vires, beyond the powers which Parliament intended to confer upon the Minister concerned.
  There is no exact precedent where there has been quite so much subsidiary legislation to be embodied, and, in the unique circumstances, it has been thought right to make the particular provision which hon. Members will find in Clause 116 of the Bill. That refers in subsection (1) to the Regulations specified in Schedule 12, and then provides in subsection (2):
  "Notwithstanding the reproduction of the regulations aforesaid as provisions of this Act, any question as to the validity of those provisions may be determined as though they were contained in regulations made under the powers under which the regulations they reproduce were respectively made."
  What that means is that, although we are embodying the Regulations in a Statute, nevertheless we preserve the right of anyone who feels aggrieved and wishes to challenge the validity of those Regulations to go to court and say that they are ultra vires the Act as originally passed.

  627
  I hope that the House will accept that it is a most exceptional provision. It is designed to preserve the rights of the subject in respect of any Regulation which now is embodied in Statutory form.
  I have said that it is not purely a consolidation Bill in the ordinary sense. Nevertheless, it does consolidate a very important part of our law. The work of consolidating our Statute law, which I think everyone welcomes, is going rapidly forward. There are a number of consolidation measures which follow and for which the approval of the House will be invited in, I hope, a very short time. But, as I say, because of the particular passage that I have read in the Report of the Committee, I feel that I am bound to draw those matters to the attention of the House.
  11.27 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I have taken the precaution of having beside me the Ruling of Mr. Speaker as to how far we can go in the discussion of consolidation Bills, and I will endeavour to keep well within it.
  The Bill has some very considerable difficulties which the hon. and learned Gentleman has described to the House. He has read the Third Report of the Joint Committee which dealt with the Bill, and they have drawn the attention of the House very clearly to the fact that it is not a consolidation Bill in the sense that it consolidates previous Statutes but is a consolidation Bill in the sense that it includes within it the consolidation of Statutory Instruments.
  It is common knowledge to the House that Statutory Instruments themselves are frequently consolidated into one consolidating Statutory Instrument, but the introduction of them by promotion, as it were, from Statutory Instrument law to Statute law is quite a novel idea, as was said many times in the course of the evidence given to the Joint Committee.
  The Clauses which thus embody Statutory Instruments are some of the most important Clauses of the Bill. Clause 12 deals with the recovery by an employer of an insured person's flat-rate contributions; Clause 40, the increase of benefit for children, so far as subsections (1) and (2) are concerned; Clause 43, the increase of benefit for adult dependants;
  628
  Clause 49, the disqualification for or suspension of benefit; a very substantial part of Part IV, which deals with the determination of certain questions by the Minister and the determination of certain matters by insurance officers, local tribunals or the Commissioners; Clause 77, the constitution of local tribunals; Clause 95, the recovery of contributions on prosecutions under the Act; and finally Clause 97, which provides certain decisions are to be conclusive for the purpose of proceedings under the Act. These are important parts of this consolidating Measure. They are parts which previously were contained within Statutory Instruments and are now converted into Clauses of a Bill.
  If I might comment further on the importance of these, Clause 40(1), for example, which has previously a Statutory Instrument, deals with the increase of benefit for children. It states:
  "Subject to subsections (5) and (6) of this section and to sections 41(4) and 42 of this Act, the weekly rate of unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, a maternity allowance, a retirement pension or a widow's allowance shall, for any period for which the beneficiary has a family which includes a child or children, be increased in respect of that child or each respectively of those children by the appropriate amount specified in relation to the benefit in question in column 3, 4 or 5 of Schedule 3 to this Act."
  This is one of the most vitally important things of the whole system of National Insurance. Previously, it was included in a Ministerial Order, which had the flexibility of being able to be altered from time to time. Because, however, these Statutory Instruments are now included in a consolidation Bill, we in this House are precluded from discussing their merits or substance.
  It would have been all very well had they been put in a normal Bill, which could have been debated in this House before they were promoted from Statutory Instrument law to statute law. This part of the law might well have become law, however, without any debate in this House. It might have become law by being embodied in a Statutory Instrument subject only to negative procedure and no Prayer might have been made against that Statutory Instrument at the time. So that at no time might the merits of these Clauses have been debated in this House, and yet they can become law in this form.

  629
  To promote these Statutory Instruments to the status of statute law, as is done by the Bill, raises several constitutional problems. Promoting them in a way in which they cannot be debated seems to be something like Parliamentary trickery. The normal method would have been to put them into an ordinary Bill and then for the House to decide whether they were subjects which it wished should remain flexible in Ministerial Order form or whether they should be converted into permanent law. If that ordinary Bill were passed by the House, then would follow the stage to incorporate it in a consolidation Bill.
  This method has come about because in 1946 there was lack of Parliamentary time in passing the National Insurance Bill and a great deal of it was left to Ministerial Order. That is not unknown, whatever Government may be in office. An enabling Act may leave a great deal to be done by Statutory Instrument. When that is done, however, the Regulations are flexible and can be amended from time to time by further order. Furthermore, those Regulations can be challenged in the courts as being ultra vires. It can be questioned whether the Minister had power to make the Regulations.
  To overcome the first of those points in this consolidation Bill, I notice that whenever the hitherto Statutory Instrument law is introduced into the Bill, power has been reserved to the Minister to alter it. We are used to that in Bills of this nature and I cannot seriously complain that the Minister is reserving power to alter the Act, except, perhaps, that it should be done by affirmative procedure rather than by negative procedure. But that is quite a normal process, and to that extent it has preserved the existing law. These Clauses have remained to some extent flexible by preserving to the Minister the right to alter them by Order.
  But to overcome the second point, that if these were still Orders the courts could question whether it was within the power of the Minister to make them, there is this entirely novel device of Clause 116 which the Solicitor-General has mentioned as being a most exceptional provision. It is a most exceptional provision. It means that for the first time in the history of Parliament the courts can say
  630
  that some section of an Act is ultra vires. This is a new constitutional point. We are driven to this what I might call constitutional abortion by the device of consolidating Statutes and Statutory Instruments.
  On the merits of the contents of the Statutory Instruments, that may be the right thing to do. It may be correct at this stage to make those permanent. I am precluded in this debate from discussing the merits of these Clauses. My complaint is that this is being done without precedent, and it is a bad thing. The Government cannot do it in the normal way of putting these Statutory Instruments into a normal Bill because their programme is overloaded as it is, and they would not have time to put this normal Bill through. We all want to hasten consolidation, but not at the expense of the rights of this House to debate Clauses which are to become law.
  If this kind of consolidation becomes popular with any Government, there is a danger that it may be used for the wrong purpose altogether. What more easy than for a Government in a hurry to enact something, to pass an enabling Act, leaving most of the meat of the Act to Ministerial Order, then putting the Orders through, perhaps with the negative procedure, so that they may never be debated in this House, and then putting those Orders into a consolidation Bill? This is a simple way of forcing law on to the Statute Book without proper debate in this House.
  In another place it was pleaded, rather as the Solicitor-General pleaded today, that this was unique, that no other case like this had ever come up before. It was pleaded that the National Insurance Act was unique, and therefore a unique form of consolidation had to be undertaken. If that is the case, I ask the Solicitor-General to give the House two undertakings. First, that he will see that new Statutory Orders are initiated to make a report on this to the House from the Joint Committee essential. In this case the Joint Committee has properly reported this to the House, and that is why we are able to consider it, and why it has been drawn to our attention. I hope that we can make it an obligation on any Joint Committee to report to the House if this effort is tried again.

  631
  Secondly, if we are to consolidate in this form, that a Bill will be brought in as quickly as possible to remove Clause 116 from this consolidation Bill. This will enable the House to consider whether it wishes the courts to have power to declare that sections of an Act of Parliament are ultra vires. In short, it will give the House an opportunity to consider whether it is right that the contents of Statutory Instruments should be embodied permanently in a consolidation Act.
  If the hon. and learned Gentleman would give us an assurance that it is the intention to bring in a Bill eventually to eliminate Clause 116, this novel and entirely unconstitutional provision, we should feel satisfied to let this consolidation Bill go through. As a consolidation Measure, it is admirable. If I may offer congratulations humbly to the Joint Committee, the Parliamentary draftsmen and the Parliamentary Counsel, from the point of view of consolidating the law, it is brilliant. But from the point of view of setting a bad precedent for the future and producing an extraordinary constitutional position in Clause 116, it ought to be opposed.
  11.40 p.m.
  Sir Herbert Butcher: There is a matter concerned with the Bill on which I should like to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, because I doubt whether the Preamble to the Bill is in itself correct. The Preamble says that its purpose is:
  "… to consolidate the National Insurance Acts 1946 to 1964, certain provisions made by statutory instrument thereunder, and certain related enactments."
  As the Solicitor-General has indicated, the provisions go considerably further than that, but the introduction of Clause 116 in which subsection (2) appears, which, as he properly explained, is introduced for that purpose. I suggest that, because of the introduction of Clause 116 into the Bill, the Preamble is, in itself, wrong, and the right Preamble is the one which appears in Erskine May on page 554, namely, "to consolidate and amend" the law dealing with these matters. This is an important point, Mr. Speaker, because you and your predecessors have given considerable Rulings about what may and may not be discussed on consolidation Bills.
  632
  But if the Preamble were drawn in a different manner from that to which I referred in Erskine May, I believe that when the Bill had received its Second Reading, it might be capable of being amended in the way indicated by my hon. Friend. This is a technical point, which I find it difficult, as a layman, to make, but, if the Preamble is out of order, it appears to me that there might be a case for withdrawing the Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: This is obviously troublesome, because of some element of novelty. The idea of consolidating into one statute law part of which is contained in Statutory Instruments is not a novelty, but the extent of it here is. As the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said, the second subsection of Clause 116 is, as far as I know, a complete novelty. I cannot accede to the hon. Member's argument, for this reason. Here the Joint Committee is working under a Statute which is concerned solely with pure consolidation. They have certified to us by their report that this is pure consolidation, and, pursuing that argument, it seems that the second subsection—I did not hear the Solicitor-General's argument—is precisely to secure that result, namely, that the Bill, as it is presented to us, is pure consolidation, without amendment, because it preserves the existing right which exists under the existing law. That is why I cannot go with the hon. Gentleman about his argument.
  Sir H. Butcher: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and I would not dream of disputing your Ruling in any way, except, if I may, to stress the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, that this is something quite unusual, in providing by this consolidation that the courts can challenge an Act of Parliament. It seems an unusual departure from our common law.
  Mr. Speaker: I follow that part of the hon. Gentleman's argument. That is an argument about which, constitutionally, his remedy is to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. But in so far as the hon. Gentleman addressed a point of order to me, I do not think that his last point touches it, and the answer which I gave holds.
  Sir H. Butcher: The alternative appears to be between, on the one hand, asking

  633
  the Solicitor-General for an assurance that proper steps will be taken to see that this sort of thing does not occur again and that this will be put right and, on the other, opposing the Second Reading of the Bill so that it may be brought forward in a different form.
  11.46 p.m.
  Mr. Forbes Hendry: I thoroughly welcome the Bill as a brilliant exercise in consolidating a difficult part of the law. I also welcome the consolidation into the Bill of the Statutory Instruments which have been passed over many years and which appear to have worked well. I congratulate the Solicitor-General on this device.
  At the same time, I am somewhat concerned about Clause 116(2) in that it appears to infringe the sovereign powers of Parliament because, by this proposed enactment, it seems that Parliament is denying its sovereignty in that it is allowing the courts to question the validity of an Act.
  These Statutory Instruments were made from time to time on the authority of various Acts of Parliament. Whether they went through by the affirmative or negative procedure seems to be a matter of little importance. Once they were approved by Parliament, or laid upon the Table for the appropriate time, they had all the force of enactments. It may be that while they were Statutory Instruments the courts had the power to discuss whether they were intra vires or ultra vires, but once they are contained in an Act, consolidating or not, it seems that they have all the force and effect of an Act.
  Since Clause 116 (2) appears to be in some way denying the sovereignty of Parliament, I urge the Solicitor-General to consider whether this is desirable in future. I thoroughly agree with the incorporation of Statutory Instruments in an Act, but is this the right way to do it? I agree with my hon. Friend's suggestion that a Measure should be introduced at the earliest possible moment to get rid of that subsection, which appears to be wholly undesirable. I also agree that serious consideration should be given to the method of dealing with consolidating Bills in future which contain provisions of this sort.
  11.49 p.m.
  Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: All hon. Members will be grateful to the Solicitor-General for the courteous way in which he explained what lies behind this consolidation Measure.
  I do not go all the way with my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) when he said that he would like to see Clause 116 removed from the Bill. It is important, as the Solicitor-General pointed out, that the Clause should remain so that people have the right to go to the courts if the Orders to which reference is made in the 12th Schedule were ultra vires by the Minister concerned. However, I hope that the Solicitor-General will consider introducing a Bill to regularise the position in the way my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby described, although I urge him not to remove Clause 116 from the Bill unless the power is given to the individual to question the validity of the Regulations.
  This is a complicated Measure and few hon. Members fully understand it. Is the Solicitor-General satisfied that the various Statutory Instruments referred to in Schedule 12 are not Statutory Instruments scheduled only to run for a limited period? If they were scheduled to run only for a limited period, in Clause 116 something to that effect should be made clear. If they are to be permanent I see no reason for them to be covered by the Clause. I should like to have an assurance that none of these Regulations were made for a limited period only.
  11.51 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General: I speak again by leave of the House to answer points made by hon. Members opposite. I gather that the Bill is generally welcome to all hon. Members. I think the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) said it was a most valuable Measure of consolidation. With that I think we would all agree.
  The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said quite correctly that this Bill embodies the idea of statutory instruments being promoted into statutory form. He said that that was a novel idea. It is not entirely novel. There are certain precedents. There was the Agricultural Wages Act, 1948, and a similar Act

  635
  for Scotland in 1949, both of which included certain Sections which owed their origin to Regulations and those Regulations were embodied in the Statutes. I freely admit that this Measure goes somewhat further in that direction than those earlier Statutes, but, even supposing that this is a novel idea, I suggest that it is a very good idea. The hon. Member and I have had to struggle with Statutory Instruments and Regulations throughout our professional lives. I think he would agree that it is sometimes thoroughly vexatious to have to find law in a Statute and then in the various instruments made in pursuance of the statute. It is far better, not only for the legal profession but also for the general public, to be able to find the whole law on a subject in one instrument, preferably in one statute.
  Mr. Graham Page: I go all the way with the Solicitor-General on this. My complaint is on their being inserted in a consolidation Bill which the House cannot debate on its merits. If they were inserted in an ordinary Bill it would be all right.
  The Solicitor-General: I think the hon. Member would agree so far that when we have, as here, a very considerable body of law which has been built up over the years partly by Statutes which have been passed through Parliament in the ordinary way and partly by Statutory Instruments made in pursuance of those Statutes, and those subordinate Instruments have been in force for a considerable time, it is an admirable thing if we can embody it all in one statute so that it is not necessary first to look at the Act of Parliament and then at the various Regulations which from time to time have been made there-under.
  The hon. Member went on to say that we are embodying in this Statute certain Regulations which have not been debated in the sense that we have had a Second Reading, Committee stage and the rest, but all these Regulations could have been debated if anyone had wished to do so. I do not say that all, but most were subject to the negative procedure and, if not, they could have been raised in this House. All these Regulations have been in force for a considerable time. No one has taken any opportunity to challenge them and
  636
  no one so far as I know has objected to them in any way.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: Suppose that the House had taken advantage of every occasion, how many hours would that have taken?
  The Solicitor-General: I cannot answer that. I am saying that we have Regulations the existence of which is well-known to hon. Members and to those concerned outside the House. It frequently happens that Regulations are challenged. I have challenged them myself and I am sure that the hon. Member has challenged them also. But these Regulations either have not been challenged at all or else they have survived Parliamentary challenge, which means that they have been approved by one or other House of Parliament. Therefore we have this considerable body of the law which has been in existence over a considerable period of time and which we are consolidating in a single statute.
  The whole objection taken has been taken to Clause 116, that is the provision which I have said already is without precedent, as far as I know, enabling these particular provisions to be challenged in a court. It seems to me to be a wholly desirable provision. We are not derogating in any way from the sovereignty of Parliament. We are merely providing in a Statute that certain provisions shall be open to challenge in a court. If we do not insert this provision it will mean that we shall be taking away from any person who may be aggrieved by these Regulations the extremely valuable right, which he has at present, and that when we are dealing in any form with delegated legislation it should be open to any citizen to go to court and say that it is going outside the intentions of Parliament and is exceeding the powers which Parliament intended to confer.
  This right of access to the courts when one is dealing with subordinate legislation is one of the safeguards of the liberty of the subject. When, in the phrase used by the hon. Member for Crosby, we are promoting subordinate legislation into Statute law it is desirable, if we are not to derogate the rights of the subject, that we should put this right into the law. This is why the Clause is put in the Bill. We

  637
  may never have to repeat it, but I say that it is a salutary provision which the House should approve.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Howie.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  11.58 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I do not think that we can let the Bill go through without some debate, because there are the same problems in a different form under this Bill, which is the second in the code of five Consolidation Bills, the first of which, the National Insurance Bill, we have just dealt with. A very similar trouble arises with this Bill, which shows what a mess the Government may get into if they continue on the lines indicated by the Solicitor-General in his answer to the previous debate.
  This Bill again deals with Statute law which was previously in the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts and converts it into this new-semi-Statute law which we were discussing on the previous Bill. I will explain what I mean by referring to one or two of the Clauses in this Bill. I take as an example Clause 3(7):
  "An employer shall be entitled to recover from an insured person, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Insurance Act"—
  that is, Clause 12 of the National Insurance Bill which we have just discussed. This was a Section in the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act and was, therefore, Statute law. It has been consolidated
  638
  now by reference back to the National Insurance Bill, Clause 12, so that in this case Statute law in the Industrial Injuries Act is demoted to semi-Statute law created in what will become the National Insurance Act. It is the opposite process. In the previous Bill, Statutory Instruments were embodied as part of statute law, with the proviso that the courts may say that they are ultra vires. In this case, what was previously Statute law has been converted into a provision in the National Insurance Bill subject to the declaration of a court that it may be ultra vires.
  This causes just as much trouble constitutionally as the other process. It is really a blot on the consolidation which is taking place in these five Bills, a form of consolidation which we are all happy to see and which has been carried out very efficiently except for these precedents which may cause grave difficulty hereafter.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has referred to only one provision, Clause 3(7), and, in effect, he says that we are downgrading a statutory provision here and making it subject to Regulation. The short answer is that the Section in the Industrial Injuries Act as it now exists is already subject to amendment by Regulations under the National Insurance Act; so we are not making any substantive change in the law in that respect.
  Mr. Page: But the Solicitor-General is applying Clause 116 in the National Insurance Bill, which we have just discussed. I did not mention other Clauses, just as important, if not more so, for example, Clause 35, which has the same effect, that is, demotion and subject to being declared ultra vires by the courts.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gourlay.]
  Committee this day.

  FAMILY ALLOWANCES BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a second time.
  12.4 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I must put on record that there is in this Bill the same system of demotion. As a result of reference back, something which was previously statute law is now to be made subject to being declared ultra vires by the courts.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gourlay.]
  Committee this day.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL [Lords]
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gourlay.]
  Committee this day.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION (CONSEQUENTIAL REPEALS) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  12.5 a.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I just wish to call attention to the fact that the Bill is not really a consolidation Bill but is consequential on the other consolidation Bills. It is really what it calls itself—a statute law revision Bill. To that extent it alters the law in that it repeals a large number of Statutes, although it will not be an alteration of the law once the five Bills of the code come into operation.
  But it is a little difficult to see how the general ruling about consolidation Bills affect a Statute law revision Bill of this sort or to what extent we are bound by your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, about discussing only whether there should be consolidation or not. However, I do not wish to go through the whole Schedule of the Bill and comment on the repeals.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not know what is meant by my Ruling. I have not ruled about a statute law revision Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gourlay.]
  Committee this day.

  COMPULSORY PURCHASE BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  12.7 a.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I should have thought that this Bill would have warranted some word from the Solicitor-General, because it is not altogether a satisfactory consolidation Bill. The Long Title says that it is an Act to consolidate the Land Clauses Acts as applied by Part I of Schedule 2 of the 1946 Act, and for certain other enactments, and to repeal certain provisions of the Land Clauses Acts. By that means it leaves a substantial part of the Land Clauses Acts still on the Statute Book. The Bill only partially consolidates them. Certain Sections of the Land Clauses Acts are reproduced in this consolidation Bill, and yet they are not repealed. They still remain in order to be applied to other subjects.
  If I understand this consolidation Bill correctly, it consolidates only compulsory purchase by local authorities and Government Departments. Any other authority which may desire to gain compulsory purchase powers must either look to this Bill or adopt the Land Clauses Acts. This seems to me an unsatisfactory form of consolidation. I should have thought that it would have been far better to do away with the Land Clauses Acts altogether and have a completely consolidating Act.
  The other way in which I think that is unsatisfactory is that it seems to cut across the Land Compensation Act, 1961. That was a consolidation Measure dealing with compensation. Compensation and compulsory purchase are so closely tied together that I should have thought that it would have been better to have them all

  641
  in one consolidation Measure. Indeed, in practice I have found it difficult to refer to the Land Compensation Act, 1961, in that there are many gaps in it as a consolidation Measure. This Compulsory Purchase Bill fills in a number of those gaps—not even all of them—and it would have been much clearer to the person who has to refer to this type of legislation—local authorities, Government Departments and ordinary lawyers in practice—if we could have had it all in one Bill dealing with compulsory purchase and compensation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gourlay.]
  Committee this day.

  NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  12.10 a.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I do not seem able to entice the Solicitor-General to his feet. I should have thought that this Bill needed a little introduction to the House because normally, when consolidating, we are consolidating Acts which are a matter of history. This Measure is probably unique, because it is consolidating Acts which are not very old—the 1959 and the 1965 Acts.
  Indeed, as I read this Measure, it is so premature that it will not come into operation until certain provisions of the 1965 Act have come into operation. It is consolidating before an Act which it consolidates has wholly come into force.
  I gather that the reasons for it are to provide for international convention and also to correct the structure of the 1959 Act, which has been rather knocked about by the 1965 Act. As such, it is welcome and I should have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman could have given it a little blessing.
  12.11 a.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): I readily respond to the hon. Gentleman's invitation. This, of course,
  642
  is purely a consolidation Measure. It has been approved by the Joint Committee and I should not have thought that it raised any difficulties of principle. It is true that we are not dealing with legislation going back over a long period, but there cannot, of course, be any general rule about consolidation Measures. They are generally desirable, when we are dealing with matters, as we are here, of no little complexity, in order to confine the law in one Statute. That is all that this Bill is designed to bring about.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gourlay.]
  Committee this day.

  MINISTERIAL SALARIES CONSOLIDATION BILL [Lords]
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gourlay.]
  Committee this day.

  NEW TOWNS BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  12.15 a.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: This Bill contains matters of more difficulty than those of the Bill which we have just passed without discussion. It raises difficulties on four matters. The first concerns the consolidation of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, and parts of the 1946 and 1962 Acts. It is a good thing perhaps that the 1944 Act is consolidated in this Bill because it was repealed by the 1946 Act except in so far as it applied to new towns. Considerable difficulty in reference was caused when there was an Act which was repealed for every purpose except one and which disappeared from some of the books of Statutes. The Consolidation Measure will prove helpful in that respect.
  However, I call attention to Clause 8(3) which, by consolidation, makes it

  643
  clear that special Parliamentary procedure in connection with the acquisition of land applies in all cases in which a local authority or the National Trust is concerned, or where a part of a common, open space, fuel or field garden allotment is concerned. The Joint Committee considered that this was an alteration in the law well within the description of minor alteration, but it is something of some importance and perhaps the Joint Committee might have reported on it specifically.
  The third point is that this Bill must receive the Royal Assent after the Compulsory Purchase Bill, because it is here assumed that the Compulsory Purchase Bill is law and some of it is embodied in this Bill, or there is legislation by reference to it.
  The fourth point is concerned with with Clause 55. This is a matter of some seriousness, because it takes us back to the issue of a Statutory Instrument being embodied in a Consolidation Measure. Clause 55 inserts into the Bill a Statutory Instrument which has been passed only this year—the Secretary of State for Wales and Minister of Land and Natural Resources Order, 1965, which came into operation on 1st April, 1965, and transferred certain powers from the Minister of Housing and Local Government to the Secretary of State for Wales and certain powers from the Minister of Transport to the Secretary of State for Wales.
  While it was an Order, it could be changed by another Order and there was flexibility to that extent and I should have thought that it would have been better to leave that Order to be altered, if necessary, by another Order rather than to embody it into a Statute and make it permanent, so that if it is altered by another Order, it will be difficult for the ordinary reader of the Bill to know that that has happened. If one Order repeals another, the first can be torn up and forgotten, but when an Order seeks to repeal a Section of an Act, it is not so easy for the reader of the Act to know that that has happened.
  I am not sure—and I hope that the Solicitor-General will inform the House—where we find the power by Order to alter what will be Section 55. Clause 55 is a repetition of a Statutory Instrument
  644
  and unless we are reserving the power to alter it by Order, we must surely be altering and not consolidating the law. Where is the power to make what will be the Act capable of being altered by Order? I know that under the Transfer of Functions Act the functions of any Minister can be altered by Order, but that applies to that Act. When we have embodied an Order dealing with the transfer of functions in the Bill, I cannot see how we shall be able to alter it by Order and so keep that flexibility.
  I trust that if the functions of, perhaps, the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales are abolished, and it was necessary to transfer them back to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, we shall not have to have a Statute to do that. We have always done it by means of a simple Order, but it looks to me that, now we have put Clause 55 in here in order to alter any of those powers, we shall need an amending Statute and not merely an amending Order.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
  House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
  12.22 a.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), dwelt particularly upon Clause 55. What he was suggesting, as I understand it, is that again we are putting what was contained merely in an Order, into the form of a Statute. I should have liked to have notice of the point. I invite the attention of the House to the Report of the Joint Committee. The House will recall that when we were dealing with the National Insurance Act, the Joint Committee drew the attention of Parliament to the fact that certain subordinate statutory provisions—that is to say, certain Regulations—were being embodied in statutory form.
  No such warning has been issued so far as this Bill is concerned. If the House cares to look at the Sixth Report of the Joint Committee, they will see that the Committee is wholly satisfied with this Bill. It does not suggest that it raised any constitutional issue whatever. I did not know that the hon. Member for Crosby was going to raise this point, but I do not want to be dogmatic about it.

  645
  I am speaking now from recollection, without reference to the Statutes, but I think he will find that under the Statute law which governs the various Departments, it will still be possible to transfer functions from one Department to another. I am speaking off the cuff and I do not want to be absolutely committed, but I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman on this point when I have had the opportunity to consider it. I again emphasise that if there had been some startling change, such as the hon. Gentleman suggests, one would certainly expect that our attention would have been drawn to it by the Joint Committee.
  Mr. Graham Page: May I just call attention to the paragraph on page 19 of the Report which refers to this? I agree that it is said there quite definitely that when this is so incorporated it will be just as amendable by any subsequent transfer of functions Order as before, but nowhere does the learned Parliamentary counsel who was saying that say how that happens. I could not find it anywhere in this Consolidation Bill, nor could I find that the Transfer of Functions Act gave power to amend another Act. It certainly gave power to make Orders under the Transfer of Functions Act, but not once one has embodied the rights of a Minister in some other Act.
  I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for saying that he will look into the point. I hope that there will be some opportunity, before the Bill passes through all its stages, to have the matter before the House. It is not much good writing to me, if I cannot do anything about it when the Bill has finished all its stages in the House. When the hon. and learned Gentleman has looked up the point, if he will make sure that the House has an opportunity of dealing with it in the House or in Committee, I will leave the position like that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Lawson.]
  Committee this day.

  STANDING ADVISORY COMMITTEES
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lawson.]
  12.26 a.m.
  Mr. Paul Dean: The rôle of the standing advisory committees to Her Majesty's Government is a vast topic to discuss in a very short time, but I am grateful for the opportunity to refer to it. I am obliged to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for coming here to reply to what I have to say. He will probably recollect a previous occasion not so very long ago when he was able to concede a point which I put to him, and if he is equally forthcoming tonight, I shall have reason to feel very satisfied.
  I do not intend in anything that I say to criticise the work of the standing advisory committees, the Governments who set them up and, above all, the people who serve on them. I am quite certain that these committees have an extremely valuable part to play in our system of government, particularly in these days when the rôle of government is growing year by year and when the technical and scientific advice which Government require is becoming increasingly important.
  What I suggest is that the time has come to have a look at the rôle of these committees, the way in which they are developing, and their constitutional significance. I ask the Financial Secretary if he would not agree that the time has come when some body or other should take a look at the way in which they have developed.
  My reasons for suggesting that are, first of all, the extent to which the number of committees has grown, particularly over the last 50 or 60 years. In the researches that I have been doing, I have been able to trace a standing committee back to the 17th century. I have discovered that in 1621, merchants and Privy Councillors met to discuss the decay of trade and the want of money. In the following year, a standing committee was set up to deal with these matters which eventually formed the germ of the Board of Trade. I am bound to say that I hope that all the standing committees which we have at the moment

  647
  are not going eventually to form Ministries, because it will mean that there will be no back benchers in the House on either side if they are all to be manned.
  The significant development in the growth of these committees has undoubtedly taken place during the last 60 years or so. The Prime Minister, in answer to a Question of mine, on 10th February, told me that there are now 251 of these committees. On 23rd February, when I asked him for a list of them, to whom they report, whether the reports are published or not and when they were set up, I was given a list in which I found that there were 241; so there is a certain discrepancy, which is perhaps explained by some committees not being of a permanent character. Whatever the number is, in addition, there is a very large number of ad hoc and temporary committees of various kinds.
  All of them have been set up during this century, well over half of them since the war. The pace has grown significantly in recent years, with an average of eight new ones in each of the last 15 years. Last year there were 12 new ones and there have been at least five new ones since the General Election. The fact that there are now a large number of these committees and that their number is growing is, therefore, one good reason for looking at them.
  The second reason which I give is the function of these standing committees. It is broadly true to say that the earlier ones were largely technical, specialist committees: for example, the Osborne House Committee, set up in 1903, and the Royal Mint Advisory Committee, set up in 1922, with a fairly narrow range of specialist functions to perform. Admittedly, there were one or two notable exceptions to this rule among the earlier committees: for instance, the University Grants Committee, set up in 1919.
  Studies of the list of committees show, however, that in recent years the tendency has been for the scope of these committees to widen and for them to deal increasingly with fairly major aspects of policy and to advise on a much broader front than did many of the earlier committees. The Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration, which was set up in 1962, and the National Ports Council, set up
  648
  in 1964, are two examples of bodies which have major functions to perform. Admittedly they are still advisory, but they are much more important than some of the earlier committees.
  We have, therefore, the growth in both the numbers and the scope of these committees. This is of some constitutional significance. What are the implications on our system of government and what, in particular, are the implications concerning Parliamentary control over the Executive? These are questions which should be seriously considered.
  I suppose that one of the great values of our unwritten constitution is that new machinery can grow quite naturally to meet new needs as they arise. Sometimes it tends to grow in a rather haphazard sort of way, in what might be described as the typically British way, but the very fact that these things are able to happen emphasises the need from time to time to look at these things and to satisfy ourselves that no undesirable tendencies are developing.
  An analogy can be drawn with administrative tribunals and inquiries, which were looked into by the Franks Committee a few years ago with very good result. As far as I can see from my researches, however, there has been little study of standing advisory committees. They were considered to some extent by the Haldane Committee a good many years ago in 1918, but there has been very little official examination as far as I am aware. This, therefore, is another reason for an examination.
  Another reason is whether we are really sure that all these committees are still necessary. Do we still need them all? Are some of them in existence but fulfilling no useful function? On the face of it, it is not easy to see what is the purpose, for example, of the Committee on the Clergy in War. Admittedly it was set up only in 1963, but this is one example when the purpose of the committee is not obvious.
  I wonder whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can say how much these committees cost the taxpayer. It must be a fairly considerable sum each year. On that point, surely the more these committees grow in number the greater the possibility of duplication between the particular functions which are allocated to them?

  649
  My final point is on the question whether the reports are published or not. The list to which I referred makes it clear that slightly more than half these committees—more than 120 in fact—report confidentially to Ministers. Their reports are not generally available outside the Ministries concerned. This may be right. In some cases I am sure that it is right, where matters of national security are concerned, where trade secrets are concerned, and indeed in many cases where information would not be as readily available if the people providing that information knew that it was going to be published. I can see that there may be many of these cases where it is right and proper that the report should be confidential, but I wonder whether there are some cases where perhaps the confidential nature has been laid down to make life easier for the Ministers of the day.
  To take one or two examples, is it really necessary for the Advisory Committee on the Protection of Birds for England and Wales, and the similar Scottish Committee to report confidentially? Is it really necessary for the Advisory Committee on Works of Art in the House of Commons to report confidentially? Again, why does the National Advisory Council on the Employment of the Disabled report confidentially to the Minister of Labour, whereas a similar committee, the Advisory Committee on the Health and Welfare of Handicapped Persons, which reports to the Minister of Health, has its reports published? Why is it that the English Advisory Council on Child Care reports confidentially to the Home Secretary, while the Scottish Advisory Council on Child Care, which reports to the Secretary of State for Scotland, has its reports published? The two committees would appear to perform precisely similar functions, one in England and Wales and the other in Scotland, yet the reports of one are confidential, while those of the other are published.
  Those are a few examples, and one other which I should like to mention is the National Ports Council. It produces an annual report, and only today it has produced a substantial report on the modernisation of our ports. But in the case of the iron ore facilities in South Wales the report was not published, and the Minister of Transport said that there
  650
  was no intention of publishing it. Although the eventual White Papers which gave the Government's conclusions stated what the recommendations of the National Ports Council were, none the less very limited information was given, and it makes things very difficult for people who have a strong interest in particular matters of that kind if the information which is provided for them is of a very limited character.
  It becomes increasingly difficult for Parliament to do its job and for people to be fully informed about matters which are of vital importance to them when the Government withhold information from Parliament and from the general public. I am sure that this is necessary in some cases, but I believe, equally, that the Sunday Times, in another context, was right when it said:
  "There is no antiseptic like public information. There is nothing which makes so powerfully for bad Government as the ability to govern in private."
  I believe that we would all accept that there is a great deal in that sentiment. Indeed, the more Governments concern themselves with an ever widening range of human activities, the more difficult it becomes to defend individual liberties. I am sure we would all agree that we have to be constantly on our guard, particularly against dangers of secret Government or bureaucratic convenience. It may be that none of these dangers exists over these standing advisory committees, but I hope that I have made out a case for a thorough examination of them.
  12.41 a.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I am sure that all those interested in the development of our constitution and machinery of Government will be grateful to the hon. Member for raising this subject. The development of advisory bodies assisting the Government in their responsibilities is a peculiarly British institution, and an example of the kind of advantage we have through having an unwritten constitution, in that we are able to develop our machinery in this way empirically.
  The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he accepts that they are a valuable institution, that the Government are assisted in many ways by expertise which might

  651
  otherwise be denied them. Another advantage which I see is that this gives a real opportunity for many responsible citizens to take an active part in the machinery of Government. One of the definitions of democracy which I have always liked is that of the Swiss sociologist, Wilfredo Pareto, who said:
  "That country is most democratic where the people participate most in the making of decisions which will affect them."
  I do not know how well our system of Government would stand up to that test, but this is one respect in which we can claim that we achieve that. These committees vary enormously in their size and in the frequency of their meetings. Different people would have different views as to which are the most important. As the hon. Member pointed out, he brought to light, by Questions which he put down, a great deal of information about them, including the fact that there are over 240 permanent committees of this nature, in addition to a number of ad hoc advisory committees and commissions. They have an ancient history, dating back to the 17th century.
  The formation of these committees is a growing practice, developing particularly during this century. As an example, comparing one of his Questions with an earlier one asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), we find that, in the nine months from February to November, 1964, 21 new bodies of this sort were set up. They are difficult to classify and I do not think that it is useful to attempt to do so. This is because of the unique way in which they have grown up. Some are statutory and this usually occurs when they are part and parcel of some new machinery set up by an Act of Parliament. Random examples are the National Insurance Advisory Committee, the Police Council, the Central Health Services Council and the Legal Aid Advisory Committee. Many are not statutory bodies but are set up because Ministers wish such a committee to be set up and it is not a matter for which they require legislation. The Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration is an example. The Advisory Council for Scientific Research and Technical Development is an important recent one.
  652
  The functions of these bodies vary. Some are purely advisory and consultative. Others, to a greater or smaller degree, have had conferred on them executive or quasi-executive functions. The Science Research Council is an example. The University Grants Committee, which began as an advisory body, has now grown into a very important body with extensive administrative powers. There are a number of cases of bodies which, on the face of it, might appear to be purely advisory but which, in practice, exercise near-executive powers.
  I do not know whether any justification is needed in principle for bodies which have proved their usefulness so much in practice, but if it is sought, I could not advise the House to do better than consult the Book of Proverbs, which says:
  "Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety".
  The great growth of these bodies this century has been due to the enormous increase in the scope of Government, entering into almost every sphere of our national life—industrial, commercial, technical, scientific, social, recreational and, in many spheres, cultural.
  It is obviously impossible for the Civil Service to have all the expertise in all these matters which would be required to be able to advise Ministers. Consequently, this kind of partnership has grown in an informal and unsystematic way, although it is none the worse for that. The scale of them—the fact that there are 240 or so of them—must be seen in relation to the fact that we have a population of more than 50 million people and that the membership of these bodies is under 3,500. There would be some duplication within that figure because of members who sit on more than one body.
  The total cost in remuneration and expenses is about £150,000, in addition to which the secretarial services which are provided for them cost a further £280,000, making a total of £430,000. The House will agree that that is in no way a great price to pay for the vast amount of extremely useful and highly-skilled advice which is provided. For the statistically minded, it amounts to ·006 per cent. of the Supply Estimates for this year.
  The fact that it is such a modest sum reflects the fact that a great deal of this

  653
  work is voluntary and reflects the voluntary tradition of public service which, I am glad to say, is still strong in this country.
  The main point of principle which the hon. Gentleman raised is his anxiety about the way in which these bodies work and the possibility of that leading to some secrecy of Government. I do not share those fears and I will seek to explain why. First, I must make it clear that there is no change in the extent to which the reports of these bodies are published. Of the bodies set up in the 'forties, 33 published reports and 41 advised confidentially. In the 'fifties, 35 published reports and 37 advised confidentially. In the 'sixties, 28 published reports and 27 advised confidentially. It will be seen that this is following a general pattern.
  It is obviously desirable in many cases that these reports should be made public, and unless there is some reason to the contrary it would be the inclination of all responsible Ministers to publish them, particularly where they are of a purely factual nature. There must, however, be confidentiality in some of these reports, as the hon. Gentleman recognised. Clearly, reports which deal with matters of, for example, commercial confidences cannot be made public. In some cases the bodies concerned can obtain the information which they need to accumulate and then to advise upon only if they can do so on the basis that the information is to be treated as confidential.
  In many cases what the Minister is seeking from these bodies is frank advice on matters on which views may differ considerably and on which there could be considerable controversy. If one was to demand that their reports should all be made public, the result would be that they would cease to be the convenient source of frank advice which at present they are. The result then would be that the Minister concerned would have to seek that advice—because he must obtain it if he is to discharge his responsibilities properly—in other and less formal ways.
  Where these bodies are set up statutorily, it is open to Parliament to determine whether or not the reports shall be made public, for that can be written into the Act and, in some cases, it is. A particular case the hon. Member referred to was the National Ports
  654
  Council, which is not in the list we published in HANSARD because primarily it does not fall within the class of an advisory body. It has such important executive functions that, although the Act provides for a specific function of advising the Minister in particular cases, this is a subsidiary function and something beyond the survey we are discussing. That was a case where if Parliament had thought that these matters should be published it could have so provided, but in practice it did not do so. The conclusions and factual findings of the Council were included in the White Paper.
  On the question of publication I suggest that we need to be a little careful not to allow confusion to grow up between the rôle of Ministers on the one hand and advisory committees on the other. Whether the advice is published or not is the responsibility of Ministers and responsibility for policy rests and must be recognised as resting on Ministers. Publication of the advice of these committees may admittedly exert pressure on Ministers. To the extent that it does so people might be tempted to regard responsibility for policy as shifting to the advisory committee rather than being with the Minister. On the other hand, it could be suspected that publication of the advice might be used the other way, to exert pressure on public opinion in favour of a Minister's policy, especially if the Minister has control of the appointment of members of the committee. In these ways one might see these committees developing in a way which I do not think any of us desire.
  If we made a rule that the advice of the committees must always be published, or on more occasions than now, we might find ourselves approaching these twin dangers. I would regret that, because we might find ourselves deprived of some of the freedom we now enjoy to get expert opinion by means of these committees. It is important to remember that our system of Parliamentary control entails that responsibility rests with Ministers. On virtually every decision Ministers receive advice from civil servants. That advice is confidential. So is the information in a Minister's brief. It does not detract in any way from Parliamentary control that that is not made public. The fact that we find it desirable and wise to extend that sphere of advice beyond the

  655
  sphere of civil servants to advisory bodies does not constitute any threat to our system of Parliamentary control.
  While I have been very interested as a result of the hon. Member's initiative to look into this matter, I cannot feel at the moment that there is any burning issue that calls for any official or public examination of the scope and activity of these committees. If I am wrong about that, no doubt this debate will provoke the kind of public interest and controversy which might lead to such an examination. I suppose that, if one were to be made, the Estimates Committee would be the kind of body which could
  656
  do it if it was felt that the House itself should investigate it, but otherwise some outside body could be appointed.
  While I welcome this debate I can only say from my experience that I have found these bodies to be enormously helpful to Ministers. I personally have benefited from the advice of bodies of this kind and I take the opportunity of paying tribute to the very great contribution which their members make to our system of government.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to One o'clock.

ROADS
  Rule of the Road
  Rule of the Road
  Estates, Branford (Link Road)
  Estates, Branford (Link Road)
  Eastern Avenue (Roundabout)
  Eastern Avenue (Roundabout)
  Motorways (Catering Establishments)
  Motorways (Catering Establishments)
  A.30 (Bodmin Moor Fencing)
  A.30 (Bodmin Moor Fencing)
  Public Conveniences
  Public Conveniences
  Huntingdon Bypass
  Huntingdon Bypass
  Freight (Deliveries)
  Freight (Deliveries)
  Humber Bridge
  Humber Bridge
  Walton Flyover, Liverpool
  Walton Flyover, Liverpool
  Harwich-Colchester Road (Accidents)
  Harwich-Colchester Road (Accidents)
  Lancashire-Yorkshire Motorway
  Lancashire-Yorkshire Motorway
  Roundabouts (Traffic Priority)
  Roundabouts (Traffic Priority)
  Belgrave Square
  Belgrave Square
  Incorporated Society of Architects and Surveyors (Traffic Report)
  Incorporated Society of Architects and Surveyors (Traffic Report)
  Kerbside Poles and Standards
  Kerbside Poles and Standards
  Pedestrians
  Pedestrians
  Peak Hour Clearways
  Peak Hour Clearways
  Pedestrian Crossings, Leyton
  Pedestrian Crossings, Leyton
  Sandwich Bypass
  Sandwich Bypass
  A.5 and A.38 (Roadworks)
  A.5 and A.38 (Roadworks)
  Verge Post Reflectors
  Verge Post Reflectors
  Leicester (Pedestrian Control Lights)
  Leicester (Pedestrian Control Lights)
  Level Crossing, Wareham
  Level Crossing, Wareham
  Parking Meters
  Parking Meters
  Tonbridge Bypass
  Tonbridge Bypass
  A.1 Advertising Service Centres
  A.1 Advertising Service Centres
  Malton Bypass
  Malton Bypass
  A.1 (Motor Service Stations)
  A.1 (Motor Service Stations)
  Experimental Pedestrian Crossings
  Experimental Pedestrian Crossings
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  London Road, Cheltenham (Footpath)
  London Road, Cheltenham (Footpath)
  Speed Limits (Holiday Periods)
  Speed Limits (Holiday Periods)
  Traffic Congestion (Leytonstone and Stratford)
  Traffic Congestion (Leytonstone and Stratford)
  King's Lynn (Temporary River Bridge)
  King's Lynn (Temporary River Bridge)
  Motorways (Maintenance)
  Motorways (Maintenance)
  50 m.p.h. Speed Limit
  50 m.p.h. Speed Limit
TRANSPORT
  Driving Instruction Schools
  Driving Instruction Schools
  Motor Vehicles (Mud Flaps)
  Motor Vehicles (Mud Flaps)
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Goods Vehicles (Speed Limit)
  Goods Vehicles (Speed Limit)
  Disabled Persons (Parking Facilities)
  Disabled Persons (Parking Facilities)
  Driving Tests, Scotland
  Driving Tests, Scotland
  Transport and Parking Facilities, Crystal Palace Area
  Transport and Parking Facilities, Crystal Palace Area
  Driving Offences (Righthand Turns)
  Driving Offences (Righthand Turns)
  Land, The Hartlepools
  Land, The Hartlepools
  Highlands and Islands
  Highlands and Islands
  Motor Cycles
  Motor Cycles
  Trunk Roads (Travel and Accident Loss Studies)
  Trunk Roads (Travel and Accident Loss Studies)
  Greater Manchester (Transport Study)
  Greater Manchester (Transport Study)
  North Staffordshire
  North Staffordshire
  Rural Transport
  Rural Transport
SHIPPING
  Merchant Shipping (Liability of Ship-owners and Others) Act, 1958
  Merchant Shipping (Liability of Ship-owners and Others) Act, 1958
  Portbury Docks
  Portbury Docks
  South Wales Iron Ore Terminals (Report)
  South Wales Iron Ore Terminals (Report)
  Ex-Ship and Ex-Quay Meat Selling
  Ex-Ship and Ex-Quay Meat Selling
  Hovercraft
  Hovercraft
RAILWAYS
  Catering Establishments
  Catering Establishments
  Liverpool Rail Loop
  Liverpool Rail Loop
  Somerset-Dorset Line
  Somerset-Dorset Line
  Stanley-Kinnaber Line
  Stanley-Kinnaber Line
  Snow Hill, Birmingham, Station
  Snow Hill, Birmingham, Station
  South-East Commuter Rail Services
  South-East Commuter Rail Services
  Midland Region (Electrification Scheme)
  Midland Region (Electrification Scheme)
  Passenger Trains (Parcel Service)
  Passenger Trains (Parcel Service)
  Birmingham (New Street—Reddich and Worcester Lines)
  Birmingham (New Street—Reddich and Worcester Lines)
  Seaton—Sidmouth—Tipton St. John—Exmouth Lines
  Seaton—Sidmouth—Tipton St. John—Exmouth Lines
  Goods Train Derailments
  Goods Train Derailments
  PATENTS APPEAL TRIBUNAL
  PATENTS APPEAL TRIBUNAL
  JUDGES (ALLOWANCES AND TRAVELLING EXPENSES)
  JUDGES (ALLOWANCES AND TRAVELLING EXPENSES)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Subsonic Aerobus Proposal
  Subsonic Aerobus Proposal
  Short Brothers and Harland
  Short Brothers and Harland
  Crowd Control, London Airport
  Crowd Control, London Airport
  Commercial Charter Aircraft
  Commercial Charter Aircraft
  Airfields, Highlands and Islands
  Airfields, Highlands and Islands
  Freight Service, Belfast-Liverpool-Prestwick (Appeals)
  Freight Service, Belfast-Liverpool-Prestwick (Appeals)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Pirate Broadcasting
  Pirate Broadcasting
  Licensed Radio Amateurs (Reciprocal Agreements)
  Licensed Radio Amateurs (Reciprocal Agreements)
  Broadcasting and Television Services (Review)
  Broadcasting and Television Services (Review)
  Television Licences (Deaf People)
  Television Licences (Deaf People)
POST OFFICE
  Letter Deliveries, Belfast
  Letter Deliveries, Belfast
  Scottish 4d. Stamp
  Scottish 4d. Stamp
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  STD (Shrewsbury)
  STD (Shrewsbury)
  Kiosks, Barry
  Kiosks, Barry
  Kiosks, Glamorganshire
  Kiosks, Glamorganshire
  Scadabay, Isle of Harris
  Scadabay, Isle of Harris
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food and Drinks (Cyclamates)
  Food and Drinks (Cyclamates)
  Wood Pigeons and Rooks (Damage)
  Wood Pigeons and Rooks (Damage)
  Intensive Husbandry
  Intensive Husbandry
  Food Labelling (Regulations)
  Food Labelling (Regulations)
  Food Samples (Analysis)
  Food Samples (Analysis)
  Milk (Antibiotics)
  Milk (Antibiotics)
SCOTLAND
  Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactor
  Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactor
  Hunter Committee's Report
  Hunter Committee's Report
  Herring Industry Board (Staff)
  Herring Industry Board (Staff)
  Fishing Vessels (Protection)
  Fishing Vessels (Protection)
  Motorways
  Motorways
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Aden Base (Defence Support Facilities)
  Aden Base (Defence Support Facilities)
  Meteorological Research Flight
  Meteorological Research Flight
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Speed Limit (Prosecutions, Bournemouth)
  Speed Limit (Prosecutions, Bournemouth)
  Telephone Tapping
  Telephone Tapping
  Challenor Case
  Challenor Case
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Water Resources Act, 1963 (Application Forms)
  Water Resources Act, 1963 (Application Forms)
  Beach Pollution
  Beach Pollution
HOUSING
  Construction (King's Lynn Area)
  Construction (King's Lynn Area)
NEW HEBRIDES
  Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act, 1958
  Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act, 1958
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Overseas Aid (Minister's Statement)
  Overseas Aid (Minister's Statement)
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Caribbean (Entry Restrictions)
  Caribbean (Entry Restrictions)
  FOREIGN SERVICE APPLICANTS (EDUCATION)
  FOREIGN SERVICE APPLICANTS (EDUCATION)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Autistic Children
  Autistic Children
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Premium Bonds
  Premium Bonds
  Finance Act, 1963 (Free Depreciation Scheme)
  Finance Act, 1963 (Free Depreciation Scheme)
  Income Tax (Personal Allowance)
  Income Tax (Personal Allowance)
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Autistic Children
  Autistic Children
  Tonometry
  Tonometry
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Employed Persons, South Angus
  Employed Persons, South Angus
  Hosiery Industry, Hinckley
  Hosiery Industry, Hinckley
  Applicants for Training, King's Lynn Area
  Applicants for Training, King's Lynn Area
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Old People (Central Heating Bills)
  Old People (Central Heating Bills)
  National Assistance (Old People)
  National Assistance (Old People)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Nuclear Power Station Dungeness B
  Nuclear Power Station Dungeness B
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Maryport Roman Fort (Preservation Order)
  Maryport Roman Fort (Preservation Order)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Local Employment Acts, 1960 and 1963 (Assistance)
  Local Employment Acts, 1960 and 1963 (Assistance)
  Domestic China and Earthenware and Electrical Porcelain
  Domestic China and Earthenware and Electrical Porcelain
WALES
  Welsh Folk Museum, St. Fagans
  Welsh Folk Museum, St. Fagans
  Local Employment Act, 1960 (New Factories)
  Local Employment Act, 1960 (New Factories)

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

LORD KAHN
Richard Ferdinand Kahn, Esquire, C.B.E., having been created Baron Kahn, of Hampstead in the London Borough of Camden, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD ANNAN
Nöel Gilroy Annan, Esquire, O.B.E., having been created Baron Annan, of the Royal Burgh of Annan in the County of Dumfries, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

THE NEW FOREIGN OFFICE BUILDING
2.55 p.m.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that on July 6, 1964 (Lords Hansard, cols. 814–815), the representative speaking for the Government of that day promised that before any changes or modifications of any sort were made to the Foreign Office, drawings of the proposals being considered would be exhibited in this building before the scheme went ahead; and whether Her Majesty's Government can state whether this solemn promise is to be kept.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, the words of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, on July 6, 1964, were
"When the drawings of the new Foreign Office are available, my right honourable
1300
friend will make arrangements for them to be exhibited in this building before the scheme goes ahead."
While my right honourable friend has indicated in another place that he proposes to follow the decision of the last Government about the Foreign Office, he regards such questions as the exhibition of drawings of a proposed scheme as the responsibility of the Minister of the day. My right honourable friend has taken elaborate steps to secure publicity and discussion of Sir Leslie Martin's plan, which of course is a report on the broad framework of future development of building in the Whitehall and Parliament Square areas, and does not involve the details of any scheme or any drawings for the redevelopment of the Foreign Office.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that comment. Can he state when and where these drawings will be exhibited?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I think, with respect, that we had better wait until the drawings come into existence.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, with due regard to that comment from the noble Lord, is he not aware that there are drawings and models already being exhibited in the Library of the House of Commons?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, these surely are drawings in connection with Sir Leslie Martin's plan to which I have just referred. They are quite a different matter from architectural or similar drawings for a particular development within the broad ambit of that plan, a development on which, so far as I know, no definite decision has yet been taken other than what I mentioned about the last Government's view.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while again thanking the noble Lord, may I ask whether he will state if consideration will be given to any other proposals made as to modifying the suggestions and drawings on exhibition?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I am not sure that I heard what the noble Lord said; but may I assure him that when the drawings or the details of the plan for the redevelopment of the Foreign Office come into existence, I am

1301
quite sure my right honourable friend will try to give the same publicity and the same opportunity for discussion that he has been giving to the major plan. The major plan itself, if I might venture to say so, is very interesting. I went yesterday to the well-advertised meeting about the plan, at which Sir Leslie Martin and Professor Colin Buchanan were present, and I am sorry that the noble Lord could not manage to get there. If there is anything I can do to help him in ascertaining what is going on I will gladly do so.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I again thank the noble Lord for that comment. Will he state whether, if suggestions are made other than by Sir Leslie Martin, they will be given consideration by the Government?
LORD MITCHISON: Surely, my Lords, the Government would consider any suggestions made by any person of reasonable competence including, obviously, any suggestions made by the noble Lord. We know his interest and competence in these matters. I can assure him of that. All I can say is that one must distinguish between the general plan which is now under discussion and under consideration and the various detailed schemes which will follow afterwards. There is, for instance, a scheme about Scotland Yard and Norman Shaw's work there; there is a scheme about the Foreign Office, and there are a whole variety of things which will have to be dealt with at a later stage, when there will be opportunity for discussion and criticism.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that comment.

PROPOSED ROYAL AIR FORCE MUSEUM
3.0 p.m.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, seeing that both the Army and Royal Navy respectively have their Museums, to state whether they are going to create a Museum for the Royal Air Force; and whether it would not be
1302
possible to have this in one of the structures at street level in the Mall; or, if not there, whether there is any other place where the Museum of the Royal Air Force could be appropriately placed.]
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, proposals for the establishment of an R.A.F. Museum are being considered, and a good deal of preparatory and planning work is being done. We have not, however, yet been able to solve the problem of where the museum might be housed. A possibility which the Royal Air Force are actively considering is a building in the Mall, linked perhaps to a collection of historic aircraft in the country; but this building in the Mall is not a Government property, and it is not yet clear whether it could be obtained.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the Royal Air Force already have the money to pay for this work—it would be about a quarter of a million pounds. Is the noble Lord aware that on March 9, 1964, it was promised in the House of Commons that a museum would be established for the Royal Air Force? We have one for the Army and one for the Navy. Why cannot we also have one for the Air Force?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord knows where my personal interest lies. It is true that the Royal Air Force Committee, under the very energetic leadership of Sir Dermot Boyle, has succeeded in getting a good deal of money promised already, and there is a building which we believe would be very suitable. But, speaking on behalf of the Government, I must say that this is a matter in which other people have an interest, and the matter has yet to be settled.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I again thank the noble Lord for that comment. Will he give the utmost consideration to letting the Air Force have a museum in the centre of London? The Army and the Navy have one; why cannot the Royal Air Force have one, too?
LORD SHACKLETON: I accept that the Royal Air Force has a very strong claim

1303
to have a museum in the centre of London. The Royal Air Force feels that its history has been deeply linked with London in the Battle of Britain, and this year, of course, we celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of that Battle. I can only say that I am as anxious as the noble Lord that the Royal Air Force should have a suitable site in the centre for a museum.
LORD BOSSOM: I thank the noble Lord very much.

DISARMAMENT AND NON-DIS SEMINATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
3.5 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 what proposals for the non-dissemination of nuclear weapons are being made to the 18-Nation Disarmament Conference at Geneva and what contribution towards disarmament Her Majesty's Government intend to make.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, no proposals of non-dissemination have yet been made to the 18-Nation Disarmament Committee, which reassembled at Geneva yesterday. I have been discussing with our allies the draft of a non-dissemination treaty which we hope to present to the Committee. The Prime Minister described in another place on July 19 the subjects which we should like to see discussed in the Disarmament Committee. I hope to impress them on the Committee tomorrow, after outlining them to your Lordships later to-day.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware how much we appreciate the initiative which the British Government are taking in this matter and how much we wish him success in the negotiations which he is beginning? Does the provision in the British draft proposals for non-dissemination to groups of States mean that the Government are prepared to reconsider their plan for a NATO sharing arrangement which would
1304
involve non-nuclear nations, including Western Germany?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his good wishes. So far as the second half of his question is concerned, I think that while the negotiations and discussions are going on at Geneva I should not want to prejudice them by saying too much about the details at this stage. I shall, however, have something further to say about the general outline later this afternoon.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend, without asking for an assurance during the course of the negotiations, whether the British proposals involve any guarantee of protection, either international or regional, to countries such as India which agree not to develop nuclear arms?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, my noble friend is very persuasive, but these are indeed issues that are at stake in Geneva, and clearly it would be irresponsible for me to begin to discuss them now while these important negotiations are still going on.
LORD REA: My Lords, since the Minister referred to a proposal he had on which he consulted allies, could he tell us which of our allies he has consulted, and does it include France?
LORD CHALFONT: So far, all the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation are included.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me how he reconciles the non-dissemination policy with the employment of a super-salesman in armaments?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, if the noble Lady would like to put that down as a separate Question, I shall try to answer it

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable time after 3.30 p.m. two Statements will be made. The first will be made by my noble friend Lord Shackleton on the findings of the Board of Inquiry into the Hastings accident on July 6, and the second will be made by my noble friend Lord Lindgren on an interim plan for ports development.
COMMONS REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
TRADE DISPUTES BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments made by the Lords disagreed to, with a Reason for such disagreement: the said Amendments and Reason to be printed.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
3.8 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON rose to draw attention to the international situation, and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is customary, just before the House breaks up for the Summer Recess, for your Lordships to have a debate on Foreign Affairs, and my noble friends and I thought it right and proper that this year should not be an exception, for there is certainly a great deal to talk about. Not only does this occasion give us an opportunity to talk about the issues which most immediately concern us, but also it enables us—and I think that this House is particularly fitted for this—to discuss rather more widely the direction of British foreign policy and British interests. We are so often preoccupied with the difficulties of the moment that we sometimes tend to overlook the longer-term trends and shifts of emphasis.
If, in what I say, I do not refer to disarmament, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will not think me discourteous and will not think that I do not believe it very important; but, as he himself has said, he is going to make a speech and explain the problem later on in the debate and therefore I do not intend to comment on this except to say that if the noble Lord and Her Majesty's Government succeed in achieving a non-dissemination discussion in Geneva they will have done a great service to everyone in the world, and they certainly have the best wishes of all noble Lords in all quarters of the House, But my noble friend Lord Dundee will be speaking later on in the debate, and no doubt will
1306
have some comments to make on what the noble Lord has to say.
There has, I think, been in the last ten years a gradual but quite marked shift away from a Russian/American confrontation and the probability of all-out nuclear war. And with that change I think that we must start rethinking some of the policies and principles which have for so long guided us. Ever since the last war we have been conditioned to thinking in terms of Soviet aggression, particularly in Europe. This has been very natural, because for many years after the Second War there was a real danger of another world war resulting from the Russian Communist philosophy of world revolution.
However, in the last ten years there has been a significant change. This has come about for three reasons: first, I believe, because the Russians, whatever they may say in public and whatever boasts they may make, are very well aware of the enormous superiority of the United States in nuclear weapons and their delivery. The relative mildness of their reaction to the United States moves in South Vietnam and to the bombing of North Vietnam is evidence of this. Though it is undoubtedly true that in the smaller international problems the possession of nuclear power does nothing but inhibit the country which possesses it, since it is almost unthinkable that it could be used against a relatively defenceless country. Yet it still remains true in world affairs that power counts and power rests in the hands of the United States.
Secondly, there has been in Russia a gradual shift away from the doctrine of world revolution by military means. With the death of Stalin and altered priorities has come an improved standard of life in the Soviet Union, which has brought with it a much less aggressive attitude. Those who have nothing and have nothing to lose are much more inclined to aggression and much more easily led to war than those with a higher standard of life. And the increasing material wealth of the people of the Soviet Union is a most welcome factor in international affairs. Thirdly, there has been the emergence of China as a world Power and, with the emergence, the clash of Communist philosophy between the Soviet Union and China. This leaves the

1307
Soviet Union not only with an ideological problem, but also with the military problem on the vast frontier between the two countries. No doubt all your Lordships will have heard tell of the many incidents which have been reported along that frontier.
If, then, I am right in suggesting that open aggression by the Soviet Union has in the last ten years become more and more unlikely and that a world war arising from Soviet aggression is extremely unlikely, except by a series of appalling miscalculations on both sides, then we should look very carefully at our strategic thinking. I am glad to think that there is to be a review of NATO strategy. I am sure that we must not be afraid to adjust ourselves to new facts and, in conjunction with our allies, make a tactical reassessment of our interests. But the enigma lies in the attitude and direction in which Communist China is likely to move. I shall add a little more about this in what I have to say later about South Vietnam.
Another of the trends which has taken place since the war has been the emergence and dominance of the nation with the big population and the large industrial capacity. Before the war, it was perfectly possible for a country of as little as 20 million or 30 million people to be in the van of technological development, to produce sophisticated goods over a very wide range and to have a powerful army, navy and air force, though not, of course, numerically as strong as the giants. But since the war, with the increasing complexity and sophistication of almost everything that we use in our society, and with the fantastic advance in weapons and equipment, and their phenomenal costs, it is no longer possible even for a medium-sized nation to be in the same class, industrially or militarily, as countries of the size of the United States and Russia. And I should have thought that everything we had seen since the war would lead us to suppose that this trend is likely to continue. Though we in this country may be able to surpass the United States in inventiveness and research in a particular field, it is not possible for a country the size of Britain to compete over the entire range of industrial and military output. I must say that I sometimes wonder whether it will in the future be possible
1308
even for the United States to do everything in the military sphere, without relying in certain respects upon her allies.
Three new factors, then, have to be taken into consideration: first, the tacit acceptance by both United States and Russia that a war in Europe is a most unlikely event; secondly, the increasing dominance of those large countries with their vast industrial potential; and, thirdly, the emergence of China as a world Power. How do we in Britain fit into this changing scene? What are we to do, if we wish to maintain our standard of life and exert our influence among the great nations? I am not one of those who believe that it is possible for a nation to influence events, except in a very minor way, unless it is economically strong and industrially powerful. At the same time, I am quite certain that what we have to say in this country, the experience that we have gained over the centuries and the interests and welfare of the people of this country demand that we should be influencial in world councils. What are we to do? And where do our interests lie?
There is, I think, a school of thought among some members of the Party opposite—though not those in Government—that, now that we have no Empire and the Commonwealth is a rather loose association, we should, so to speak, opt out of world affairs; that we should reduce our military expenditure, opt out of our miltary commitments outside Europe and concentrate on being a sort of rather larger Sweden. I suppose that the 75 Socialist Members of Parliament who signed the letter in Tribune the other day represent, by and large, this point of view. I must say, however, that, much as I admire the Swedish people, I do not find that an attractive proposition for Britain. I do not think that that is either the best or the only alternative.
Some noble Lords opposite, at the time of the last British attempt to join the Common Market, thought that association with the Commonwealth would be an alternative. I do not know whether office has made them a little more realistic; or perhaps the last Prime Ministers' Conference has opened their eyes to reality. For the Commonwealth cannot be a military bloc, a political bloc or an economic bloc. One has only to look at the diversity of its members and their

1309
interests to realise that anybody who seriously contemplates an economic tie, even of the loosest character, does not understand what is happening in the Commonwealth to-day. Though I am a great supporter of the Commonwealth—and I think that your Lordships must have heard me speak about it on many occasions—I do not see it developing in that way. We could, I suppose, associate ourselves much more closely with the United States, in some sort of Customs Union and trade area. If we did so, however, I do not think that we should last very long as a sovereign State.
We are therefore, I think, left with the alternative of an association with Europe. The Conservative Party declared at one of its annual conferences that it was in favour of joining the Common Market, and nothing that has happened since that day, in spite of the veto of General de Gaulle, has made me think that we were wrong. One may argue, of course, about terms, and there has to be a realisation on the part of the Six of the economic difficulties of such countries as New Zealand; but it still seems to me that it would be good for Britain to be closely associated with Europe, and good for Europe if that were to come about.
The economic bloc which would then emerge would be of a size capable of holding its own among the giants of the world. The domestic market which it would produce would be large enough to support the most advanced and sophisticated industries, and it could operate, in conjunction with the United States, as a powerful and vital force in world affairs. Indeed, I do not see why it should not in the foreseeable future greatly increase its contacts with Russia, and more particularly, in the short term, with the countries of Eastern Europe, whose political pattern is changing very rapidly. I hope that the Government may take vigorous steps to increase our contacts and our trade in what are known as the satellite countries. If I am right in thinking that co-existence and a certain friendliness and appreciation of each other's problems is much more marked between Russia and America, then a powerful economic bloc in Europe will of itself lead to a lessening of tension and better relations throughout the Western World.
Of course, there is at the moment a dispute in the Common Market countries
1310
between France and the other members. Reaction by some people has, I think, been one of amused detachment, together with a secret feeling that, because the French vetoed our entry into the Common Market, it would be entirely fitting that France should break it up. For the reasons I have already given, I believe that a Europe economically strong and powerful is of vital interest in the balance of power in the world, and anything which weakens Europe must necessarily be bad. It is quite wrong that any of us should rejoice at the present dispute in Europe: for if Europe is weakened, then the West is weakened. It would, I believe, be a great mistake to think that this dispute is anything other than a temporary setback. The Common Market has gone so far, and been so successful, that I do not believe any of the Six are likely to throw away the many achievements and advantages which they have gained. Some accommodation will be found which will be acceptable to all parties. It may take a long time, but it will be found. And certainly it is in the interests of Europe and ourselves that it should be so.
Generally speaking, the foreign policy that the Government have followed since taking office has been very similar to that of their predecessors. In Vietnam, Malaysia, Cyprus, and in their attitude to East/West relations and their adherence to the Anglo-American Alliance and NATO—in all these things our policies are virtually indistinguishable; and a very good thing, too! But in what I am saying about Europe, I am not at all sure that I carry the Party opposite with me. If I do not, there is a strong divergence of view. The Socialist Party have, of course, gradually been coming nearer to the concept of some sort of association with Europe. The Foreign Secretary and others have been gently edging Labour Party opinion towards that end, but not by any means all noble Lords opposite are convinced that it would be a good thing.
The five conditions which are a prerequisite of Socialist adherence are still, so we are told, holy writ. If the noble Earl the Leader of the House will allow me to say so, it was difficult to discover from his Delphic words on the occasion of our debate on the Common Market, a few months ago, exactly what the policy

1311
of Her Majesty's Government was, or, indeed, what the opinion of the noble Earl was. Perhaps we shall learn in a few moments—or, should I say, in a few hours?—when the noble Earl comes to speak. But one thing I hope he will not do. I hope that the noble Earl will not talk about building bridges between EFTA and the Six, because that is completely unrealistic. The two organisations are entirely different concepts: one is purely economic, and the other is economic and political. The Government and the noble Earl, if he does speak on these lines, will be misinterpreting the objects of both organisations and misunderstanding their purpose. But at any rate I hope that the noble Earl will be able to explain in rather more detail what is the Government's attitude towards Europe.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, at the risk of bringing a little premature heat into the debate, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition whether he would explain what is the attitude of the Opposition to joining Europe? Would they embark on negotiations now?
LORD CARRINGTON: I think the noble Earl ought to be able to do a little better than that, so early in the afternoon. May I suggest that he reads the speech made by my right honourable friend Sir Alec Douglas-Home in another place only last week? I am sure that he has already done so, but if he reads it again, I think that he will have the answer to his question.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, if I may interrupt once more only before midnight, when I think I shall be speaking, may I say that surely we have not reached the point in this House where we have to be told that we must read speeches made in the other place rather than be told the policy of the Opposition here.
LORD CARRINGTON: No. But we have reached a point in this House where we do not have this repetition. We nearly succeeded, as a Government, three years ago in joining the Common Market. Let us not, in the meantime, before we can try again, do anything which will make our subsequent entry more difficult; and
1312
let us resolve to try to join at the earliest opportunity.
I come now to the problem of China. Broadly speaking, there seem to be two views about China. There are those, such as the Americans and others, who think that China is expansionist in both a military and an ideological sense. They observe what is happening in South Vietnam, and the encouragement given to it by the Chinese. They read what is said by Chinese leaders and in Chinese newspapers, and they take the view that China is potentially a bigger threat to world peace than the Soviet Union. They see the emergence of China as a nuclear Power, and reason that within a few years, when larger nuclear weapons and their means of delivery are available to them, the balance of power in the world is likely to shift very substantially. They also feel that the possession of these weapons in the hands of the Chinese may be a very different thing from the same weapons in the hands of the Russians.
The other point of view, held by General de Gaulle, as I understand it, and by some others, is that China is not expansionist; that it is very largely the presence of Europeans in South-East Asia which is causing these difficulties, and that if all Europeans withdrew and left the region to its own devices there would emerge a number of States independent of Communist China, though I suppose possibly Communist, a situation which would bring peace and stability to the area. In other words, they believe that China is not interested in military expansion.
My Lords, I think at this stage it is very difficult to judge which of these two concepts is the right one; and particularly is it difficult to judge whether the second one is right, since the only way of putting it to the test is by complete withdrawal from Vietnam, Malaysia and elsewhere and waiting to see what happens. This is not, I suggest, a very appetising suggestion.
I remember ten years ago paying a visit to the Far East for the Eden Hall Conference, which used to take place every year in Singapore, and speaking to a number of those most concerned with our policy out there—the Chargé d' Affaires in Peking, Sir Robert Scott, who was then Commissioner-General, and many others very experienced in Far Eastern matters

1313
—and they took the view at that time that the Chinese leadership were not really aware of the devastating consequences of nuclear war. I remember that I wrote a Minute to my noble friend Lord Avon, who was then Prime Minister, on the subject. Your Lordships will remember that this was some years ago before the days of long-range rockets and the vast number of megatons which it is now possible to deliver. But those who had seen a nuclear explosion and knew the effect of it at Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and heard of much bigger explosions which were then taking place in the United States and the Soviet Union, were absolutely convinced that a nuclear war was unthinkable. The Chinese, in their vast-ness, had no experience of this, and it was thought that they considered the size of their country and its vast population rendered them largely immune to the effects of nuclear warfare.
If that was true then, is it true now? I should have thought not. The Chinese have detonated their first atomic device. They have knowledge of what these weapons can do. In ten years the size and potential destruction and means of delivery have all increased in power, in range and in sophistication. I do not think the leaders of any country in the world can now suppose that they can be even partially immune from nuclear war. I should not, therefore, have thought it likely that the Chinese, knowing their immense inferiority to the Americans, are likely to risk a global war.
But whether or not they are expansionist militarily—and they may well calculate that it is possible to expand without the dangers of nuclear war—they are certainly expansionist in their ideology. It is the avowed intention of the Chinese to ensure the spread of Communism, and one has no reason to doubt that they intend to do so. One has no reason to doubt, also, that the sort of Communism that they want to see is the Chinese type of Communism. Therefore, I am bound to say it seems to me that the more likely effect of a withdrawal from South Vietnam and South-East Asia is the emergence of Communist régimes on the Chinese lines, and dominated politically, if not militarily, from Peking.
If this is so—and I accept that there are two views about it—what would be the
1314
immediate consequences of American withdrawal? The South Vietnamese Government would collapse at once—there can be no doubt of that—the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation would disappear; no confidence would remain among its Asian members. Thailand's morale would be greatly, if not fatally, shaken, as would that of her neighbours who wish to remain neutral. American prestige would suffer such a serious blow that the whole of their world-wide policy of resistance to Communist aggression would suffer and be suspect.
I do not for one moment imagine that the United States intends that any of these things should happen, nor can she afford to see them happen. The Americans are deeply committed in South Vietnam. They cannot afford to lose, and they do not intend to lose. This very important and salient fact should be clearly understood by those in Hanoi and in Peking who imagine that total victory for them in South Vietnam is possible. It would be idle to deny that the Americans are facing great problems, not least of which is the uncertainty of the political situation in Saigon. Whatever one may have thought of Diem and some of the methods he employed, he was undoubtedly having a certain amount of success in consolidating the South, in making the villages secure from Viet Cong, and making it clear to quite a lot of people in the South that it paid to support the régime. Since then there have been a series of disastrous Governments with no popular backing and producing no results.
When we talk of the war in South Vietnam we must remember that in one way or another the South Vietnamese have been fighting for over twenty years, and not unnaturally they are thoroughly fed up with it. And they are even more fed up when it appears that the results of fighting for successive South Vietnamese Governments do not seem to lead to peace and stability and the safety of their wives and families. The war in South Vietnam, as we know, is not a war in the ordinary sense of the word. There are no fronts, and no armies marching here and there. It is a war of movement at night, of sabotage and raids. As one sleeps at night in the British Embassy in Saigon, one can hear the mortars and guns of the Viet Cong. Yet during the day it is

1315
impossible to find them as they hide among the rivers and marshes of the area.
All this leads to great uncertainty, and it is essential for any political leader of South Vietnam, if he is to have any popular support at all, to show results, and to show them fairly quickly. This is the problem which faces General Ky and his American advisers. In my view, it is certainly one of the most important problems at the present time in South Vietnam. We know from our own experience in Malaya how a few men can disrupt the ordinary life of a country. We know at first hand of the problems and difficulties of fighting in jungle and paddyfield. It took us a very long time to win in Malaya, and it may take the Americans, or the South Vietnamese, a long time to stabilise the position in South Vietnam. But I have no doubt of the American ability to do this, and the impossibility of an American defeat.
Of course, it would be much better if we could bring this war to an end by negotiations, and reach a settlement which is acceptable to all the parties. All of us share the Prime Minister's wish to do that, but I think the difficulty at the moment is that the North Vietnamese seriously believe that they are going to win, and are therefore not in a mood to receive peace missions or to think of negotiations. I am afraid that at the present time we shall not be able to shake them in this belief. But I also believe that, as the monsoon nears its end, and as American military power and determination become even more apparent to the North Vietnamese, there may well be a change. It is then that we should do everything in our power to see that the negotiations are resumed. It is then that we should use our influence as Co-Chairmen of the Geneva Agreement. It is then that we should seek to influence events by such methods as the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Mission, but having taken the precaution of preparing the ground beforehand.
I do not believe that there is an easy or a quick solution to this problem, but I think that it is possible, towards the end of the year, that we shall find a different climate of opinion in North Vietnam and Peking. Let us devoutly hope so, and that in that solution to
1316
the problem Britain may play an important and constructive role. I beg to move for Papers.

INQUIRY INTO HASTINGS AIRCRAFT CRASH
3.36 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to make a Statement similar to one which is being made in another place on the findings of the Board of Inquiry into the accident to a Hastings aircraft of the Royal Air Force on July 6, and on the action which is being taken following the Inquiry.
"The Board have found that the loss of control which caused the aircraft to crash was due to the failure of the two upper attachment bolts of the starboard outer elevator out-rigger. Subsequent tests at Harefield Laboratories and the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, have shown that the failure was one of fatigue.
"The Ministry of Aviation and the manufacturers have made a thorough investigation of the Hastings control system and have defined certain work which it is considered should be done on all Hastings aircraft before they are released for flying. It has been decided to return to the manufacturers in this country, or to suitable centres overseas, for reconditioning and modification, all elevators, tailplanes, fins and rudders. While the aircraft are grounded, the opportunity is also being taken by the Service to carry out special checks for any other defects, and remedial action will be taken if necessary. In parallel with this work, and as a precautionary measure, the manufacturers are making a separate study of the general structure of the aircraft to enable them to give an assurance on its safety for the remainder of its life.
"I cannot say at this stage exactly how long the necessary remedial work will take; but the first aircraft should be flying again within a few weeks and the whole programme should be complete in about two months.

1317
"A detailed study has been made of the effect of the temporary withdrawal of the Hastings on our operational and training capabilities. The main impact is on our training programme which will have to be temporarily curtailed in a number of ways. By means of a re-allocation of priorities and increased chartering, additional transport aircraft have been made available for our air forces overseas and this will enable them to meet their operational commitments. Transport Command are proud of the standards that have enabled their scheduled services to achieve probably the finest airline safety record in the world, and everything possible will be done to maintain these standards."
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Statement. It fell to me three weeks ago to join the noble Lord in his expressions of sympathy for the relatives of those killed in this disaster. It now seems clear that at the time his Department took the proper precautions to prevent any possible repetition through a similar fault in this particular aircraft. Measures now set in hand seem to be a logical second stage in that prevention, while yet enabling the Hastings to return to its useful service without risking irreplaceable lives.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
3.39 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I need hardly say that with much, if not with everything, that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said in his excellent speech I find myself in complete agreement. Indeed, I was very happy to recognise in his arguments many of those which I myself have had the honour to deploy in this House during the last three or four years. But this afternoon, with your Lordships' permission, I should like, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, to examine in even greater detail, two of the subjects with which the noble Lord dealt—namely, Vietnam and Europe and, in addition to that, to add just a few words on the subject of NATO reform. With regard to disarmament, which perhaps I might also be expected to deal with, I should like to make the same disclaimer as the noble Lord.
1318
On Vietnam I am sure your Lordships will agree that they had an extraordinarily good debate on this subject in another place the other day. I think I am right in saying that most of us do read the debates in another place, at any rate on our own special subjects. Certainly I read them, and with great profit. Besides associating ourselves on these Benches with the excellent speech of the Leader of the Liberal Party on that occasion, I should like, on behalf of my noble friends, also to take this opportunity of associating ourselves with the general line taken on Vietnam by that wise and good man the Foreign Secretary. This I thought was quite in harmony with the views expressed by our own Leader on that occasion.
I myself was particularly struck with what Mr. Stewart said on the subject of "peaceful change" in general, and we must all hope, of course, that the Foreign Secretary's patient efforts to encourage the possibility of negotiations to end this terrible war will be crowned with success. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, indicated, the hard facts of the situation are that there is practically no possibility of this happening at the moment. Therefore, once again I suggest, as I did the other day, that it would be a mistake for the Government for the time being to send any more peace doves to Hanoi, and indeed for the time being to go on talking about the important role of the Commonwealth Peace Mission.
I saw mention the other day in one of the organs of the Press of the possibility of yet another mission being conferred on no less a person than Mr. Malcolm MacDonald. I do not know whether there is any truth in that or not. Nobody could be better qualified for this undertaking, it is true, but even Mr. MacDonald is not a magician, and if anything emerged from the debate in another place it was the conclusion that as things are at the moment the North Vietnamese think they are winning this war and in any efforts to get them to negotiate they will simply see a trick to deprive them of what they think are the fruits of victory.
I hold no particular brief for Mrs. Verdun Perl, Liberal candidate, I understand, for Abingdon, but in her interview which was published in the Liberal News

1319
on July 23 last, recounting her talk with Ho Chi Minh—and apparently she is the only English person to have seen Ho Chi Minh for a long time—she said one thing which struck me as being profoundly true, as follows:
"Whatever we do now, it is taken as further proof that President Johnson knows he is losing the war and all such moves are having exactly the opposite effect to what is intended."
In other words, the despatch of envoys by us is assumed to be an indirect expression of an American desire to "call it a day" and to arrange for some truce which will halt the Viet Cong during the monsoon period, in which they see their best chance of getting the better of the Americans. So I suggest that we and our Commonwealth colleagues would be well advised to go slow, at any rate during the next few months, and in the meantime we must clearly, for the reasons given by the Foreign Secretary, continue to back up the Americans in a general way. But should we not at the same time say, confidentially but quite clearly, that we hope they will not bomb open towns in North Vietnam but confine the bombing, pending negotiations, to strategic objectives? I see no reason why we should not volunteer that advice.
Of course, if the Russians would agree to summon the Geneva Conference, that would be splendid, but one would have to be pretty optimistic to believe that there was any likelihood of that at the present time. Indeed, all the present indications seem to show that, for one reason or another, Her Majesty's Government are not at the moment in the very good books of the Soviet Government. All this sounds depressing, but I do not see why we should lose our heads, even if we cannot make much progress for the time being. As I said when I last addressed your Lordships on this subject, I myself believe that the dangers of this war "escalating" (as the awful phrase has it) are very small, for reasons which I have already given and which I will not repeat. Area bombing of Hanoi or other districts would be the one thing which might conceivably result in an extension of the war, and I devoutly hope the Americans will not proceed to that extremity.
I turn to Europe. I suggest there is no doubt that more and more people in this country, for some odd reason which
1320
is not altogether explicable, are coming to the conclusion that we ought to say that, as soon as it is possible, we still want to sign the Treaty of Rome and work for what Mr. Duncan Sandys calls "the progressive political union of Europe". I hope your Lordships will think I am not in any way immodest when I say that this is what the organisation known as Britain in Europe—which of course contains many Conservative and Labour members as well as Liberals—has been fruitlessly urging, first on a Tory, and subsequently on a Labour, Administration ever since the General's veto. I think the Liberal Party can also take a certain satisfaction in observing that the idea of a Declaration of Intent—that is to say that the Government should say they want to sign the Treaty of Rome, if possible before a certain date—is also catching on. All this seems to me to be very satisfactory, and I can only hope that there will soon be some indication that Mr. Duncan Sandys's policy is the official policy of the Tory Party.
I did not gather from what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said to-day that such is the case, but I hope it is so, and perhaps the dramatic event of yesterday will make this much more likely than it was before. Who knows, my Lords, perhaps before the Election—and goodness knows when that will be !—it may even turn out to be the official policy of Her Majesty's Government, too. You never know!
There is one point which I think should be brought out now. It is that what we stand for, on these Benches at any rate, is not, as some people try to suggest when they talk about Liberal policy, a federal solution to the European problem, but rather a Community solution. The difference between these two conceptions—and even if I am boring you I should like to continue on this theme for two minutes—really must be understood. As I see it, it is this. Under a federal solution the first thing to do would be for all the Powers concerned in the Common Market to arrange at once for direct elections to the so-called "Parliament of Europe", which under the Treaty of Rome they are perfectly entitled to do if all agree. This would involve creating huge new constituencies of, I imagine, about half a million people each, regardless, I suppose, of nationalities and,

1321
presumably, the formation of European Parties, in which, naturally, the Communists would figure very largely, and more particularly in Italy and in France.
Such a Parliament, when elected, would thus deem itself to be, and in fact it would be to a large extent, a kind of sovereign power, and in due course it might be expected that the Council of Ministers would be drawn from its ranks and therefore subjected to its collective will. This really would be a Federal State, and even if the Ministers were not actually drawn from the Assembly but continued to represent their countries, as they do now in the Council of Ministers, acting by a qualified majority vote, they would still tend to develop into a kind of senate—in fact, that is the idea—whereas Professor Hall-stein's Brussels Commission would become a kind of Governmental machine —a kind of Washington—dependent chiefly on the popular assembly. All that would be necessary under such a system, if it is to work at all, would be to elect, again presumably by direct suffrage, a President of Europe who would take charge of the whole executive machine, including, of course, the famous nuclear button.
I do not know what your Lordships think, but personally I have always thought that such ideas as those were, to say the least, impracticable, not to say positively futuristic. Anything may happen one day, but it is impossible to think that there would be, at any rate for many years, enough common European patriotism—because that is what would be wanted—still less any common desire to reduce our ancient European nations to the status of California or Wyoming. And if, when people say that they agree with General de Gaulle's European thesis they simply mean that such a solution as this is out, I myself am unhesitatingly in agreement with them.
But what we stand for here in the Liberal Party, I think, and certainly what Britain in Europe has always stood for is something totally different. It is the so-called "Community" solution; that is to say, a system whereby important decisions in certain defined sectors of the economic and social sphere, are taken by a European Council of Ministers by what is called a "qualified" majority vote—that is to say, a vote in which it is very difficult for a Great Power to be
1322
put in a minority, though not impossible—on the advice of what is, after all, a new invention in foreign affairs, the impartial and independent Commission. This is the system laid down in the Treaty of Rome, and it will come into force—that is to say, majority voting—on January 1 next, unless by one means or another its application is prevented by the action of the French Government. If we are to have a community of any kind, as opposed to a mere alliance under the management of one Power only, or even a Free Trade Area, this is the only possible way short of the federal solution I have described in which provision could be made for certain decisions to be taken in common. And as I see it—and this is what we have been suggesting for a very long time; and I think the idea is catching on a good deal—we in this country ought willingly to agree to this system operating in the economic sphere, as we should legally be bound to do if we signed the Treaty of Rome. But more than that, we should agree that it should operate to an increasing extent, but gradually, in the political and defence spheres, also.
As for the Parliament of Europe, as it is called, we should be in favour of its having a considerable and well-defined role. Indeed, the present powers of this Parliament, and notably its powers over the Commission, might well be increased. That would be the democratic element in the whole thing. But we would not be in favour of direct elections of the kind I have described until there was general agreement, unanimity if you like, between all the Powers concerned that it should be done. Thus a nominated Parliament—it would, after all, be nominated, as they are now, but it would still be a democratic body—would have a definite though limited, rôle to play, as would the Commission. But the real power would still lie with the Ministers. In spite of the recent hullabaloo to the effect that the Brussels Commission was trying to impose a federation, this was basically the scheme for handling the budget of the Community which was recently put up to the Ministers by Professor Hallstein. It was not a federal scheme, as I see it, though it was certainly a supranational one. But what other kind of scheme could the Commission have

1323
submitted if it was to preserve the idea of a Community at all?
It is useless, I submit, to wave a European flag and say you are in favour of "Europe", unless you mean you are at least prepared to go as far as this in the direction of a supranational system. We do not want the kind of federal Europe I have described, if only because it would be quite impossible to work. But still less do we want a "Europe of States" which provides no means of arriving at decisions except by complete unanimity; which does not even admit the possibility of having an independent Commission; and which is therefore virtually a contradiction in terms. For this 19th century conception of a Europe of States, even if we joined it, could not possibly give us the benefits, economic and political, of a 20th century union responding to the necessities of our modern life. If the present French Government insist that that is all they can or will agree to and the Brussels machinery must be abolished, all we can do, I am afraid, is to wait until economic events make it absolutely clear what are the effects of such a disastrous policy, both here and on the other side of the Channel.
But in the meantime we certainly ought to make it clear what exactly our objective is, and I can only hope that the Government, after mature reflection, will pronounce themselves in favour of what I call the Community thesis, a thesis so long defended by Britain in Europe and now apparently adhered to not only by Liberals but by many Labour M.P.s and also, I have no doubt, by a very large section of the Tory Party. Of course there must be negotiations before we can actually sign the Treaty of Rome, but it is dangerous to go into negotiations unless we know what the real object of the negotiations is. Besides, if we came out in favour of some kind of supranational European system which I have described, we should be—I assure you it is true—vastly encouraging all our friends on the Continent of Europe; and, quite seriously, it might, as things are, be about the only thing which could prevent General de Gaulle from forming his famous "Europe of States" without Britain and thus ensuring our permanent exclusion from the Continent.
1324
I should like, in conclusion, to say one word about the problem of the reform of NATO. It is going to be discussed at the Atlantic Treaty Association's General Assembly in September in Rome, over which I have the honour to preside, and is also on the agenda of the NATO Parliamentarian meeting in New York in October. It is further on the agenda of the Atlantic Institute, of which I am a Vice President. So far as is in my power, I shall try to see that these efforts are to some extent coordinated. As I see it, it is not so much the North Atlantic Treaty which needs revision—the Treaty, I think I am right in saying, can hardly be revised before 1969—but the Organisation itself which was set up after the signature of the Treaty can be revised at any time by general consent. Now, for all we know, the French Government may not agree to the continued maintenance of NATO in Paris. It would seem that they regard it as in some way a manifestation of American power and therefore in itself a not very acceptable thing. I do not think it would matter very much if NATO were established in some other capital, provided that certain communications and such matters as oil and certain infrastructure arrangements, were still continued through France.
We are not—and here I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—really thinking any more in terms of a land war in Western Europe, or indeed in terms of any war, although clearly there must be a considerable military establishment in Western Europe to guard against this lamentable possibility, and for other reasons, such as European morale. But as to the possible major reform of NATO, namely, granting more responsibility as regards decision making in the political and, indeed, in the nuclear sphere to members of the Alliance other than America, I think it is becoming clearer and clearer that this will not be a soluble problem until such time as we get agreement, if we ever do, on what is going to happen to the construction of some kind of European Defence and Political Community.
The Liberals, along with other Parties, have always maintained that if there is to be a common European scheme for defence, it must, for so long in any case as the American army is in Germany, be

1325
one which is an integral part of the Western Alliance and capable of fulfilling a role agreed with the major nuclear Powers of the West. I do not want to be pessimistic, but I personally doubt whether any schemes for an M.L.F. or an A.N.F. will materialise until some kind of European settlement has been agreed on, and therefore we should all sincerely hope that this will not be unduly delayed. In any case, I am sure that the more enthusiasm there can be in this country in favour of the European idea in general, and the Community system in particular, the more likely we are, in the long run, to be able to solve what is, after all, the outstanding political problem of our generation; and that, in this difficult period of economic stress, is something to which we should increasingly bend the thoughts and the energies of this great nation.

PORT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
4.1 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, I regret having to make a second intrusion into this important debate, but, with your Lordships' permission, I will now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport.
The Interim Plan for the Ports prepared by the National Ports Council in accordance with Section 1 of the Harbours Act, 1964, is being published this afternoon; copies will be available in the Printed Paper Office. The principal recommendation is the development—which the Council consider to be urgently necessary—of fourteen ports, involving the construction of about 70 new berths and the renovation of about 46 existing berths. These schemes, some of which have already been started, are additional to the proposals for the iron ore ports in South Wales. In total they would cost about £150 million to £155 million. This expenditure will, of course, necessarily be phased over a number of years.
The Government welcome these proposals for much-needed modernisation and expansion of port capacity and in particular the proposals for providing new deep-water berths. Ports are a vital element in the basic industrial structure of the country; their modernisation
1326
is of particular importance in helping to speed the movement of exports. Measures for port development must be coordinated nationally, but the regional Economic Planning Councils and the Councils for Scotland and Wales are also being asked to consider the implications of the Report. It is the responsibility of the port authorities to submit individual schemes to the Minister for detailed consideration, in consultation with the Council. The existence of the Interim Plan will not rule out consideration of other schemes, which port authorities may wish to submit, and all these schemes will be considered in relation to the Government's overall planning for ports.
The Council also recommend improvements in port organisation, the early reform of certain charges made by port authorities and the complete overhaul and reform by port authorities of their charges structures in the next five years or so. Certain of these recommendations will fall to be considered in conjunction with the report of the Committee of Inquiry under Lord Devlin. Others may be brought to the attention of the Economic Development Committee for the movement of exports, whose work is just beginning. We agree that reform of port charges will be necessary to ensure better and more efficient use of existing facilities and to encourage development of the ports. The Council also recommend that, for the purpose of assisting port authorities to undertake proposed development, the Government should make grants up to £25 million to £30 million in the next five years. We are now studying this recommendation in consultation with the Council. The Government are grateful to Lord Rochdale and his colleagues for their Report, which is a notable step in planning for the ports on a national basis.
LORD ST.OSWALD: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. I do not think it raises any Party issues, of which there is no inhibiting dearth in other sectors of government. At the moment, therefore, I will confine myself to adding our expression of appreciation from these Benches to Lord Rochdale and his colleagues, and say that we shall be studying the Plan as printed and now available, and that we may have more comment to make after that study.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, in view of the economy that is being made in public expenditure, what will be the effect of the Statement that the noble Lord has just made on the overall Government policy for expenditure? Clearly, if there is to be economy in public expenditure, it may have a quite severe reflection on the Statement he has just made to the House.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Statement in another place yesterday, which was repeated here, was quite definite in stating that the expansion of the ports was urgent to boost exports, and in addition it was necessary to improve access to the ports.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
4.6 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, may I first explain my rather exalted place in the order of speaking to-day. It is largely due to the inflexible demands of time and distance. As your Lordships will know, I am at present engaged in negotiations in the reconvened Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Commission in Geneva; but I thought it right to return on the occasion of this important debate in your Lordships' House, to report on the progress and prospects in disarmament. I apologise in advance for the fact that I shall have to leave the debate early, and I trust your Lordships will acquit me of any suspicion of discourtesy. In fact, when your Lordships are concluding your debate I shall be in a Continental train between Paris and Geneva. I leave your Lordships to judge which of us will be the more comfortable at that time.
I propose, then, in my remarks to concentrate on the questions of disarmament and the United Nations. My noble friends Lord Walston and the Leader of the House will deal with the other substantive issues of foreign policy later in this debate. I shall leave with regret. I always enjoy the debates in your Lordships' House and I feel that today's will be made more memorable by the fact, at
1328
which perhaps I may be allowed to express my great delight, that I shall be followed by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, and by the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, who is to make his maiden speech. It would be superfluous, and indeed impertinent, for me to draw attention to the experience and distinction of the noble Earl in the field of foreign affairs. But I might perhaps say that I had the pleasure of working for quite a short time with the noble Lord, Lord Caccia in his previous incarnation, and I know that it will give your Lordships great pleasure when he rises to make his first contribution to your Lordship's debates.
I shall, then, as I say, concentrate upon the subjects of my own speciality. I shall not try to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, nor shall I try to follow the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, down the fascinating but labyrinthine way of European policy, although perhaps I might be allowed to express my own pleasure and appreciation, and that of all of us on this side, at the extremely constructive and unprovocative nature of the two speeches that we have just heard.
May I begin by outlining briefly some of the recent developments in the field of disarmament? As your Lordships will know, earlier this year we had an interesting debate in the United Nations Disarmament Commission in New York. This was a conference of all the countries of the United Nations, 114 delegates sitting round the table in New York. The debate was interesting. It was at times valuable. But it is no substitute for the hard business of negotiating disarmament. It was, although valuable, no more than a debate.
At the end of this debate the United Nations Disarmament Commission passed, in each case by a very large majority, two resolutions. The first of these resolutions called for a world disarmament conference. This, of course, as your Lordships will know, would be a conference even larger than the conference of the United Nations Disarmament Commission, in that it would probably include countries which are not at present members of the United Nations. Her Majesty's Government do not think that such a conference will serve any very useful purpose, but we shall not stand in its way if it is the wish of the

1329
majority of the countries of the world that such a conference should take place.
The second resolution of the United Nations Disarmament Commission called for the reconvening of the Eighteen-Nation Committee of Disarmament. With your Lordships' indulgence, I should like to quote from that resolution:
"Convinced that failure to conclude a universal treaty or agreement to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons would lead to the most serious consequences"
the Commission, the resolution went on
"recommends that the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee should"—
among other things—
"accord special priority to the consideration of the question of a treaty or convention to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons."
This was a clear and unequivocal mandate from the Disarmament Commission to return to Geneva and there to discuss, among other things, with great priority the important matter of the spread of nuclear weapons.
At once after the Commission had dispersed, the United States Co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference (your Lordships will know that the two Co-Chairmen of the Geneva Disarmament Conference are the United States and the Soviet Union) asked his Soviet colleague to agree to a date for the reconvening of the Disarmament Conference. There was for a while a silence: it seemed to us for some time to be a rather sinister silence. With the events which were going on about the world, and in particular having regard to the deteriorationg situation in Vietnam, it seemed to us that the Soviet Union found itself in a position in which it could not be seen to be engaged in conversation or in fruitful discussions with the West. But suddenly, out of the blue, the Soviet Union communicated with the American Co-Chairman and proposed an urgent return to the Geneva Conference. Their motives can only be a matter for speculation, and it would be irresponsible and counter-productive of us to impute to them ill-motives until we have an opportunity to see what their motives are. However, it was eventually agreed to return to Geneva on July 27; and this we did.
I should like to deal briefly with suggestions that when this occurred the West was in some way unprepared for what had happened. Of course, it would be
1330
idle to pretend that the sudden apparent change of view on the part of the Soviet Union was not a surprise. It was a surprise. But I think that it is wrong and unfair to suggest that the West was unprepared for this return to Geneva.
If I might deal with the matter of the question of the spread of nuclear weapons and a treaty to prevent it, when the Government came into office at the end of last year we carried out a review of disarmament policy and decided, among other things, that the most urgent and important problem which faced the world was the need to conclude a treaty to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons from country to country. Accordingly, we started work early this year upon a draft treaty. I have no hesitation in saying that a good deal of valuable work had been done before we ever started to do this. We had been left with a wealth of analysis and examination, and it was upon this that we started to build. We went through the normal processes of detailed drafting. There were legal technicalities to be ironed out; there were other difficulties to be resolved; and, of course, simultaneously there were other studies and other plans for disarmament and arms control going on. While we were doing this it became clear to us at a certain stage in the proceedings that the Canadian Government were working on a similar draft for a treaty to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. We decided, in consultation with the Canadian Government, to continue our separate studies and to keep in very close touch on our different drafts. In April of this year we had our negotiations in the Disarmament Commission and there was overwhelming support for our thesis that this was the prime problem facing the world.
So we came back, and by the beginning of June we had agreed on a draft, a legally drawn draft non-dissemination treaty, which we then showed to the other members of the Western Alliance who are represented at the Geneva Disarmament Conference—that is to say, the United States, Canada and Italy. A week or so later, we consulted our German Allies—who are, of course, particularly concerned with this problem and its effects on European security—and at the end of June we warned the NATO Council that we should be wishing to discuss this whole matter with the rest

1331
of our NATO Allies. On July 5, at the beginning of this month, the draft of our treaty—and, incidentally, the draft of the Canadian treaty—was circulated in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation with a view to meeting to discuss it at the end of July.
Then, on July 13, as I have said, while that draft was circulating in the Alliance, the Soviet Union suddenly replied to the American Co-Chairman and suggested an urgent return to Geneva. I think noble Lords with any experience of international negotiation, the preparation of treaties, and the preparation of this sort of debate at that sort of conference will surely agree that in that history which I have outlined there is very little evidence of time lost from being unprepared at the end of the procedure.
May I emphasise here, as this point may have given rise to certain misunderstandings and confusions, the real need for full consultation with our Allies? There have been stories in some of the newspapers of confusion in the Alliance—of splits and of battles between the Allies. I have just come back from a meeting of the NATO Council, and I am bound to confess to your Lordships that I saw no evidence of these splits, no evidence of these battles; and I could detect no confusion of any sort whatsoever. It is no good putting forward British plans for international negotiations, however sincerely we believe in them, and however well we have prepared them, if we cannot rely on the support of the Western Alliance. The strength of this Alliance is one of the most important factors in our negotiations with Communist countries. We are not in disarmament negotiations as a public relations exercise, but to achieve effective measures of world-wide disarmament by any means we can discover.
May I turn aside from that to deal with the various suggestions which have been made about the possibility that I might be under-employed in my duties as Minister of Disarmament? There has been talk of under-employment, of "dummy" Ministries. One honourable gentleman has asked whether I am not one of the most under-employed members of the Government. There is one little gem which I should like to hold up for your Lordships' appreciation
1332
which was fashioned by a former Conservative Minister. I should like to quote his words, as reported:
"The danger of war is increased, not lessened, by such devices as appointing a dummy Minister with the dummy title of Minister of Disarmament."
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but is he quoting from Hansard? I do not mind, but it is really out of order to do that and I think we ought to keep to the Rules of the House.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I regret having contravened the rules of your Lordships' House. Perhaps I may just say that the words "dummy Minister of Disarmament" were used. That was the point that I wished to make. I am sure, of course, that this is not the view of the noble Lords opposite; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has been good enough to indicate that these are not in general his views. But I feel bound to say that, although this sort of thing is to me only a minor irritation, I feel somewhat put out and depressed by the fact that this sort of comment reflects upon officials who serve me and who served the noble Lords opposite when they were carrying out functions similar to those which I now discharge; officials who work extremely hard and who, I think, should not be open to the sort of reflections that these remarks put forward. I shall turn aside from that—as I said, I did not intend this parenthesis to be taken too seriously—and go on from recent events to the position now and the prospects for disarmament.
I have just been present at a meeting of the NATO Council, where I was able to outline the British plan for preventing the further spread of nuclear weapons. There was, I am happy to say, overwhelming support in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for an early initiative on this subject by the West. There were, and there are, we know, differences of approach. Clearly, we have to take into account the very real German concern about nuclear sharing within the Alliance. I was able to assure the NATO Council, as I should like to assure your Lordships now, that between the two concepts of non-dissemination and effective nuclear sharing within the NATO Alliance there is no incompatibility, and

1333
there is, in my view, no need of, and no profit in, assessing priorities, allocating priorities, to these two projects. After all, if your house is on fire—and I think this is not too far-fetched an analogy—and someone sends two fire engines to put out the fire, you do not, if you are a wise man, spend much time arguing which fire engine to use first; you use them both. I suggest that we must follow these two concepts forward urgently, and we must let events decide which will come to fruition first.
Our approach to this problem is a short and simple treaty to bring about, to establish, the principle that nuclear weapons should not be allowed to spread beyond their present boundaries. There is another approach to this, and this is the approach of the Canadian Government, that in such a treaty we should include various types of incentive, various sorts of related measures; in fact, that we should make a sort of package of the treaty which would make it more attractive to certain people, particularly the potential nuclear countries, and encourage them to sign it. This approach is something that we have to resolve. We have to decide which is the best and which—this is the important point—is the most likely to be effective. It is no good, as I said, producing a treaty which is easy to draft and which might even gain support and unity within the Alliance, if when we put it on the table it shows no sign whatsoever of being attractive to the other side. It must be a negotiable treaty.
So our next move, in consultation with the other members of the Western World, is to take account of the comments of our allies and to review the draft treaty. This may in due course be tabled at the Geneva Conference as a British draft treaty, or as a Western draft treaty. This is a matter of tactics and, as I have said, the most effective negotiating position. There is even the possibility—and this, indeed, may be the best solution—that in the end we shall put forward this initiative as a joint British-Canadian draft. This has. I feel, all manner of attractions and, indeed, it accords well with the communiqué which was issued at the end of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. But, in any case, it is our intention to ensure that some initiative on this subject. some draft agreement to prevent the further spread
1334
of nuclear weapons, is put forward in Geneva as soon as it possibly can be.
The Geneva debate will consist of a general exchange of views for about the first fortnight. This is the customary procedure, in which the 17 countries of the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Commission—there is, unfortunately, one missing: France—put forward their views. At the end of those two weeks of general debate, I believe that we may be in a position to table our draft treaty on non-dissemination. The atmosphere in Geneva yesterday when the Conference began was good, and I expect, having left your Lordships' House to-night, to make my opening speech at the Geneva Disarmament Conference to-morrow, outlining the British position and the British ideas about this and allied problems.
Before saying more about this, I should like to turn to the United Nations. A keystone of the British position on disarmament, as indeed on other matters of foreign policy, is vigorous, wholehearted support for the United Nations. Before I come to the substance of my few brief remarks on the United Nations, I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Caradon. During the difficult months which the Organisation has been going through, Lord Caradon has shown unshakable resolution and a determination that the United Nations should surmount this serious crisis. I have been with him in New York for some of the time, and I have been moved by the way in which he has, by his example and his inspiring, oratory, kept up the spirits of those who sometimes incline towards despair. He has demonstrated forcibly that this country is determined to play a leading role among those who work to make the United Nations an effective force in the world.
For my part, I should like to make it quite clear at the outset that we, as a Government, totally reject the gloomy predictions of the prophets of despair, who suggest that the United Nations might go the way of the League of Nations. These people sometimes express surprise that the United Nations is not already all-powerful and omniscient after a mere twenty years of life, but it already has great achievements to its credit, both in the peace-keeping and in the economic and social fields. Our ultimate aim is World Government in a disarmed world.

1335
I say this without any illusion that such an aim can be obtained without many years of patient and often frustrating negotiations. We hope that as the nations disarm it will be possible to build up an effective peace-keeping force through the United Nations, and here we attach great importance to the steps taken by certain nations to provide stand-by forces for the United Nations, including our own offer of logistic support for six battalions.
In the immediate future there is nothing dramatic that we can do. The United Nations, after all, can only make progress through agreement. We have to overcome the immediate crisis over Article XIX so that the Assembly can meet normally this Autumn. At the moment, I can add nothing on this subject to the statement made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place on July 20, that this matter is still under discussion with our allies and friends. But we have every confidence that the General Assembly will be able to meet, and when it does my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and I shall be there with them. We are determined to persevere in our efforts to improve the peace-keeping procedures of the United Nations, and we are giving particular thought to three questions.
The first is peace-keeping by consent; that is to say, the employment by the United Nations of armed forces to hold the ring in a political dispute while a settlement is being worked out. In these cases the country on whose soil the troops are stationed would consent to this, and might indeed have invited the United Nations to help. The Congo and Cyprus are examples of this. So far, operations of this sort, although they have been remarkably successful, have been organised on a basis of rapid improvisation. Secondly, holding the ring is an essential part of peace-making—and I use the word advisedly—but there is a tendency for a situation once frozen to be left in that state. Certainly people look for a political solution; but, somehow, the urgency becomes less when the fighting stops.
We are giving serious thought to ways of settling disputes by legal and political, orthodox and unorthodox, means; by
1336
negotiators and mediators with special qualifications—and I might here mention the mission of my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. Missions of this sort, my Lords, can perhaps lead to results that cannot be achieved by other, tried methods. There is a great field here for ingenuity and initiative. Finally, we should like to see established a United Nations peacekeeping fund. The details of this need to be worked out, but its object would be to give the United Nations a sound financial base for peacekeeping operations, which it does not have at the present time. These, my Lords, are thoughts for consideration: they are, you will realise, very far from being a complete plan. But we need to work slowly and we need to work pragmatically towards our final goal, and this the Government are determined to do.
Finally, may I return for a few brief moments to the question of disarmament? When I return to Geneva to-morrow—and I intend to remain at these negotiations as long as fruitful, productive and objective discussions go on—I shall set out the British position, which will be based upon principles which are familiar to most of your Lordships. We shall continue to support efforts to reach general and complete disarmament; we shall support any move that is made to extend the partial nuclear test ban to cover underground tests; and we shall also support—and, indeed, we shall urge and press for them—proposals, ideas or plans that will put a stop to the production of nuclear weapons and, indeed, destroy some of those nuclear weapons that exist at the moment. These are the principles upon which we shall advance our ideas, in addition, of course, as I have said, to the most urgent and most important matter of all, which is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
In all this, we must, of course, be ready to meet whatever Soviet plans and initiatives are put forward. We think, from the evidence we have at the moment, that these are likely to include such proposals as the closing down of foreign bases, and an agreement about not being the first to use nuclear weapons in any circumstances. We believe that the Soviet Union may have some non-dissemination plans of its own, but which

1337
are almost certain to be directed primarily at the question of nuclear sharing within the Western Alliance. We think that some Communist countries (perhaps not the Soviet Union, but possibly other East European countries) will put forward familiar proposals for the establishment of nuclear-free zones, and that there may be ideas about non-aggression pacts or declarations.
I shall not comment to-day, obviously, on any of these possible proposals, except to say that we shall examine all their proposals as objectively and as seriously as we hope they will examine ours. I believe that what we want to see an end of in disarmament discussions is this sterile and futile business of automatically attacking each other's position; but, at the same time, of course, we must keep the initiative in the West. One of the things we must really do in this respect, I think, is to speed up and intensify the work that goes on in the Disarmament Commission in Geneva. At the moment, as your Lordships will know, the plenary meetings are limited to two a week. We should like to see this improved and increased, and we should like to see the gaps filled by the establishment of technical working groups that could go on looking at specific aspects of policy, particularly technical aspects, while the plenary meetings are continuing.
But before I finish I must return to this business of the spread of nuclear weapons. It really is the most important and urgent problem that faces us at the moment. I do not believe that this is sufficiently realised. It has become almost a cliché of the international debate; but I should like to recall to your Lordships the words of President Kennedy when talking of this. He suggested that, if nuclear weapons did spread, as they showed a danger of spreading even when he made this speech, there would be no peace, no stability and no prospects of disarmament. I think that in those last four words there is a very serious warning. This business of the spread of nuclear weapons and how to stop it is riot just one of the possible roads towards disarmament: it might be the only road. If we are too late in lifting the barrier, all the other roads towards disarmament might be irrevocably closed. That is why it is the preoccupa
1338
tion of the British Government to bring this matter to the negotiating table as soon as possible.
We shall have no false pride about authorship. We worked hard on this treaty, but if a Western joint initiative or some other formula gives a better chance of success in Geneva, we shall adopt it. We shall not insist that this proposal goes to the table flying a Union Jack. I believe it is not too much to claim that the British Government's insistence upon this subject over the past months has brought it to a head. Indeed, it may even have done very much to bring the Soviet Union to the negotiating table at a time when it might have seemed, from the climate of world opinion, that it would be impossible for it to do so. I hope, therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was generous enough to suggest, that when I return to Geneva tonight to begin these important negotiations I shall carry with me the good will of the whole of your Lordships' House.
4.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF AVON: My Lords, we have just listened to what I thought was a fascinating account of the work which the noble Lord the Minister of Disarmament is now doing at Geneva, and I am sure we are greatly indebted to him for coming back here to tell us of this most important prospect — a more encouraging prospect, happily, than it was a short while ago. Of course he will carry back with him our best wishes for the work he is now going to do, even for his journey—one with which, as an old Geneva traveller, I was only too familiar in the old days. Let me give him this crumb of comfort. If he is never called anything worse than "a dummy Minister", in what is I am sure going to be a highly successful political career, he can count himself very fortunate indeed. But, in a more serious vein, we all agree with him that this Conference is one of the greatest importance, and so we wish him all success, in our interests as well as in his own.
My noble friend opened this debate in a characteristically lucid survey, in what we used to call a tour d'horizon speech, which he knows so well how to make; and we had from the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, a pellucid account of a very

1339
intricate subject—the distinction between the Community in Europe, the Community Association, and a Federation. I think it is very useful that that speech should have been made, though I hope that I shall be forgiven for not following any of those noble Lords and for concentrating, in the few minutes that I shall detain your Lordships, entirely on one subject, if only because I believe it to he the most serious of those which confront us at the present time—namely, the situation in Vietnam.
My Lords, it is no part of my intention to rehearse past events in that country. I have just one comment to make about them. I was sorry at the time that the United States did not subscribe to the Geneva Agreements of 1954. I am rather more sorry to-day, because it is possible that if the Americans had put their full weight behind those accords, later developments might have been happier. I say "might": I do not put it higher than that. But what is absolutely certain is that, sooner or later, there will have to be a political settlement of this present conflict. Probably this will mean a return to the Geneva Agreements, or to something very like them.
The only other date that I want to mention is a later one, 1959. The Government will tell me if I am wrong, but it seems that it was in that year that the North Vietnamese began a campaign of subversion, infiltration and—the word must be added—terror. What caused this action at that time can be debated. My own guess is that the Diem Government in South Vietnam, despite its very real shortcomings, had made some progress in pacifying the country and giving it an opportunity to prosper. It is immaterial whether some other Government would have done better than Diem's—possibly it would: but the point is that the Diem Government apparently was doing well enough at that time to cause the North to intervene. In any event, it is since that year, as I understand it, that the Viet Cong campaign has been intensified. No doubt there are nationalists in its ranks; but its main purpose has been to terrorise and to disrupt; and to do this it has waged a ruthless guerrilla campaign with mounting success. The people I am sorry for arc the unfortunate inhabitants—especi
1340
ally those in the villages of South Vietnam. They have had twenty years of war, and now to this has to be added all the horrors of a civil war conducted with much barbarism.
I agree with my noble friend that it is evident that in recent months and weeks, the Viet Cong have become convinced that the South Vietnamese resistance can finally be broken—and broken in this monsoon period. Probably they still believe it. Faced with this danger the Americans are multiplying their aid; but it must be some time before the greater part of this effort can make itself felt in the actual guerrilla fighting; for the methods of that fighting have got to be learned, as they were learned, painfully and skilfully, by our own troops in Malaya. I can remember an occasion when I was returning from some conference when I was in Malaya for a while. I was taken by helicopter into the jungle and there, in a clearing, I met a patrol of our own troops coming out from their tour of jungle duty. It was remarkable to see the facility with which these boys had learned all the complexities of jungle fighting and were at ease—were, indeed, in command of the situation. That was only the result of long periods of training and of some very good intelligence work behind that training. I think the same is happening now in, for example, Sarawak, where our troops are trained in jungle warfare. But all this has to be learned by the Americans before the invading guerrillas can be stemmed, much less sent back to where they came from.
There is one comment on this guerrilla fighting that I would make. Sometimes one reads in the Press accounts of threatened or actual torture of prisoners. If this has been the practice among the South Vietnamese, I hope that efforts will be made to check and, I trust, to halt it altogether. I say this not only on humanitarian grounds—though God knows they are strong enough!—but also because the knowledge that they are going to be tortured or murdered if captured is unlikely to encourage men to surrender; and we must surely hope that the time will come when the enemy will be tempted to surrender. At present, however, the prospects are bleak and the campaign looks like being a long and hard fought one.

1341
In these conditions, what is the best that we can hope for, and when is that best likely to be reached? I would say that the answer is a stalemate, some time after the monsoon period is over. I have seen it suggested (I think by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and also by President Nkrumah) that our objective should be a cease-fire, followed by a conference. With all respect, I rather doubt whether that is practicable, because the two sides are so inextricably intermingled that I should have thought it would probably be wiser to reverse that order and to work for a conference which would itself negotiate an armistice. No doubt, if and when such a conference is convened, the work will fall into two phases: first, an attempt to draw up agreed instructions for the military commanders and for these, in their turn, when completed, to be referred back to the main conference.
I fear that all this may sound both elaborate and rather slow, but if our experience of 1954 is anything to go by, it is probably the only way. Even this first phase of the conference, drawing up instructions for the military commanders, took nearly two months and I know not how many meetings. I am sure that if we had attempted to get an armistice without, the conference being first in being, we should not have succeeded. As to the machinery which might be used, I believe that, on balance, it would be an advantage if the conference—when it comes about, as it must one day—were reconvened with Geneva membership and under Russian and British Co-Chairmen as was done in 1954. The difficulties in making use of the United Nations are, unfortunately, obvious in this instance; and there could also, perhaps, be an advantage in following a procedure which all the parties concerned have previously used and have found workable.
At this stage I should like for a moment to say something about the attitude to be expected from the principal parties now engaged in this dispute. The United States Government, I thought, made a notable declaration when President Johnson, in his speech at Baltimore last April, pledged himself to a policy of unconditional discussions. This means that he is prepared to go to a conference table without preconditions of any kind. Unfortunately,
1342
this attitude has so far failed to evoke any response—for evident reasons. The Viet Cong are still obsessed with the possibility of complete victory, of another Dien Bien Phu, or something like it. Therefore, I doubt—and on this I share the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn—whether any immediate efforts to bring a conference into being are likely to prove successful. It is, however, a very important advantage to know that a major party engaged in the present fighting is prepared to talk if others will. It seems to me that some of the recent criticism of President Johnson has been rather unfair. He certainly does not bear any direct responsibility for the situation that he inherited in Vietnam, a situation of the utmost difficulty and complexity. I am sure that he is as anxious as any of us for an armistice. But for this to happen others, too, must be ready to come to the conference table. At present they are not.
Next, and of no less significance in the search for peace, must be the attitude of the Soviet Union. We can be pretty sure that the Soviets, for their own good reasons, would not wish to see this conflict expand until it involved other world Powers. Moscow must be increasingly conscious of its rift with Peking and of the reasons why it must be expected to grow worse. Peking is the young revolutionary, whereas Moscow is the old revolutionary. But there is more to it than that: Moscow is, in Peking's eye, the successor to the Czarist Empire in Asia, the colonial empire par excellence. The Soviet propagandist against colonialism is now hoist with his own petard. This and other causes of controversy between the principal Communist Powers will inevitably sharpen, and I think that they will bring dangers.
My Lords, I believe it to be a short view to judge that Communist cleavages necessarily benefit us, even superficially. Sharpened antagonisms and rival bidding for the support of smaller Communist States are more likely to add to the dangerous strains and stresses in the world where already respect of international engagements seems to be the exception rather than the rule. However, these are wider considerations; for the present and in Vietnam we must expect that the Soviets will be in no particular hurry to help to extricate the

1343
United States from what they no doubt regard as a difficult military position. In other words, the attitude of Moscow is likely to be affected by the military situation once it is proven beyond a doubt that no Communist victory is possible.
China, even China, could possibly be influenced by some considerations which may have affected her policy in the past. The peoples of Indo-China have never taken kindly to the thought of being subjected to Chinese rule. Of course, this may not influence Peking unduly, as it did not in Tibet. On the other hand, in this larger, wealthier and more accessible area the Chinese could find it acceptable to see a girdle of neutral States, or, to mix our metaphors, a protective pad, between themselves and other States of South-East Asia. The Chinese could prefer this to a continuing and armed American presence in South Vietnam which is quite inevitable until the Communist Governments accept that an agreement cannot be dictated only on their terms.
Perhaps they will accept before too long that the Americans have too much power to he beaten. Even if the Americans cannot win, they cannot be beaten, and they are a stubborn people as their history shows. Consider what happened in their Civil War after the battle of Bull Run. If these things are not understood, the Eastern conflict could be both interminable and deadly. There is the danger, which we must expect will grow, of a spread of hostilities as fighting intensifies. That is the gravest peril, as it was the gravest peril in 1954.
In the early days of that Geneva Conference I described in a message to my colleagues at home, some of whom are in the House now, a useful discussion with Mr. Molotov, as follows:
"Towards the end of our conversation I said that if the Lido-China situation was not effectively handled here at Geneva, there was a real danger that the supporters of each side would go on increasing the degree of their participation, until finally there was a clash between them. if that happened"—
I continued—
"it might well he the beginning of the third world war. Molotov fully agreed with this assessment."
My Lords, that danger still exists, unhappily. It can be conjured to some extent if every party to the conflict will
1344
bear it in mind always. But it can only be met when the armistice is signed.
I am not by nature a pessimist, but it is evident that the increased scale and danger of this Vietnamese conflict has come at a disturbed moment in the world. The Indonesian aggression upon Malaysia—for that is what it is—after Vietnam, is the most threatening feature. Here, too, we must expect attempts to increase the scale of operations against our ally. There are also, as we know, other potential centres of trouble and this unsettled panorama makes the present disarray among the free Western nations, who should be close allies, all the more disturbing. This is why I want to see a more coherent sense of purpose among the free nations. I do not think that peace is safe enough for us to be at odds. I was delighted to hear what the noble Lord said just now about the close working together at the Disarmament Conference. That is good, but it wants to be carried into other fields where at present that does not exist to the same extent.
I will not weary your Lordships with a repetition of the methods by which I think this unity ought to be sought. I still believe that the leading nations of NATO should organise themselves to discuss and take decisions upon the principal world problems. My conception is that they should be aided by a planning group, much as the Joint Chiefs of Staff were by the joint planners during the war. Whether this idea, or any other project to increase unity among the leading Western nations, can be realised must depend to some extent upon the President of France; but it must also depend upon the willingness of the United States to understand that Continental Europe, even the most friendly parts of it, looks for a relationship with the United States which is a partnership in a truer sense than it could be at the time when Europe was at her weakest after the war.
What our country can contribute depends upon ourselves and what we can do to set our economic house in order. If we could determine, each one of us here at home, in these next few years to contribute a little more to our country's well-being and take out a little less, we should at the same time be making a contribution to a more settled and peaceful world. Without a balanced

1345
economy Britain's voice is muted, and that is sad, for I am one of those who believe that, whatever Party is in power, this country of ours has still a discerning contribution to make.
4.58 p.m.
LORD CACCIA: My Lords, I crave the indulgence of your Lordships and, if I may, your special forbearance. It is customary, I know, that maiden speeches should not be controversial. Yet foreign affairs can arouse strong emotions. So if in the nature of the subject I fall somewhat short of that aim of being non-controversial, I hope that I shall be able to make up in some degree by having respect for the recent plea for brevity in speeches from the Cross-Benches.
To start at least on common ground, it was said last week in another place, without contradiction, that our objectives are common to us all: the security of Britain and the peace of nations. Whatever difference there may be about ways towards those objectives, it is also common ground, I trust, that much will depend upon the influence of this country. With your Lordships' permission, I would detain yore for a few moments on this question of power and influence, from the point of view of someone who has recently been in the active field in foreign affairs. But first of all, if I may, I would set aside two of what I think to be misconceptions which sometimes cloud discussion on this subject.
First of all, there is sometimes in the comments of those who write and speak on this subject an impression that in the last century and up to the First World War, whatever we said automatically went. When father said, "Turn," everyone turned. This is a much too simple view of the influence which we had and which I am far from decrying. Your Lordships will remember that we protested strongly against many acts of the Prussian Kingdom, of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, of Turkey and of Russia itself. We did not approve the Prussian attack on Schleswig-Holstein, but it happened. We did not approve, and, indeed, opposed, Austro-Hungarian action over Bosnia and Herzegovina, but in spite of our advice and influence they went ahead, maybe not in their own best interests. There were also the Bulgarian atrocities and Armenian atrocities and. despite our protests, it is doubtful if any
1346
lives were saved. And so on. My point in drawing attention to all this is that we should not be depressed if now we do not automatically get what we want. It is because we have never been able to do so.
The second reason why we should not underestimate the present possibility of using our influence successfully is that it is not only our position but also things that have changed. We have had to accommodate ourselves to this change since the last war. But so have others. The United States, whose physical power is far greater than that of any other nation in the world to-day, has also had to face these changes. May I cite a single example? When I was in Washington, it was estimated that Castro had taken over something in the order of 4,000 million dollars' worth of American property in Cuba. The ordinary rule of international law is that there should be compensation, prompt, adequate and effective. So far not a farthing has passed.
I do not say this as a cheap gibe at the United States—far from it. But if they can, without self-pity, suffer the swings of fortune, I think that we should also resolve ourselves to exercise similar patience.
Indeed, we could turn our minds to building up and making the best of the new instruments of sustaining international law and order—the United Nations and its various agencies. If I may, I would add my modicum of support for the efforts which this Government and its predecessors have made in building up that organisation. I only regret that at this moment the Minister for Disarmament is not yet able to say that the efforts and the initiative we have recently made have been entirely successful in resolving the financial difficulty that faces the United Nations over Article XIX.
Having made the point that we need not have any shyness about the influence we can use, I would draw your Lordship's attention to the successful use of that influence in many cases since the end of the war, particularly in the period, if I may refer to it, in which the noble Earl, Lord Avon, was Foreign Secretary. when he made such contributions, not only in South-East Asia, about which he has spoken, but in the Continent of Europe and over disarmament itself.

1347
There is one overriding condition for our continuing to have the influence which we enjoyed before 1914, after 1914 and have enjoyed since the war. It is that we should become and remain solvent. From the point of view of negotiating with other Governments, this is the acid test which they demand of us: do we, or do we not, know how to pay our way and balance our accounts? Other countries know sometimes better than the people of this country that this is the acid test for the reasons that it is by no means easy for a country, with so few natural resources and so many great commitments, to achieve this result and achieve it over a period of time without the various ups and downs which we know all so well.
If I may, I would come to another consideration on the use of our influence. It is not always necessary to come out in public with demands for public action. There are many cases when, as has been suggested to-day by both the Minister for Disarmament and other speakers, we can still be effective if we use private diplomacy to reach public ends. Other Governments have on many occasions gone into a period in which they accept that their home affairs must take priority and their foreign affairs go through a period of relative quiescence in public. The Russians have done so. There is nothing derogatory in this at all. There are many things that can still be achieved.
I suggest to your Lordships that this can be done in three ways: first, by retaining and maintaining a steady course; secondly, by using private diplomacy to reach public ends, and, thirdly, by using the time for the great debate, which has already been raised in this House, of the long-term prospects of and intention for this country other than just for reaching a balance of our payments within a relatively short period.
The noble Earl, Lord Avon, has already addressed the House about South-East Asia. I also would support the public backing which the Government have steadily given to the American Government in their attempts to stop aggression in South-East Asia and, in the words of the Prime Minister,
" … to enable the people of South Vietnam to determine their own future."
1348
Here is an instance where I think that public backing has given us a right to give private advice, where otherwise we might have and deserve none. If, in the meantime, we think that there are things that can conveniently be said, I hope that the views which have been so strongly expressed this afternoon, though this may not be the right moment to discuss them in public, may recommend themselves to the Government. I should have thought that by their backing they have got to the position where the Americans would naturally listen to what they had to say, both from their past experience in this area and from the fact of that backing itself.
Before I sit down, I should like to give one final example of where I think our influence has been effective, in the fact that the Russians have come back to the Disarmament Committee in Geneva. The Minister for Disarmament did not suggest for a minute that they have done this entirely and solely because we had pressed them to do so. Of course, this is not the case. But, at the same time, it is not for nothing that we have used our influence in this direction; and we need only reflect what might have been the position if we had, like the French, decided to ignore this particular body and disassociate ourselves from its activities altogether.
I would conclude by saying that I think our influence can remain effective only on these three simple conditions. First of all, we should put our own house in order, giving that top priority, and make it clear not only that we have a vision of how to do it within the next two years, but that we are on the way to a decision on how we intend to fit into the scheme of things as they are in the future. Secondly, we should be a little selective about the methods which we adopt while we go through this period of debate among ourselves, and a little careful how we act and what we say, not forgetting the great position we have for influencing behind the scenes, through private means, as well as by public utterance. Finally, we must keep a steady course, which I submit the Government have done with, I should say, great courage in the case of South-East Asia, where there are so many perils that it is only natural that they should have been pressed on one side and another to do a number of things which, in the

1349
immediate sense, may have seemed advantageous but which, in the long run, I should have thought would do great damage to our power to influence the course of events in South-East Asia.
5.12 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the Leader of the Opposition, for initiating this debate, and I am sure he is pleased with the standard of the speeches that we have had so far. As a humble and new Back-Bencher, perhaps I may say how pleased I am to see the noble Earl, Lord Avon, here on this occasion: it is a rare pleasure these days to hear him speak. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, on his maiden speech. With his experience and background, everything that he will have to say in this House we shall listen to with more than ordinary respect. I want also to refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. Whenever the noble Lord goes a-wooing about the Common Market, I find myself just a little vulnerable: he is so clear; he seems to me to make sense out of it. And he is not quite so religious (I use the word not disrespectfully) about the subject, and I begin to understand it.
This is a long debate, with many speakers still to come, and I do not propose to make a world tour, stopping off at all the trouble spots. There are many noble Lords present who are far more competent than I am to do this. I wish, however, with great diffidence, to talk about the United Nations, and I promise not just to repeat what my noble friend Lord Chalfont has said. I have been following the fortunes and misfortunes of the United Nations with some interest lately. About a year ago, I was given an assignment with our Mission at the U.N. Since then I have been a delegate in search of a Committee, because the General Assembly has been in complete eclipse, on account of the dispute about Article 19: in fact, all the delegates on the Human Rights and Social Welfare Committee have been completely grounded.
I paid a lightning visit to New York in February to meet our personnel and some of the foreign delegates. Here, may I endorse and underline everything that my noble friend Lord Chalfont has said about our Minister at the United Nations,
1350
the noble Lord, Lord Caradon. I am very pleased to see him here to-day, and I am not going to spare his blushes. I propose to tell your Lordships exactly what I think about him. I had never met Lord Caradon until I had the honour of acting as one of his Sponsors during his Introduction to this House. I knew two members of his distinguished family, and had sometimes picked a political hone with his hot-gospeller brother Michael Foot.
I thought Lord Caradon's appointment a particularly felicitous one at the time, because of his background and experience. But it was when I saw him in action, when I attended one of his morning meetings with his officials and staff, called together to deal with the everlasting problems of the U.N., that I really appreciated his qualities. The Article 19 crisis was at its height. The Press were writing off the United Nations daily, with gloomy predictions of the outcome. By an ignorant over-simplification, they had reduced the crisis to an undignified financial squabble about lapsed membership subscriptions to the club, when it was really about the nature and powers of the Security Council and the General Assembly. At the time, one could not help feeling a little defeatist. But not after Lord Caradon's meeting: I left ready to carry the torch for the United Nations.
Of course, the taxpayers' attitude to United Nations finance is understandable. They say that the aid given by richer countries to poorer countries is not accepted with any show of gratitude. Our own Government's aid to ex-colonial countries does not lessen their accusations about colonialism and racialism. Russia forgets all about her own satellites when she accuses us of Imperialistic motives. But all these are the day-to-day pinpricks of such an ambitious world organisation. Added to this, the public image of a charitable organisation in which the big Powers do what they like, and the small nations say what they like, is very hard to shift. It is not easy to maintain a high pitch of enthusiasm for such an evolutionary body, imperfect in many ways, when progress is inevitably so slow. The de-colonisation, accompanied by an increase of new members, has led to changes never envisaged by the founders of the U.N. Perhaps the

1351
present General Assembly is too unwieldy and bears too little relation to the realities of power politics. However, the 33-Nation Committee are to pronounce on their deliberations some time soon; and the Article 19 crisis precipitated this inquiry.
I believe that much more should be done to inform people about the structure and the functions of the United Nations, and particularly to stress that it is an evolutionary and not a static body. But can anyone seriously think of going back on this Parliamentary method of dealing with influential affairs? The public debate is very therapeutic, especially for the newly emergent nations, who have a really big voice there. And most important of all is the fact that the United Nations has within it all the machinery of the Specialised Agencies, including the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. These are active, workable, international institutions affiliated to the U.N.: they are the main instruments for economic development in less-developed nations.
Without the drive for more equality among nations, there can be little hope for peace in this world. At present, I believe, there is far more bilateral aid than international aid, but the recent establishment of a permanent United Nations organ, the Trade and Development Board, with a substantial Secretariat, has far-reaching implications, because this is exactly how the new members see the United Nations—mainly as a place for promoting economic development of under-developed nations. Perhaps they view the peacekeeping operations as secondary to this.
One could make out a case showing that it is where the United Nations is either impotent or barred from intervening that fighting continues in the trouble spots of the world. It was when the United Nations troops were withdrawn from the Congo that the atrocities occured. Even an uneasy truce, as in Cyprus, is preferable to a conflagration. The border force in Gaza is a complete success. It is a pity that it cannot be copied on the Israeli-Jordan border as well. Observers, mediators, technical advisers, loans, troops—they all have their part to play in peacekeeping and econo-
1352
mic development, and it would be a tragedy if these workable institutions were not increased as time goes by.
I sometimes wonder how people who are cynical about the United Nations envisage future peacekeeping in the world. Do they envisage periods of peace interspersed with bigger and better wars, conducted with bigger and better armaments? Surely this is the direct road to disaster. Bigger and better bombs have their shortcomings in certain situations, as we know to-day. An empty fruit-can full of explosives can sometimes be more effective than the most sophisticated missile. We who have faith in the United Nations, however imperfect its organisation, however slow its progress, maintain that from that slender glass skyscraper in New York is a long view, and somewhere on the horizon—the distant horizon—is a view of World Government. We believe that this is no mirage. So we give credit to the Government in these difficult days for allotting £3½ million to the United Nations, for this is not an extravagance, but simply an investment in peacekeeping.
5.23 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I rise to make a very few observations in this debate on Foreign Affairs. It is quite a long time since I made a speech on Foreign Affairs, but I particularly wanted to do so to-day for one or two reasons. Before I begin my speech, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, on his maiden speech. I think we are extremely fortunate to have him here in this House—he who was so recently at the Foreign Office and is so knowledgeable about every subject. We shall look forward and listen with the greatest interest and respect to everything he has to say on this subject, as on others. We are also very fortunate to have had the noble Earl, Lord Avon. No-one has played a bigger part in Foreign Affairs in the last thirty years than he has done. When he was talking about Vietnam and about the problem with which he dealt in 1954. I had vivid recollections of the extraordinarily skilful way in which he used to deal with these matters. It was, indeed, a memorable occasion to hear him speak to-day.
I wanted to say a few words to-day for two reasons: first, because I wished to

1353
comment (as the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, has just done) on the United Nations and its work—this being the 20th Anniversary of the United Nations Charter—and I wanted to add a very few words, to those of many others, on the important subject of a continuing and steady policy in Vietnam. I regret, as I am sure everyone does, the fact that the United Nations has come to an impasse at the present moment. It is quite a long time since I was a delegate to that great Assembly. I was there for three years, through many crises, and I have always followed with the greatest possible interest the work that is going on, and has gone on there since then. It was in the last year that I was a delegate that the big development in membership began. I well remember the enormous interest and pleasure which we had when Ghana became a full member of the Assembly. She was followed very shortly after by the other African States—some the ex-French colonial States and some our own ex-Colonial States. Here at last, I felt, was a forum where East met West, where Communists rubbed shoulders with ordinary people of every political view every day, where no colour bar existed and where we had the highest hopes that we should achieve something in the nature of World Government. Like the noble Baroness, I still have those hopes, although in the last few years things have been a little less encouraging.
One of the stumbling blocks I can remember very vividly when I was there was the interminable procedure of debates. If any people wanted to prevent a decision or a subject from being discussed or, indeed, wished to put stumbling blocks in the way of anyone who wanted to do some practical and excellent piece of work of which they did not approve, they could raise points of procedure which would be debated for days and days and reduce one almost to a state of despair. It was the one way in which you could postpone any action. I felt then, and I feel now, that the weakness of the United Nations constitution is the impossibility of getting any change in the machinery. The noble Baroness said quite rightly that this is a matter of evolution. We must have patience, I entirely agree. But one of the tragedies of the constitution of the United Nations is that it does not allow
1354
for evolution, because the moment you make any suggestion about enlarging the Security Council, Ecosoc, or whatever it may be, always difficult, almost impossible, objections are put up.
This has culminated in the present blocked procedure by the U.S.S.R. and the French on the question of payment for peace-keeping operations, and on the decision whether or not these matters should be dealt with by the Assembly or by the Security Council. This is a desperate situation. I have the greatest sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, who I am sure is more than anxious to get on with doing constructive and important things and is being held up by what is in effect a dispute on procedure—I think the Committee of Thirty-three has been discussing this. Until they can come to some decision we are being completely hamstrung by this failure to find a way out of what amounts to a procedural debate. I think this is a most frustrating matter. As the noble Baroness has said, the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, is probably one of the best people to get round this. But he has my sympathy, because I know how incredibly frustrating this matter of procedure can be when you long to do some constructive work.
I am a strong supporter of the work that is done through the agencies of the United Nations, and I am one of those people who have actually been and seen the successful peace-keeping operations in Gaza, between Israel and the Gaza Strip. Undoubtedly this small force of the United Nations has kept peace in that area with extraordinary success. Also we have had less trouble, in fact very little trouble, since the United Nations force went to Cyprus. These operations are well worth the money they cost, and are successful because both sides of the dispute agree to the authority of this peacekeeping force.
The Congo operation was a much more protracted affair and the force was involved in fighting. I always felt this was less satisfactory but very much better than a war on a large scale. I believe that peace-keeping operations are most successful when the force is in fact in the nature of a police force, where no shots are fired and where the authority of the force is acknowledged by both sides. I think the fact that the Russians have

1355
never agreed to pay for any of these forces is a grave matter. If it were not for the enormous generosity of the United States of America, and the contribution which we and other nations make to the financing of these operations, there would have been far more disturbances than there have been in the last twenty years. We can all read in the history books of the great wars of the past. What we cannot read of, and what are nowhere recorded, are the wars which did not take place. In my opinion, certainly in the last twenty years, there have been quite a number of names of places which might be written on the walls of that great hall in which the General Assembly meets in New York—inscribed there as wars which have been avoided.
Nevertheless, I do not think the record of the Communist Parties among the United Nations members ought to be tolerated indefinitely and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, and his Government will insist that in future the contributions shall be shared. The procedural discussions will, I hope, be finished before the next Assembly meets.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Baroness for a moment, I should like to say this. While I agree with her entirely that this attitude should be adopted towards the Communist States which do not pay, does the noble Baroness not agree that it should be adopted also towards other countries, such as France?
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: The noble Lord is quite right. I was thinking in terms of the Russians. In fact, the French in the past have been more co-operative, but the U.S.S.R., if I remember rightly, have never been cooperative in this connection. For instance. the French have helped over the question of refugees, whereas the U.S.S.R. would never make any contribution. I agree that at the moment the French are being extremely tiresome, and I agree we should include them.
There is one other thing that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, and his friends will encourage at the United Nations and that is the work of the special campaigns which are often organised there. The most recent one, the Freedom from Hunger Campaign, has been a most enormous success and has
1356
evoked tremendous interest in this country. It has involved millions of people all over the world, and particularly here, in supporting it. It has done an enormous amount of good, not only from the point of view of the money which has been raised but also from the point of view that it has interested the ordinary people with something they can understand and which brings closer to them the importance of united action in this field.
I was myself involved in one campaign some years ago—the World Refugee Year—and I can remember now how impressed I was by the response from the people here, almost more than anywhere else, although the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands were great supporters. This was something which ordinary people understood. They were taking part in a great international effort, and that is what I should like to see the people of this country as well as other countries made aware of; I should like to see them made conscious of the fact that they are part of a great international organisation, and these are most important ways in which they can help.
We have heard this afternoon of the difficult problems arising in Vietnam. Many noble Lords have spoken, and I think that probably the noble Earl, Lord Avon, has said all that there is to say about this matter, but I should like to urge the Government to stick to the policy announced so ably by their Foreign Secretary some weeks ago. I agree that the object in Vietnam must be to bring about a peaceful settlement, but not, in my opinion, peace at any price. What the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said about trying to get an armistice is, of course, absolutely vital. It is not an armistice on the terms of the Communists, but terms on which we can make a settlement which will enable the South Vietnamese people to choose their own Government and to have a free Government if they so wish.
In what I am saying now I think I shall be supported by your Lordships on both sides of the House. We should be firmly on the side of America, Australia and New Zealand, and should not appear, however well-intentioned, to be playing any kind of a game which might leave our allies and the Commonwealth countries in doubt as to where we stand. It may not he very clear what eventually

1357
victory will look like in Vietnam. I read an article which appeared in The Times the other day which had a heading to the effect of "There can be no victory"—I forget the exact words. Other newspapers have said the same, but it is perfectly clear to me what the loss of that war would mean. In the First World War I can remember, as a child, hearing people arguing as to who won the Battle of Jutland. There was never any doubt about who lost it, and there can be no doubt that if the Americans leave the Vietnamese area the war there will be lost and there will be disastrous effects in South-East Asia.
I remember fairly early in the last war meeting General Smuts and saying to him, "How did you manage to bring South Africa into the war on our side in 1939?" Noble Lords will remember that there were many Germans in South Africa and the Boers were not all enthusiastic supporters of the British Empire in those days. I remember General Smuts saying to me, "I won them over by saying to them, 'Choose your friends. I am not asking you to fight for the British Empire, or indeed making any kind of jingo appeal. All I ask is, when the war is over who do you want to be your friends—the British or the Germans?'." Choose your friends! I often think of this, my Lords, in discussions which are difficult and where the end is not clearly in sight. "Choose your friends" is very good advice. We have chosen the Free World, we have chosen the Americans, we have been friends on many occasions. They are our friends in defending freedom. Let us stick to them now.
5.38 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, one of the difficulties of a Foreign Affairs debate is that one is inclined to wish to speak on so many subjects. One would have liked to speak about disarmament and the prospects of the Conference to which my noble friend Lord Chalfont has referred. One would certainly like to speak on the subject of the future of the United Nations, which has been raised both by my noble friend Lady Gaitskell and subsequently by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. But I am going to direct most of my remarks to-night to the position in Vietnam, because I agree with the noble
1358
Earl, Lord Avon, that that is the most urgent issue now before us in foreign affairs. It is urgent, first, because it is war here and now, with hundreds, indeed thousands, of people being killed and mutilated in circumstances of terrible cruelty. But it is urgent not only in that way, but also because it is increasingly a danger to the peace of the world. Unless our Government and other Governments can act for a political settlement in Vietnam, the danger will intensify.
To-day, President Johnson, in Washington, has made a statement which indicates that America is now determined in Vietnam to pursue a war which will be a total war. This is a new situation which in my view demands a new attitude by the Government of this country. America began in Vietnam by having advisers there, a commission of military advice. It proceeded from that to have what it described as technicians to assist the forces of the South Vietnamese Government, but who did not take part in combatant fighting. When those troops were attacked, America developed a stage further and attacked North Vietnam. Now, quite openly, the American troops are taking part in combatant warfare in South Vietnam. These have been the steady developments of American participation; and now, with the speech of President Johnson, we have reached the last stage in its intervention. America is now saying that she will wage total war, with the limitless use of troops, with the limitless use of weapons of destruction; and that, if need be, that war will be continued for years to reach the achievement which America seeks. That is the situation on one side.
On the other side, there is the attitude of the Government of North Vietnam and of the National Liberation Front. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, are perfectly correct when they say that the Government of North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front are not at this moment prepared to negotiate peace: they are confident of victory. They have had a history now of 25 years' war, first against Japanese occupation, then against the power of French colonialism, which they defeated; and, since then, against the oppressive and utterly unrepresentative series of Governments

1359
which there have been in Saigon, and with American participation. And with the monsoon period, through which we are now passing, they believe that they can achieve victory by military means. In my view, they are terribly mistaken. I do not think there is any military solution of this conflict. I think that American prestige is so involved, her determination to resist Communism in South-East Asia so deep, and her own ambitions for power in Asia so great, that America will continue this war for years, if need be. The Vietnamese people may resist, but at the end of it their territory will become a cemetery, a cemetery of cinders.
In these circumstances, particularly because, if the war continues in that way, it will become more and more dangerous to the peace of the world, we must exert all our efforts to secure a political settlement and an end of the war. I agree very much with the noble Earl, Lord Avon, than the Geneva Agreement remains the basis upon which a settlement must be obtained. I have paid him a tribute earlier in this House for his chairmanship of the Geneva Conference, the chairmanship which he shared with the Russian representative. I sometimes wish that we had to-day leadership in foreign affairs which showed the same independence from America as the noble Earl, Lord Avon, showed at the Geneva Conference. There is one phrase of his which I shall never forget:
"It is better not to have a bad policy than to pursue a bad policy with our allies"
And the noble Earl maintained at Geneva that principle, though if he were here would add that many of us found it very difficult indeed in later years to forgive the policy which led to the appalling venture of Suez.
What did the Geneva Agreement decide? It decided, first, that Vietnam must be sovereign and independent. It decided, second, that the 17th Parallel, which was a truce line to bring an armistice, should be only provisional, and that within two years North and South Vietnam should have the opportunity to unite. It decided, third, that all foreign troops, all foreign bases, and all foreign military equipment must be withdrawn from both South Vietnam and North Vietnam, and from the United
1360
Vietnam when it was established. Finally, the Geneva Conference laid down—and this was accepted by the North Vietnam Government—that North and South Vietnam, and subsequently United Vietnam, should be militarily neutral, unaligned to any power bloc outside, unaligned to China, unaligned to Russia. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, is absolutely correct when he says that the principles of the Geneva Agreement are still the basis of any settlement in Vietnam.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, may I intervene? I have been following the noble Lord with great interest and great care. Would he not mention, in connection with the Geneva Agreement, the fact that there were also to be democratic elections carried out, both in North Vietnam and in South Vietnam, and that in fact the North Vietnamese have never agreed to this point?
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, the noble Lord is not quite correct, but very nearly correct. There were to be elections after two years, to enable South Vietnam and North Vietnam to unite. Where he is not quite correct is in his statement that North Vietnam never agreed. In fact, the greatest obstruction to the holding of the elections did not come from Hanoi but came from Saigon, and came by the agreement, and not merely the agreement but by the encouragement of the American Government in getting the Saigon Government to resist the possibilities of that election.
Let me continue. There is hope that the Geneva principles may be the basis of peace. They are accepted by North Vietnam; they are accepted by the National Liberation Front in South Vietnam: they are accepted by China; they are accepted by Russia; they are accepted by Britain. I do not think that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, was quite correct when he said that President Johnson had offered unconditional negotiations: that offer of President Johnson was followed by a statement that the independence of South Vietnam must be maintained. But the Geneva Agreement itself laid down that there was to be the opportunity to unite. Nevertheless, President Johnson has said that the essentials of the Geneva Agreement should he the conditions for a political

1361
settlement. We therefore can begin to look forward to a political settlement with a considerable degree of hope.
The practical question now is, how are those negotiations to take place? How is a conference to be called? I do not take the view which has been expressed, that the Commonwealth Peace Mission which the Government have initiated can be written off. I took the view from the very beginning that, because of Britain's support for America, it would be difficult for the Prime Minister of this country to negotiate with both sides. I took the view—and I stated it—that it would nevertheless be useful for the Prime Minister of this country to he exerting influence on America whilst Dr. Nkrumah and other African and Caribbean members of that Mission were exerting pressure on the other side. I know that this is now being done, and I pay tribute to the Prime Minister and to the British Government for the proposals which they have been making to the President of America in recent weeks. The Ghana Government now has Mr. Kwesi Armah and its representatives, who have been to both Peking and Hanoi. Therefore I believe that the machinery of the Commonwealth Peace Mission may yet contribute a great deal.
I want to say frankly to the House, however, that I do not believe that the British Government or, as Head of the Commonwealth Mission, the Prime Minister of the British Government, will be able to bring the two sides together while he and our Government are identified with one side. I think it is quite impossible. I am among those who regret that the British Government have ever given that kind of support to the American Government. I am going to make a plea to-night, that in view of the development of the situation, in view of the American decision now to make the war in Vietnam a total war, without limit, which must almost inevitably bring the bombing of Hanoi to which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, referred, and which will also almost inevitably bring the bombing of the port, the name of which I forget, where the Russian and Chinese ships fill the harbour with their military equipment—
LORD GLADWYN: It is Haiphong.
LORD BROCKWAY:—which in those circumstances even the noble Lord admits
1362
would be a great danger towards making the war one in which the Russians may be involved, together with the Chinese, the Government should now dissociate itself from America. I want to say to our Government—and I want to say it without the prejudices of the past—that now there has arisen a new situation. The American Government has decided upon total war. It has decided on a course which is almost certain to lead to the bombing of Hanoi and of Haiphong.
LORD GLADWYN: Why does the noble Lord say that it is certain?
LORD BROCKWAY: I said "almost".
LORD GLADWYN: Nothing is certain in this life.
LORD BROCKWAY: I thank the noble Lord; that is why I said "almost certain". I did not use the word "certain" alone. It is almost certain; the balance of probability is on that side. If American prestige and determination are so great that it is determined to win at any cost, as President Johnson's statement indicates, do you think that they will avoid the bombing of Hanoi and of Haiphong? Of course not.
The danger of world war is near, and the appeal which I am making now to my own Government—I have tried to restrain my speech on this matter because of my loyalties to that Government—is this. We now have reached a new situation. Mr. Gordon Walker, who was our Foreign Secretary, has publicly criticised any idea of America bombing Hanoi and going near the Chinese frontier. If American policy is now tending towards that end, surely our Government can dissociate themselves from that dangerous policy. And, when they do dissociate themselves from American policy, they will have some moral authority to act for peace in Vietnam.
There is just one other issue to which I wish to refer. Yesterday in another place—the Statement was repeated here—there was an announcement of reductions in expenditure on future social development. In the last speech which I delivered on this subject my noble friend Lord Walston will remember that I sounded a warning that if we maintained the present expenditure upon defence, it would inevitably mean that there would have to be cuts in expenditure upon social

1363
progress. I was glad to see in the Statement yesterday that there is to be a reduction by £100 million this year on the Defence budget. That will still leave an expenditure of £2,000 million. I was glad to see that over the next four years there is to be a reduction of £400 million. That will still leave an expenditure of £1,600 million for defence. I am raising this point now because expenditure on defence is dependent upon the country's foreign policy. Expenditure on armaments is reflective of our foreign policy, and if our present foreign policy is maintained it is going to be difficult to reduce that expenditure.
I could take many instances, but I will take only one. I will take the issue of Malaysia. There we have 55,000 men. I do not know what is the cost; but it must be a large sum in our expenditure on defence. I can understand the Government sending troops to defend a Commonwealth country which is under attack; but I would urge the Government to pay much more attention to the possibilities of peace there. I ask them to take up the challenge of the proposal which President Soekarno has made. He has made the proposal that Malaya, the Philippines and Indonesia—the three nations which were actually in conference at the time when Malaysia was inaugurated—should propose three Asians and three Africans, nominating one each, to form a Commission to secure peace, and that together they should appoint a chairman. President Soekarno has said "I will accept the recommendations of that Commission". Critics say he is an unreliable man, but I would urge that at least our Government ought to seek to challenge him when he makes an offer of that kind and encourage not only Malaysia but other Governments in the Commonwealth to respond to that offer and to see if peace can be secured.
The final thing I want to say is this—and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is not here.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend would wish to apologise for not being here. He had to go to a meeting at five o'clock, and he hopes to be back soon.
LORD BROCKWAY: I was not being critical at all.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I know that he would have enjoyed very much listening to the noble Lord.
LORD BROCKWAY: I thank the noble Earl very much. The noble Lord referred to a group in the Labour Party to which I proudly belong, the group represented by 75 Members of the other House who have asked for a reduction in our defence expenditure by £500 million. I associate myself with it completely. I do not believe that we can carry out the social reforms to which we are pledged without such a reduction, and I believe that the world would be a much safer place if we were able to achieve it.
The point to which I particularly want to refer is this. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, suggested that those of us who held this view are thinking of Britain becoming another Sweden in the world. In many ways I should like Britain to be another Sweden. I am not sure that the standard of its social life is not higher than ours. I am not sure that there is not a greater sense of freedom, liberty, and a certain absence of frustration in the life of their people. But I do not mean another Sweden in the sense to which the noble Lord referred. I want Britain to be great in its influence in the world not because of a past imperial history or because of its enormously spread Armies and Air Force. I want Britain to become great in the world, first, because it has an influence of tradition; second, because it still has great influence through its association with the members of the Commonwealth, and third, because it is giving a moral leadership in the cause of freedom and peace—a greater influence in the world than all its power of imperialism in the past and its militarism to-day. When we are thinking of Britain as "great", we are thinking of it as great in the moral values which may give leadership to mankind.
6.3 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, may I add a footnote to what my noble friend was just saying about the war in Vietnam? With much of what he said I agree; with some of what he said I do not agree. My footnote is this. Will the Government keep an eye open for the possibility that the Americans may bomb the dykes around Hanoi? Hanoi, I understand, is below water level, and the rivers in that

1365
area are contained by dykes. It would be a way to dislocate or even destroy the city to bomb dykes without directly bombing the city itself. If this were to be done it might cause the same sort of reaction in that part of the world's population, which lives on rice, which is a crop dependent on the control of water, as their use of gas earlier had on that part of the world's population, including ourselves, to whom gas is the weapon of genocide. I raise a flag of alarm at that possibility.
I wonder how many of your Lordships know when Britannia, with her trident and chariot, first appeared on the British coinage. I ask this because I did not know until I happened to come across the fact last week. Until then I would have supposed that it happened at about the same time as she began to rule the waves in what is obviously an 18th century tune, about 1750 to 1780. It was in fact in the year 286 A.D. The coinage was minted in London by Carausius, a person calling himself the British Emperor, the Emperor of the British Empire. I tell this story not to show how extremely ancient and worthy of respect our country is, or to encourage feelings on those lines; but rather the contrary, to show that however ancient our country is, it is only for a short time that our country has insisted on ruling the waves beyond her own territorial waters, on governing and policing far flung continents inhabited by persons of a different colour from ourselves. In 286 A.D. there she was ruling the Straits of Dover perhaps, or the straits between Britain and the Isle of Man. For 1,500 years from that time on this country was a civilised country, a pleasant country, without feeling any impulse to go anywhere else and impose itself. Then, suddenly, with the first industrial revolution, and the sudden new relevance of our basic raw materials of coal and iron, we found ourselves able to dominate the world, and we did so. My point is that this was a short episode only in a very long history.
We are now, since the Second World War, seeing the beginning of the process where we cone back to normal. It is uncomfortable to adjust, it is difficult to give up our positions of dominant influence in Asia and Africa. We run many dangers in doing so. Part of our public opinion is reluctant to do it; others cry
1366
"Forward!" These are normal and natural confusions. It is a return to normal which we are seeing in our generation. We are going back to the situation in which we existed for 1,500 years. We did not find anything wrong with it for a millennium and a half, and to many people who are content to live with history as they find it, I suspect that we shall not find anything wrong with it for another millennium and a half when we have retreated from the position of national empire which we have occupied for only two centuries.
It may not be too imaginative to find a parallel to this movement in the increased length of the young men's hair in the next generation which is coming after us. It is surprising to us; we are not used to men having hair on their shoulders, but it is only for 150 years that we have become unused to it. The short haircut came in with the industrial revolution and the expansion of empire. For 1,500 years since Britannia first appeared on the coinage, until she began to rule the Indian Ocean as well as the English Channel, young men wore their hair long. In this, too, we are only seeing a return to normal.
May I conclude by saying one or two words about Europe, addressing my remarks particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn? He spoke a great deal about Europe and the desirability of our declaring our intention to join Europe, and the importance of strengthening Europe. He did not, of course, mean Europe. He actually meant a part of a half of Europe—the Six countries in Western Europe. The shortsightedness of the debate on whether or not Britain should join "Europe", the debate on whether or not we can safely sign the Treaty of Rome, comes from the misuse of language. It would be expedient—and I hope that this House would agree to set the tone and give a lead in this matter—if the word "Europe" were increasingly used to mean Europe; and if when we meant the E.E.C. we said the E.E.C., and if when we meant Eastern Europe we said "Eastern Europe", and so on. After all, Europe contains 24 countries.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, would the noble Lord define "Europe" as being

1367
up to the Urals and the Caucasus—is that his idea?
LORD KENNET: I would. That is what has been meant by Europe for, I think I say with some justification, more than 2000 years, although the term was of course vague at the time of its origin around the Ægean. We should use words to say what we mean, and should not arrogate the larger words to describe a smaller area.
Many of your Lordships are familiar with the rage and frustration felt by Scottish persons when the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is referred to as "England". For myself, I am English, so I have never felt this, but I certainly sympathise with them, and I think all English noble Lords sympathise with them, because they are always among us. We mix with Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh persons in our daily life, and we know they do not like it, so we take care to use words correctly. Of course, the Europeans who do not happen to belong to the E.E.C. are not always among us. We do not frequently meet Roumanians, we do not frequently meet even Greeks or Portuguese. I do not know what degree of annoyance they would feel at the way words are used in England at the moment—perhaps not too much—but it is still incorrect and inaccurate. If we use words correctly, the policies will begin to make sense.
The noble Lord spoke about the contrast between EFTA and the E.E.C.: in one case a purely economic organisation, and in the other an organisation which is also political. I should welcome it if we began to look less at the declared ambitions of these unities, and more at their actual achievements. And their actual achievements seem to me to be rather closely parallel. Both aim to become Free Trade areas, with a zero internal tariff. A zero internal tariff is to be reached in the same month, December, 1966, in both EFTA and the E.C.E. The achievements of EFTA are often belittled by comparison with the other. I was very struck recently to find that, crossing the frontier between Belgium and Holland by train (and this is not simply in E.C.E.; this is in Benelux, which has been supposed to be
1368
working towards a Customs Union since 1946), in nineteen years they have not even got as far as being able to get rid of the Customs inspection of passengers' baggage on that train. I am speaking now of the reality; not of the ambitions of these units, with which everybody sympathises. This is as much as has happened between two countries which have been aiming at this, not for the nine years since the Treaty of Rome, but for nineteen years. Both organisations seek that zero internal tariff. One aims to become a political unity; the other does not. The one which does aim to become a political unity is not succeeding. The reality is that there is no progress at all towards the creation of political unity there.
It seems to me that not only are the words being used wrongly, but the debate is being fogged by the enormous weight of public information which is coming out of that very highly qualified Secretariat in Brussels, when compared with the nil weight of public information which is coming out of the very small Secretariat of EFTA in Geneva. My own conclusion would be that we should not be hypnotised into the "Yea" or "Nay" about the Rome Treaty, but should look forward to the day—and I take the noble Lord's point that bridges are becoming a hackneyed image—when we can build up the E.C.E. (and how few remember what those letters stand for! They mean the Economic Commission for Europe, the United Nations original organisation, which is also situated in Geneva) into a receptacle strong enough to contain the more present organisations in Europe—the E.E.C., our own EFTA, and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, formerly known as "Comecon", which groups the Communist countries of Eastern Europe. I accused a certain sector of this public debate of being short-sighted. I think that the long-sighted view on this would be to seek to build tip the E.C.E. to hold the three things; to seek increasingly to harmonise them until we can get a real system of economic co-operation covering the whole of our ancient but not unhopeful continent.
6.15 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY:My Lords, the last time we had a debate on Foreign Affairs, I ventured to make

1369
a few points on the European problem. I felt certain that to-day there would be many noble Lords speaking both on Europe and on Vietnam—and how welcome it was to hear the noble Earl, Lord Avon, speaking on this subject, back again here with us—and I thought, therefore, that I would take a totally different point. Perhaps a change at this stage of the evening is not a bad plan. Since we are discussing foreign policy in general, I would draw your Lordships' attention to an aspect of foreign policy which I feel is important and is rather tending to be neglected. We naturally feel a strong obligation to support the underdeveloped countries, and I think we may be doing so at the risk of losing out in more profitable parts of the world, which are really just as important parts of the human race and the world economy. I should like to give two illustrations of this point which I have in mind.
First of all, South America. We have there 27 nations, with vast possibilities of expansion, and the European tradition. Here I should declare a vested interest, because I have a son in business in Buenos Aires. He has been there for some years and he tells me that time and again we are missing out on our opportunities there to other European countries. This is all the more regrettable as there is so much good will towards us in those countries, and, I gather, very few points of friction. I was shocked by the lack of publicity for the visit of President Frei, of Chile, when he was here recently. He had a tremendous reception in Germany and in Italy; and no wonder! because (and this is an interesting fact) he won his recent elections, and won them very well, on a Christian Democratic Party ticket. This Christian Democratic Party, which is, of course. the Party in office in both Germany and Italy, is working very strenuously in South America, with some considerable success as an antidote to Communism in three or four of the major countries; and where the political link exists, trade will naturally follow. This is what is happening.
I am sure that we ought to be taking far more trouble over the South American countries than we have been doing lately, especially just now, when their allegiance to the U.S.A. has been very much loosened. When I was in
1370
New York at the United Nations, in 1952 and 1953, the U.S.A. could count on a solid block of 23 to 25 South American votes. That is, of course, no longer the case, yet they are Western-thinking countries with very strong ethnic and historical links with Europe. I do not mean to say that these markets are easy ones—they present exchange difficulties, and so on—but if we do not try to get a foot in now, we may find it very much more expensive to buy our way in there at a later stage.
Then there is another country—I am taking just these countries as illustrations of my point—which I feel we ought to keep very much in our mind's eye, and that is Persia. Persia is the hinge between Turkey and Pakistan. It is a Mohammedan country outside the sphere of Arab influence, and it is a stabilising factor in this respect. Recently, her Prime Minister was assassinated, but his successor carried on where the murdered man had left off without any disturbance. I think that that showed a very welcome political maturity. Here again is a vast country, as large as Europe, with immense mineral resources and oil, which is well disposed towards us, needing capital investments and with sounder prospects of satisfactory returns within a measurable distance of time. I was sorry to hear that the Government's new overseas investment restrictions are not only going to hamper our present investments in regard to this country but are going to discourage any future developments.
While we must to a certain degree cast our bread upon the waters of countries for which we were recently responsible, in some cases with very little prospect of return, I do not think we should lose opportunities in other countries where there is a quicker return on capital investment in prospect. It is, after all, not only in our interests but in the world's interests that we should strengthen our own economy; and, unless we watch this situation closely, those countries which have no ex-colonial obligations will beat us to it—as, for instance, Japan is doing in Persia and in the Argentine. Of course, we must help other needy nations, but I think we should keep a sense of proportion as to how we use the finances that we have available.

1371
As one goes round one sees an awful lot of Government aid frittered away through other Government channels, and I cannot help feeling that it is far better to encourage private enterprise in every way to take the risks involved, provided that there is an incentive of a reward proportionate to the risk. To recapitulate, my point is to urge the Government, notwithstanding their preoccupation, quite rightly, with the Commonwealth, not to forget other nations outside which are good friends of ours and could provide valuable markets for our exports—and which are, after all, as I said at the beginning, just as important a part of the human race and the economic world.
6.22 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for suggesting that I might like to rise immediately before him since I shall make a reference to one topic on which we have already had amiable dialogue in the past. I should first like to say what a pleasure it was for me to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, whom I have known for years, always as a warm friend and sometimes as a generous host. It is a great pleasure to know him now in this new relationship, in which he will be continuing the great services that he has already rendered to this country.
My Lords, I intervene, very briefly, to touch upon two European problems, in one of which this country has undoubtedly a major interest but a less obviously direct influence; in the other of which we have a most direct influence, interest and responsibility. The European Economic Community is passing through a climacteric of its existence. There is a nearly desperate note in the utterances of some of its keenest and formerly most confident creators. We have seen here in this country a certain tendency, happily a restricted tendency, among some of our compatriots, to crow with triumph. I cannot conceive of a more foolish or devitalising response to the present quandary of our closest neighbours. In saying this, I do no more than echo the words of my noble Leader who opened this debate.
I went myself last week to Brussels purely to listen to some of those involved
1372
in the efforts of a Europe striving to unite. I spoke to men politically, diplomatically, intellectually and philosophically committed to this task. When they speak of Europe, they mean the Europe for which they strive and which they visualise. Therefore, although I see point in the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I think these men would answer that such criticisms are not so much inaccurate as precipitate, in the phrase they use when they speak of Europe as they intend and expect it to be.
My Lords, not one of the men I spoke to minimised the gravity of the present crisis. Some were gloomier than others about its possible effects, but not one considered that the grand conception of a united Europe was doomed or condemned. The immediate and obvious agent of the crisis is General de Gaulle. But, again, not one of my informants argued that his purpose was to dissolve the Community or to halt the whole of its progress. There were a number of different theories as to what his true purpose might he, and the main and most cogent complaint I heard was that this purpose was wrapped in mystery—la politique de brouillard, as I heard it called. It is in this artificial, apparently deliberate political fog that the politicians of the Six are floundering to-day.
It is assumed, or was assumed among those to whom I spoke, that the General, when he speaks oracularly from the fog, will demand a stiff price for France's remaining within the Community—or, rather, returning to active participation within the Council and the Commission. It is even questioned in some quarters whether the price demanded will be acceptable, or whether for some years the Five may have to carry on the existence of the Common Market, somehow without France, waiting for a change of heart. a change of leadership, or a change of interpretation under France's present leader.
Politicians are indulging in a humourless guessing game as to what the price may be that he has in mind. Some speak of his demanding the head of Dr. Hallstein on a political charger—perhaps the heads of Dr. Hallstein and Mr. Mansholt. This execution could be prompt, though not painless, since the whole Commission come up for reelection on January 1 next, and one

1373
blackball excludes any candidate. But I did not gather that the other Governments would be ready to accept the blackballing of the Chairman and one Vice-Chairman of the Commission—two dedicated and redoubtable Europeans—simply to make way for the General's nominees, or to allow for the General's preferences. It is also said that what he requires, leaving personalities on one side, is to "cut the Commission down to size". But the Commission has been the dynamo of the Community, and to cut down its function deliberately and arbitrarily would be to reduce the dynamism on which the Community lives and develops—unless it could be in some way replaced. This, at least, is the view of many to whom I spoke.
Therefore, there are worried men in Europe to-day, and some angry men. But in their present distress the architects and the visionaries of this new Europe still look to Britain, and the benefit 'which Britain's entry would bring to the new Europe. I attended, as an observer, the Brussels meeting of the European Movement on July 20. The formal message which went out from that meeting was immensely strengthened by an amendment in which those gathered under the chairmanship of M. Maurice Faure welcomed the declaration made by the British Council of the European Movement, which shared the anxiety of the Six in wishing to see the present crisis resolved without the integrity of the Community having suffered any harm. The declaration in question was voiced by Mr. Bob Edwards of the British Labour Party, but was fully scripted and supported by his colleagues, both Labour and Conservative, forming the British delegation. I hope that most Members of your Lordships' House would echo that support.
It is conceded within the Commission that the main impediment to France's full collaboration in the future—and it is conceived that it may also be a difficulty in the way of Britain's entry—is that these problems are bound up with supranational control; that is to say, the degree of supranational authority—a matter on which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, dwelt in great detail and with far greater knowledge. It certainly cannot be beyond the wit of determined men to come to terms with this problem. In assaying to overcome it, one of my hosts dwelt upon
1374
the value which we in this country set upon the Parliamentary system. He assured me that some minds within the Commission were exploring the idea of transferring some of the present power of the Commission—even the power of initiation—to the European Parliament. This appears, to me at least, an idea worthy of respect. But what is important at this juncture of Europe's advance to unity is to recognise that these problems affect us; and that in the spirit expressed by the British delegation eight days ago, it is in our interest that this great experiment should not founder but flourish.
The other problem I have in mind today is that of our relations with Spain, highlighted by the dispute over Gibraltar. I speak as an Englishman with a deep and thoughtful love of Spain and, as such, depressed by any such disturbing dispute. It would, perhaps, not come amiss from me to pay tribute to the way in which Ministers of Her Majesty's Government during this year have kept their known political prejudices outside their exchanges with the Spanish Government. I believe that this attitude of present Ministers could bear fruit in the near future. I believe that the climate exists for those talks to open, for which the United Nations called upon both Governments.
Two weeks ago I made a purely private and totally unsponsored visit to Madrid, with the idea of testing the Spanish political temperature. The impressions I received from those I spoke to confirmed my own feeling that talks could open before the situation worsened. There is a grave danger of its worsening. For the next weeks the heat in Gibraltar will be intense and confinement upon the Rock will become progressively less endurable. It is not, of course, a physical confinement because very nearly every citizen or resident of Gibraltar is free to cross the Spanish frontier either by walking overland or by crossing on the ferry across Algeciras Bay. But there is certainly a feeling of political and social confinement, so utterly at variance with the friendliness cm both sides of that border until lately.
Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the need to re-create an understanding. I can only try to inject a note of urgency and a note of optimism. But, as I have said before from these Benches,

1375
a prerequisite of successful talks would be the recognition from both sides of an opposite point of view sincerely held. The Spaniards genuinely believe that they are more sinned against than sinning. However difficult it may seem to noble Lords sitting in Westminster for anyone to entertain or sustain that argument, I must assure noble Lords, and, in particular, those who have some influence on our attitude, that this is the case. The Spaniards consider themselves to be the aggrieved party.
This being the situation, it will, as I say, behove each side in the negotiations to enter them in a positive, not a negative, spirit. If those attending sit down armed with recriminations to match recriminations, missiles and counter missiles, then no happiness will follow for the inhabitants of Gibraltar or for the two major countries involved. There is a belief—and it is a pardonable one—that all the Spanish Government have in mind is a rigid intransigent determination to wrest back Gibraltar by any means short of force. I am convinced that this is not so. I am convinced that they seek a modus vivendi, to emerge from discussions held in a climate of mutual respect. If the talks are entered upon in the belief that both sides are seeking reasonable terms, not seeking to score points but to establish agreement, then we can expect benefits for both those in Gibraltar and those in the Spanish hinterland. This is, after all, the legal tender of debate between two great civilised nations.
Within the last fortnight I have spoken with men of affairs in Madrid, including Ministers, and again in this building with Sir Joshua Hassan, the Chief Minister, and Mr Peter Isola, the Leader of the Opposition in Gibraltar. The spirit of practical reasonableness was apparent in the minds of all. I am sure that this spirit exists also in the minds of members of Her Majesty's Government. If it is reflected at the conference table, then my optimism is valid. There must be no politique de brouillard at that meeting. The atmosphere must be as clear as the sun which beams down upon the Gibraltarians and their neighbours. My Lords, I have finished. There is a certain impertinence in touching for a mere ten minutes on two such vital prob
1376
lems. In these circumstances, brevity may be confused with curtness. But if I have been curt as well as uncontroversial, then my modest objective for the day has been achieved.
6.35 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, might I, at the outset of my speech, make a very appreciative reference to the maiden speech we have recently heard from the noble Lord, Lord Caccia? It was for all of us a great pleasure to hear him. For those who have had the privilege of knowing him and working with him it was no surprise to hear him speak with such authority, but, at the same time, with such modesty; and both his authority and his modesty we look forward to benefiting from in the coming months. It was also a very great pleasure to see sitting once more opposite us the noble Earl, Lord Avon, looking so well, so fit and healthy, and to listen to him speaking in such a fit and healthy manner and giving us the benefit of his many years of experience and wisdom in a speech with which I think all of us on both sides of the House could hardly find anything to disagree.
I think it will be useful at this stage if I attempt to answer some of the points which have been raised up till now, rather than to leave everything to my noble friend Lord Longford when he comes to wind up. It would be imposing on him, I think, a strain—
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Not at all!
LORD WALSTON:—which he is amply capable of enduring; but it would, perhaps, make his speech long although, I am sure, worthwhile.
Perhaps I may deal at the outset with the two, I will not say unimportant but shorter points raised by the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, and the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley. First, so far as Spain and Gibraltar are concerned, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his measured words. I am also grateful for his optimism which, I say once more, I hope is not misplaced. I can do little more than repeat what I said on a previous occasion. We have no wish to be in argument with Spain, particularly over

1377
the matter of Gibraltar. We are anxious to talk about these matters, and we are always prepared to do so. But, while I agree with the noble Lord when he says that a prerequisite must be the recognition of opposing points of view, genuinely held, a further prerequisite must be the cessation and the removal of the present entirely unwarranted and intolerable restrictions which have been placed by the Spanish Government on the free movement of Gibraltarians.
I will reassert once more our determination to stand by the people of Gibraltar. As the noble Lord has reminded us, we have been having a visit from the Prime Minister and other leading personalities of Gibraltar. We have given them an indication, a concrete indication, of our determination by the promise of £1 million over the next three years from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund to help them in their present predicament. That, I hope, is sufficient evidence of our determination that we will be with them through these troubled times. I have said in the past that there are many things that we could do, if we so wished, to retaliate against the Spaniards for what they are doing I said then, and I will repeat it: we do not wish to do any of these things and we still forbear to do so. I was taken to task by some people in Gibraltar for that forbearance. But we shall continue it: although we cannot undertake indefinitely to continue if there is no indication of a more friendly and amenable attitude on the part of the Spanish Government. As I say. I hone that the noble Lord's optimism is well-founded, and that before long these restrictions will be removed; and we can then settle our disagreements in a way which befits civilised nations; that is, by talking. rather than by acts of this sort.
I was glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, raised the two problems of South America and Iran, and in particular referred to the visit of President Frei. I am sorry that she felt that the visit was not perhaps as successful as it might have been. My view is that it was an overwhelming success. Wherever the President went he made an enormous impression, by his own personality and by his political philosophy. I know that he. Personally, was extremely gratified at the response which he received in this country.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I know that the President himself, and the way in which he was received, were perfectly splendid. But I said that there was a lack of publicity about it in the Press and in general.
LORD WALSTON: I certainly should have been much happier had many of our newspapers given more publicity to the visit, and there I agree with the noble Baroness; although some papers, including The Times, did have important and worthwhile articles about it.
On the wider matter of investments, and our trade and aid to South America. I am in agreement with the noble Baroness about its importance; but I would not accept her view that we are entirely neglecting that great part of the world. Although the demands for our aid are enormous, and although, naturally, commitments to the Commonwealth receive a certain priority, we are giving, and have been giving, aid to South America, by way of loans and grants, the re-financing of debts, and in many other ways. We are doing all we can to encourage private enterprise to go there and to recapture some of the markets which, as was said by President Frei, in one of his speeches, were fifty years ago almost entirely British markets, though to-day our share of them is lamentably small. We give such encouragement as we can by grants, under the E.C.G.D. scheme and in other ways to which I should like to refer later in more general terms. We are at one with the noble Baroness in recognising the importance of this market from the commercial and economic viewpoint, and because of the importance of South America on the world scene.
Much the same holds true of Iran, a great country which strategically is in a very important position. I am sure the noble Baroness knows that it was not many months ago that His Imperial Majesty paid a private visit to this country. He had many important talks with the Government, with the Prime Minister and with the Secretary of State. Shortly after that there was a CENTO meeting in Teheran which was attended by. among others. my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. We are working very closely with Iran. We gave a certain amount of assistance in aid and loans. We are also doing all we can to

1379
strengthen the importance of CENTO and to help Iran on the path that she is following.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, the CENTO side is first-class, but, as I said, I had first-hand information that the new overseas restrictions imposed recently by the Government will seriously affect very important investments in Iran.
LORD WALSTON: Undoubtedly the restrictions which have been imposed on overseas investments will affect overseas investments; but this is in no way singling out Iran. That country comes under the general umbrella and is affected in the same way as other countries.
My Lords, I should like now to turn to Europe which, quite reasonably, has been one of the main subjects of the debate. I assure my noble friend, Lord Kennet, that when I refer to "Europe" I mean Europe in its correct geographical sense; though for convenience and verbal shorthand I think we may sometimes be excused if we use the word to refer to the Community of the Six, if the meaning is completely clear. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made an extremely interesting and thoughtful speech which, if I may say so, would qualify him for a Chair of international affairs in any place of learning in this country. But because he put forward no positive proposal of any kind, it hardly qualifies him or his Party to pronounce on what should be done. We were waiting to hear positive proposals, and of those there were singularly few.
The noble Lord referred my noble Leader to a speech made only last week by Sir Alec Douglas-Home in another place. He invited us to read that speech if we wished to know the attitude of the Conservative Party towards Europe. I take it that the noble Lord was referring to the speech made by Sir Alec Douglas-Home in the debate on foreign affairs in another place. He will correct me if I am wrong about that. I have read through the speech and I have a copy of it with me. I can find absolutely no reference whatever in it to Europe. I have made some researches and I gather that Sir Alec did make some remarks about Europe at a Conservative women's rally some time ago, but I hardly think
1380
that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would confuse the House of Commons—at least in its present form—with a Conservative women's rally.
I find also that Mr. Maudling made certain remarks about Europe in the foreign affairs debate last week. Incidentally, he referred to the value of building bridges, and therefore appears somewhat at variance with the noble Lord. I can sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. In the turmoil which has been taking place in his Party over the past few days he may sometimes have been a little uncertain about who was the Leader of his Party at that time. But either at this stage or at some later stage in the debate he will perhaps be able to say a word (as he was himself so coy about saying what was the policy of his Party towards Europe, and simply referred us to the speech of Sir Alec in which no mention of Europe is made) about what are in fact the views of his Party. Or maybe the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, will be able to do that when he speaks later in the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, made, if I may say so, an extremely constructive and positive speech on this matter, and he put the position very clearly. It seems to me that now, happily, the gap between any of the three Parties is becoming smaller and smaller—that is, if I may take Mr. Maudling's words in another place to represent the feelings of his Party. We are still somewhat bedevilled by semantics in this matter and by various terms such as "declaration of intent", and things of that kind which come to mean different things for different people. But I think I may say quite categorically that we made our declaration of intent when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, on July 19 in another place, stated that it was our aim to achieve a single European market embracing the United Kingdom, the other EFTA countries and E.E.C. I suggest that is a perfectly clear declaration of intent. Having achieved this, we go on to our further objectives, our ultimate objectives, which are a democratic Europe comprising as many European countries as possible, and that—I hope this will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Kennet—this all-embracing or widely embracing Europe should be firmly within the Atlantic Community and should not in any way be isolationist; it should accept its

1381
full responsibility in the outside world and especially its reponsibility toward developing countries.
Immediate accession to the E.E.C. is, unfortunately, in my view, not a question at the present time, but as we have stated on many occasions, we are always prepared to join, provided that our essential national interests are protected and our international obligations are in no way jeopardised. When this time comes—and we hope it will be soon—careful consideration will have to be given to all these matters. But the intent is there.
At the present time, the E.E.C. is in no position to consider such negotiations. It is passing through an unhappy period. I associate myself with everything that has been said on both sides already, in hoping that this may last a very short time and that its troubles may be speedily resolved. It can be of no benefit to anybody in Europe, desiring the things for which Europe stands, to have the Six divided in this way. After all, the Community is one of the great post-war achievements and it must regain its authority and continue to play the part that it has already started to play. It is only in that way that we can hope to get the divisions which at present divide Europe narrowed, whether we do that by building bridges or converging courses or by other means that, again, are a matter of semantics. What we want to do is to explore the most effective means of bridging this gap.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I did not mean to interrupt the noble Lord, because it only lengthens the debate, but there was one error of fact on which I I think I ought to correct him, when he said that Mr. Maudling in another place talked about bridge building. He only talked about that in order to say that it was no real, long-term solution, which is exactly what I said.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, it is perfectly true that he said that it was no real, long-term solution, but he said that it was very valuable in mitigating some of the damage there was at the present time from a divided Europe.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, it might make sense in that context.
LORD WALSTON: Possibly he was a little more cautious, but if Mr. Maudling says that something might make sense, I
1382
take it that it is of value. Admittedly a bridge is of no long-term value unless people cross the bridge, but it is of value in enabling people to cross the bridge. I hope that I have said enough to show where we stand in Europe, what we wish for Europe, and how we shall set about achieving this—with patience, with pragmatism, without theoretical ideas, but with actual means which are going to bring us closer together, by consultation, by co-operation in various technical, political, economic, military and functional matters. I believe that the initiative which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister took in the main meeting with the Prime Ministers of EFTA will bear fruit. The officials are working on it now. And I think that when the October meeting comes we shall find that the initiative itself is helping to bring us closer to the other countries of Europe.
Let me turn to Vietnam, a matter of the greatest importance but on which I do not propose to speak at any great length, partly because I have spoken on it on other occasions and I think that the view of Her Majesty's Government is well known and also because I am glad to find that in to-day's debate there is a wide measure of agreement here, too. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, suggested that nothing should be done until the monsoon had finished and that then was the time, perhaps, for further initiative; and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, supported him in that. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, reminded us that there could be no military solution to this. It must be solved by talks and conferences, and he suggested that a return to the Geneva Agreement was a correct approach. With that, I am in complete agreement.
My noble friend Lord Brockway also accepted the fact that there would have to be talks before there could be an end to the fighting and that a military solution was of no avail. He also agreed with the rest of the noble Lords who have spoken, that at the present time North Vietnam and the Viet Cong were sufficiently confident of success for there to be little hope of their coming to talks. My noble friend suggested that, because of the recent speech of President Johnson, there had been a fundamental change in the situation, and he said that we should dissociate ourselves from the United States in Vietnam, because only

1383
in such a way would it be possible for us and the Commonwealth Mission to be accepted by the two sides as a go-between.
I say once more very firmly, that we do not dissociate ourselves from the United States. I have not actually read the text of the President's speech, but so far as I know, nothing has happened which has in any way changed the situation in North Vietnam from what it was last week and last month. I know that there are still people who feel that, if we were uncommitted, Hanoi would listen to us, but those people refuse to remember that the President of India, President Tito and many other people, who are completely uncommitted, have met with exactly the same rebuffs as we have had and there is no reason whatever to believe that if we were to shift our position and become uncommitted we should have any more success than they have had in the past.
In my view, the only means by which this sad and savage war can be brought to an end is by the Viet Cong and Vietnamese, and perhaps the Chinese, too, realising that they cannot win the war. It must be up to us to make them see that. My right honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions did a valuable job, if he achieved nothing else, in bringing that home to the people in Hanoi; and the more we can pursue that line the better chance there is of bringing them to the conference table. How can we blame the Americans if at this stage they take such steps as seem to them necessary to convince the North that the war is not yet won? We hope it will not escalate. We sincerely hope that there will be no need to extend the bombing. But the overriding need is to make the North realise that they cannot win this war.
I do not think there is need for me to repeat our urgent objectives, other than to say that, first, there must be talks; then as rapidly as possible there must be a cease-fire; there must be a withdrawal of all foreign troops of all kinds from both territories; there must be free elections, and then there must be freedom for the North and the South to decide their own fate to amalgamate together, as we should hope, or if they insist, to remain separate. That is what we see as the future for Vietnam.
1384
My noble friend Lord Brockway mentioned Indonesia and asked us to take up President Soekarno's challenge of talks for peace. I would remind your Lordships that in this war—it is a war, in spite of the use of the word "confrontation"—we are not the protagonists. Malaysia are the protagonists, and it is not for us to take up the challenge, though we should support any talks that Malaysia were anxious to enter into. I would also remind your Lordships that, on more than one occasion, President Soekarno has made an offer of this kind. The Tungku has been prepared to go along and talk, either to Tokyo or elsewhere, and always at the last moment there have been reasons why Soekarno has not gone there. I am quite certain that the Malaysian Government, and Tungku Abdul Rahman, would be only too happy to join in genuine talks at any time, at any place, if the fighting actually ceased, and if President Soekarno showed by his deeds as well as his words that he was willing to talk.
Now I should like to turn to a matter which has been referred to in two speeches, those of the noble Earl, Lord Avon, and the noble Lord, Lord Caccia—namely, the question of solvency in this country. This is not something which one can spend much time on in a Foreign Affairs debate, but I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships, and, in particular, the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, to some of the things which the Diplomatic Service are doing to help us on the economic side.
The time is long past when the Diplomatic Service looked upon itself simply as a political organisation dealing with politicians and diplomats of other countries. One of its primary jobs is on the commercial side. It is not the job of our commercial officers and our diplomats abroad actually to sell goods—that must be done by our manufacturers and exporters—but it is their job to help exporters: to provide information of the markets and the opportunities; to provide information about representatives and agents, and local conditions; to keep contact with importing firms, and many things of that kind. The tools for British industry are frequently arranged by our overseas missions. Trade fairs—Hong Kong, Tokyo, Milan, Oslo—British

1385
Weeks, anti many things of that kind are the everyday job of our overseas missions.
Let me remind your Lordships that our commercial officers are almost all regular members of the Diplomatic Service, and they have come to recognise commercial experience as an essential part of their training to the highest diplomatic posts. Before taking up posts abroad, many members of the Diplomatic Service spend several weeks, and sometimes several months, learning about British industry inside factories, and talking to our businessmen; and even heads of missions themselves, before going out, or when they are home on leave, do the same sort of thing. I would also point out that under the late entry scheme into the Diplomatic Service we now recruit many men with commercial experience. Recent entrants include two men who have been bankers, three from commercial industry, one from the electronics industry and one from transport. So we are pressing ahead the whole time with the improvement of commerce and exports, and helping all we can. But we must remember that, in the final analysis, the last word is with the manufacturer and the exporter. We provide the service, but they must actually do the selling.
I am afraid I have detained your Lordships for a long time, but let me turn finally to a more general aspect of our foreign policy. It goes without saying that we want to be on friendly terms with all the countries of the world, but it is only natural that we should have special feelings of sympathy towards those countries whose ideals are closest to ours. These ideals are the abolition of privilege, either social or economic, and at the same time the enjoyment of liberty by every individual: in other words, liberty and equality. As is so often the case, the French were right to have adopted their revolutionary slogan, because it is hard to have liberty and equality unless at the same time one has fraternity, a genuine feeling of brotherly love towards all men. We are still waiting for the day to come when they will pervade human relations. Until then, all countries have to stumble towards liberty and equality, sometimes veering more towards one, and sometimes more towards the other.
However, as we look round the world to-day, we see many countries making progress along the lines which we believe
1386
to be right. It is with these countries, in particular, that our sympathies lies. The United States of America are a great example. For long they have had a basic system of education which should be the envy of the world; and recently, under the guidance of President Johnson, they have taken two great steps towards liberty and equality—namely their civil rights legislation, and their legislation for the care of the sick and aged. In the Eastern Hemisphere, the Soviet Union, too, is advancing, albeit slowly, towards greater liberty. The inequalities and poverty of the pre-revolutionary period were such that it was bound to be many years before liberty and equality could exist. But to-day we can see signs that there is a move in that direction. It is a slow move, perhaps, and we should like to see it become faster, but we must happily recognise that there is a move in this direction.
Throughout the whole of the uncommitted world there are many countries where progress is being made. Although we deplore the anti-British propaganda in the Egyptian Press, and some of the activities of the United Arab Republic in parts of the Middle East, we wholeheartedly support the social reforms which are being carried out in Egypt: the land reform, the abolition of privilege and the redistribution of wealth. Yugoslavia is another country where successful efforts are being made: wealth is being redistributed, and we hope to see further steps towards personal liberty. Israel is another country which has made astonishing social and economic progress in all these fields. In Iran, as the noble Baroness mentioned, a similar process is taking place, although under a very different system of Government: widespread land reform has already taken place; many of the ancient privileges no longer exist; and the wealth of that great country is being devoted to schemes of social importance, above all, the hospitals and the spread of literacy.
Finally, an exciting example, which again the noble Baroness mentioned, is Chile. It was, as I have said, a privilege for us to entertain on a State Visit here President Frei. Some of us were then able to learn from his own lips of the great projects for social and economic reform that he has in his own country, which, if they succeed, will abolish the

1387
inequalities which have flourished for so long, but at the same time preserve individual liberties. We all wish him success in this great venture, which will benefit not only his own country, but, by its example, the whole of Latin America. These are the beliefs on which our foreign policy is based. We must not forget that Britain has always been in the van of social and economic progress. To-day we have a Labour Government in Britain, and as such, we are more than ever in sympathy with those countries which are striving to right social wrongs and to improve the lot of the underprivileged.
7.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the last two speakers, the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, and my noble friend Lord Walston, have both mentioned Gibraltar, and I propose to speak this evening quite briefly on Britain's position in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. These are areas where I have spent nearly fifty years since World War I. Then, Britain was strongly entrenched throughout the Mediterranean and the Middle East—Egypt, Sudan, Aden, Cyprus, Malta, Gibraltar, and, as a result of the First World War, Palestine, Trans-jordan and Irak. In mentioning Palestine and Trans-jordan, I should also like to say that those were territories in which my noble friend Lord Caradon started his brilliant colonial and international career; and it gives me great pleasure to see him here on the Government Front Bench.
To-day, Britain is only on the periphery of the Middle East, in Gibraltar, in Cyprus and in Aden, and in two of those countries it is under pressure. The central bloc of the Middle East consists of independent Arab States, former British colonies, protectorates or mandated territories, together with independent countries such as Saudia and the Yemen, the former French mandated territories of Lebanon and Syria, and the non-Arab countries of Iran, Turkey and Israel. As a result of the very rapid changes in the last half century, the old system of Pax Britannica in the Middle East has vanished, and full play is given to-day to individual nationalisms, with the result that we have shifting coalitions and instability. Unfortunately, the Middle East is an extremely
1388
critical area, first of all because of its proximity to Russia, and, secondly, because of the oil supplies.
My noble friend Lord Walston mentioned just now Russia's social advance. Russia has no broad belt of satellites to protect it in the Middle East, as it has in Eastern Europe. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, mentioned the feeling that China has in South-East Asia, the need to protect itself by a broad belt of satellites. In the Middle East, the Western allies are bang up against the Southern frontier of Russia. This is part of a policy of containment. Turkey, Iran and Pakistan are all members of CENTO and receive considerable Western support, both from the United States and Britain. This is the hard crust of Western defence in the Middle East. But how does it look from the point of view of Russia? It is to them a threat. They feel uncomfortable, and they devote a large part of their energies to trying to wean away the Arab States behind this hard crust from dependence on the United States and on Britain. In this way, they hope to leave the Northern tier—these three countries, Iran, Turkey and Pakistan—hanging in the air. Hence the Russian aid to the Arab States and its constant stream of anti-Western propaganda.
This puts the West, particularly the United States, in a dilemma. Are they to match dollar for dollar, in spite of Arab insults, or are they to dig in their toes as, for example, when Foster Dulles refused American aid to build the Aswan High Dam and threw Egypt into Russia's arms? All this is part of the cold war, and the great problem is to prevent it from becoming a hot war. As I said, the Middle East is a critical area, and it is no place for brush fires: there is too much oil around, and a volatile population. Those combined can lead to a Middle East conflagration. That would perhaps lead to an Arab invitation to Russia to step in, which would jeopardise Western oil supplies. Hence the policy of the West is to put brush fires out at once.
One of the areas in which brush fires are always possible is in the relations between the Arab States and Israel. At the moment, I personally feel that serious friction is less likely between the Arab States and Israel to-day than it has been at any time during the last eighteen years.

1389
The Arab front is in disarray. Bourguiba has challenged Nasser; Ben Bella who was a protégé of Nasser has been overthrown; Egypt is tied up in the Yemen, it has trouble with Syria and Iraq. Colonel Nasser has now launched a new idea, that he has no immediate intention of attacking Israel. He suggests a long-range build-up, economic, social and political. I personally believe that this is a sincere expression of intention. At the moment, he is too weak to embark on warlike operations, and it is a possible recognition that only the big Powers are allowed freedom of action in the Middle East. Ever since Napoleon and the French walked in, we have had Germany, Italy, Britain and the United States, but little Powers are not allowed freedom of action. It is these wars between little Powers that are put down at once for fear of more serious consequences.
If my analysis is correct, we are at the moment witnessing a détente in the Middle East. What should Britain do? Should she sit back, reduce her expenditure there, and thank heaven? Or should Britain intensify her help for a constructive Middle East development? I personally am strongly in favour of further British aid. Aid is a product of three ideas: the first is the biblical device: "Love thy neighbour as thyself"; the second, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, is the belief that a satisfied man is less likely to embark on warlike operations than a hungry man; and the third, I would suggest, is that a hungry man is a better customer for British exports.
Until now the Middle East has been a very unstable place, and not surprisingly. I should like to put in a plea for understanding of some of the reasons for this instability. The Middle East is undergoing very rapid internal change. The Arab States and Iran, as has already been said, are swinging away from feudalism. There is land reform, there is irrigation and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley said, there is a considerable advance in these countries. There is a rise of an urban middle-class of lawyers, doctors, civil servants, army officers and businessmen, and a very rapid industrialisation, which puts a severe internal strain on many of these countries. Wealth is
1390
unevenly distributed within the countries. There are pockets of great poverty and, in some cases, great individual wealth. But there are also great differences between countries. For example, Kuwait has more wealth per head than the United States, while Jordan has very few natural resources and is largely dependent on grants from this country, the latest being two days ago.
Hence, in my view, the United Kingdom, through its aid, is playing a helpful role. Since World War II £135 million has been spent in the Middle East in grants and loans. This is wholly admirable, and helps to speed up the development of those countries by their own efforts. Britain has taken a lead in technical assistance. It has 200 experts in the area at this moment; it has supplied, at the expense of the British taxpayer, many university professors for different Middle East universities, mostly for teaching the English language, which is their window on the world. There are many British Council libraries, and tens of thousands of books are sent out each year. Over a thousand students from the Middle East are at present in Britain on scholarships. Not only do they benefit educationally but they can see for themselves what Britain really is. Britain, if I may say so, has a proud Imperial past, but that is past. Yet it is accused to-day of neocolonialism, which is quite untrue. It is necessary, in my opinion, continually to counteract this charge and to show Britain in the new image as a wise adviser to the nascent countries of the Middle East.
As my noble friend Lord Walston said, a great deal is done by the British Embassies, and if the success of British Ambassadors in Israel is any guide it is very considerable. The British Information Services throughout the Middle East do a great deal to spread the new image. The B.B.C. is constantly at work in its Overseas Services, both in English and in four Middle-Eastern languages. It broadcasts half-an-hour a day in Hebrew, three-quarters-of-an-hour in Persian, one-and-a-half hours a day in Turkish, and twelve hours a day in Arabic. Some of the countries of the Communist bloc spend much more on broadcasts, especially to Persia and Turkey. To Turkey they broadcast seven times as much as the B.B.C. and to Iran no less

1391
than ten times as much, which I think shows the greater sensitivity of Russia to Turkey and Iran. I do not suggest that Britain should attempt to compete with this. I am quite content to leave it to the Foreign Office Committee which decides to which countries the B.B.C. should broadcast in the vernacular, and how many hours a day.
I should like to end by saying that all this valuable aid and information can only help to stabilise an occasionally unstable area and to present Britain's new image in the proper form. My plea to Her Majesty's Government is that this should be kept up. My noble friend Lady Gaitskell has said that there is no gratitude in politics: but this is not charity; this is self-interest. I should like to see it extended, but if that is not possible on a day after the enunciation of a policy of retrenchment at least this expenditure should not be cut at the moment just because there is a détente. I think one must maintain the services that are now being carried out in the region, and I venture to suggest that, through this, Britain will reap handsome rewards—and not only in Heaven.
7.23 p.m.
LORD GLENDEVON: My Lords, I had thought, up to a few minutes ago, that it might be best if I retained my seat. On second thoughts, having listened to the most interesting speech made by the noble Viscount, and seeing him survive the ordeal of speaking after one full-length winding-up speech, I decided that it would be cowardly of me not to try to do the same thing. But I do not wish to stand for long between your Lordships and the surprise which must await us in the winding-up speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the House.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I just ask for a little elucidation? I am not at the moment aware that I am going to say anything sensational.
LORD GLENDEVON: My Lords, I did not say "sensational", I said "surprising", which is not quite the same thing. My point was that I thought the debate had really been rounded off by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and that those who came after him had an invidious task in carrying on this debate and addressing your Lordships. That was
1392
what I was getting at, not to put too fine a point on it. I should like also to say how delighted I was to hear the maiden speech of my great friend the noble Lord, Lord Caccia. I see him in another sphere where I sit under his chairmanship, so I shall now have the double advantage of his wisdom.
Secondly, I wish to join those others of your Lordships who have referred to the presence here of the noble Earl, Lord Avon. I had the great honour of serving him as a Minister—he was the first of the three Foreign Secretaries whom I served—and it certainly brought back happy memories to me to hear him to-day and to enjoy, as we all did, that deep and quiet wisdom flowing from his matchless experience. The noble Earl said that he wanted to see:
"a more coherent sense of purpose among the free nations "
and he added that it depended upon France. That is the point at which I should like, very briefly, to take up my theme.
Like others I have loved France all my life. I have loved her in peace time; I have sorrowed for her in war. I also think that General de Gaulle is a very great man. His courage, in war and in peace, has rendered high service both to France and to the world, and that will endure. I have said all this deliberately because it is against that background of my feelings for France and the President that I wish to say what I am now going to say. It is this: I regret that, in my view, this great man has tarnished his greatness and qualified his service by the intransigence of his attitude to this country and to the United States of America. I base what I am saying on a certain amount of experience, which I shall come to in one moment, but in my view the truth about the President's attitude to Great Britain is that he has never really wanted us in "his" Europe because he has been determined to dominate Europe alone—by which I mean that France should dominate Europe alone; and for him the renaissance of France is inseparable from her supremacy in Europe. This policy, of course, is a complete volte face from the policy of France before the advent to power of President de Gaulle.
I had the honour of serving in the British team from fairly early days at Strasbourg, and later on I led it for the

1393
Government, and I remember so well how, day after day, night after night, we would assure the French leaders of those early days that we had absolutely no intention of turning our backs upon Europe. I remember saying to them that we would not if we could, and that we could not if we would. As I say, at that time de Gaulle was out of office. A little later, when I was leading the delegation for the British Government, I remember being approached one evening by Gaullist deputies who asked if they could see me. I thought, and I hoped, that they were going to suggest helpful ways by which our proceedings could be strengthened, so that we could be believed by those whom we were addressing in the Assembly. Far from that being the purpose of the conversation, it was to ask me why we really wanted to bother with Europe at all. Had we not plenty on our plates in other spheres, in the context of Commonwealth, and so on?
I must say, therefore, without going further into that story, that I myself was not in the least surprised when, as soon as this great man came to power, he made it perfectly clear that he wanted to keep us out. In my view, our being kept out had nothing whatever to do with the failure to match up to what we were trying to do in terms of the Common Market. In fact, he saw that the rest of the Six, apart from his own people, were going to agree to let us in and he was determined at all costs that we were not coming in.
So far as the United States is concerned, I want to recall to your Lordships a conversation that I saw and listened to on a programme called Gallery, on the B.B.C., just before the present Prime Minister went to Paris. There was on this programme a French Professor, called Professor Hurtig, and I took down these words because I fully intended on the first possible occasion to relate them to your Lordships. What he said was:
"It is necessary for General de Gaulle's policy for tension with the United States to exist."
Those are the words that this intelligent man used. That is simply another way of saying—it must be—that if tension looks like relaxing it must be whipped up by France, so that de Gaulle's policy may exist. What is the policy? Of course, it is the policy of the Third Force,
1394
the Force Troisième, and it is accompanied by observations which are the reverse of kind, and I think sometimes unworthy, so far as we and the Americans are concerned. We know the President's derogatory phrase, les Anglo-Saxons; it is derogatory, and of course it is not accurate, because, as the General does not appear to realise, there are in fact more Italians in New York than there are in Rome. But let that be. I think this sort of attitude is deeply regrettable.
When the President, as reported, made it clear to President Kennedy, when they were talking, what was in his mind when he was talking of the organisational concept of NATO, the President is reported to have answered him that for the United States the defence of Europe and of America were the same, and that American troops were stationed in Europe to signal Moscow that an attack on Europe automatically constituted an attack on America. I wonder what would have happened if, either in 1914 or in 1939, the President of the United States of America had been able to make that clear. Can there be any doubt that neither of the great wars would have started? I remember asking myself this question on the day when I heard Ernest Bevin announce in the House of Commons the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty. To me this was an absolute climacteric in the world, and I breathed freely for the first time since the war broke out in 1939.
So, whatever we may sometimes say about the United States, whatever criticism we may make, as has been objectively and responsibly made occasionally to-day, about their tactics here, there or somewhere else, whether in battle or out of it, let us just ask ourselves where any of us would be now, especially on any of the dangerous fronts, without the United States. Where do we think Australia would be without them? What would Australians be thinking now? What would India be thinking now? What should we be thinking now? I would beg the French not to allow the fact that they do not happen to like the Americans to get quite so much in the way of common sense.
I will conclude by illustrating what I mean by telling your Lordships of an incident which occured to me on the way back from one of my European travels, just after the war, when I was

1395
talking to a French policeman on Boulogne pier: I had missed the ferry and had to wait about six hours with my car. He asked what I had been doing, and I told him that I was a politician; and we talked. He asked, rather provocatively, what I thought of the Americans, and I told him. He replied, "I don't like the Americans". I said, "Don't forget that if it were not for them, neither you nor I would be standing here talking on Boulogne pier. Now the Russian divisions would be in the Channel ports." He drew himself up and looked me straight in the eye and said, "You are perfectly right, but that is no reason at all why I should like them."
7.35 p.m.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, it is getting rather late and we have heard a great deal of interesting material this afternoon about the international situation, and in particular Asia, so I will be as quick as I can; but there are one or two points which have not been covered and which I regard as fundamental, and I should like for a few minutes to develop those. It is agreed that the Communist threat has shifted from Europe to Asia. What is apparently not so easily agreed is, now that we have dealt with it successfully in Europe, how to deal with it in Asia. When NATO was formed 15 years ago the Soviet threat was not only obvious but very imminent, so it was comparatively easy to line up 14 nations for an obvious military task, and we were greatly helped in that task, which has been successfully achieved, by the fact that there was a line. We had the Iron Curtain, which is still there, and also the River Elbe, and not one shot—at least, a few shots but certainly no soldiers, have crossed the Elbe on any operations for twenty years.
I personally feel very strongly that lines of demarcation—and this was mentioned in another place the other day by Mr. Maudling when he called them frontiers—are very helpful assets in this world of to-day. Mr. Adlai Stevenson, an hour before he died, made this remark to a London political correspondent. Referring to Europe, he said:
"We drew a line. We shall have to come to something very like it in Asia."
Those were almost the last words he said. I should like to develop that
1396
theme for a few minutes. On top of the successful deterrent strategy which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Glendevon, and the fact that the threat has now obviously diminished in Europe, we have a situation in Asia where unfortunately the U.S. 7th Fleet, with its great strategic nuclear power, has practically no effect on the situation because there is no line of demarcation. The whole situation is fuzzy at the edge, and at the present time we are in the middle of a very difficult ideological struggle and a state of instability in Asia. It will not last forever but we must see it through.
All our troubles in Asia, I would suggest, have in fact been ideological, chiefly Communist inspired, and certainly the one in Vietnam that troubles us so much to-day is Communist inspired. In fact, we are sometimes inclined to forget it is a civil war, Communist relatives against peaceful relatives, just as it was in Malaya for 12 years, when a man comes out of the jungle and lives in a village with his relatives and then goes back in. It is as fluid as that.
In this situation it is, I suggest, not good enough, it is not the right way to settle the argument, just to apply force alone. We have to use an intelligent amalgam of three elements: first, the political factor, wise counsels; secondly the economic side, aid and trade, things like the Colombo Plan, which have been such a great success, and the wonderful American efforts in that part of the world, which have to be continued; and lastly, force, because you cannot win these wars by shooting—we found that out on a much smaller scale in Malaya. If you do not convince the villagers—not the Government in the cities, but the villagers who live in the bandit infested areas—that the Government they have or are being offered is better than the one the so-called "liberators", the Communist liberators, are offering them, no amount of force will ever win you that war. This is, unfortunately, through no fault of the Americans, because as they do not control the Government in Saigon they have never been able, as we were able in other situations as a Colonial Power, to regulate affairs. They have never been able to give orders, only advice. They are in this situation where, if they do not control the political end of the business, they will fail.

1397
We had this, on a much smaller scale of course, in Malaya. Looking back on personal experiences, I must admit to spending more than half my time on political problems and not on army, air force, naval or police problems. We had to persuade the people that they were going to win. Incidentally, the Communists in the jungle were doing their level best to persuade our villagers in exactly the opposite sense; they published 80 magazines a month on bamboo cyclostyle to that effect and issued them in the villages, which is much more than we did. This is the sort of political and psychological war which goes on, and which has to be won if you are going to have a successful conclusion.
It is hard, and really unfair, to criticise what has been going on in Vietnam in this appallingly difficult situation. But, in a helpful spirit, I should like to suggest two or three items which require attention. The first is intelligence. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, referred to this when he said he met a British patrol coming out of the jungle. I was actually with him on that day, and had the honour of taking him round in a helicopter. He said that the efforts of the soldiers were backed up by a good intelligence system. It is perfectly true. We had a unified intelligence system. It was not an army one; it was a police intelligence system. I had 30 army and air force officers working under police control in a unified system. All the intelligence system was on a police network. We actually knew the name and aliases of every bandit in the jungle. We never killed a man without knowing his name; and when we captured a man—we relied greatly on captures for our intelligence—we never shot him. We put him into court and tried to convict him. It is easy to say these things when it has been done years ago. It is much more difficult now. But intelligence is one item which has to be unified.
The second thing is that you cannot afford to let Communist terrorists dominate the situation at night. If you give them half a chance, and if they are allowed to walk about freely, Communist terrorists will terrorise the villages and murder people at night. But they walked about in terror of ambush in Malaya, and most effective it was. Terrorists in Vietnam have got to be ambushed at night so that they do not dominate the com-
1398
munications. Another point is that I get the impression, it may be a mistaken one, that there has never been a progression from one safe area to another. Admittedly it is a far bigger country, but in Malaya we managed to declare white areas. General Briggs started the scheme. A white area comprised an area where we had beaten the Communists. We then immediately rewarded the villagers by lifting a lot of burdensome restrictions—food rationing and searchings, and restrictions on movement and that sort of thing. If you reward the people for having supported you and helping your armed forces to clear an area, they will automatically support your Government; and finally the people in Malaya, including a lot of doubtful Chinese, did support the Government, and the enemy were beaten by popular opinion just as much as by shooting.
That has got to happen in Vietnam before we are through, because otherwise the Americans, splendid though they are and terrible as the difficulties they face are, will, if they are not careful, find themselves defending American bases. And one day, if they are not successful on the political front, it could happen that the South Vietnamese villagers, who have been referred to in this debate, will become so war weary after 11 years of this war that they may decide not to support it or the army any longer. That will be a hopeless situation; so it must not happen.
To turn for just a moment to Malaysia, the other troubled area, again there is no suggestion that Malaysia, with British, Australian and New Zealand support, will be defeated militarily. It is unthinkable. But it is possible that Malaysia could fall apart for internal political reasons. I was most upset a month ago, when I was in India and Singapore, to find that in Malaysia the Right wing of the U.M.N.O. Party was in a public row with the Chinese. It was a crescendo of bad feeling internally, inside Malaysia. There was a war being successfully prosecuted, with this awful row going on at home. In a most interesting talk I had with the Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew—who, incidentally, in my opinion, has dealt far better with the Communists in Singapore than the British ever did; they are difficult young men

1399
of 21 and 22, in the schools and in the trade unions, and he has dealt with them very faithfully and effectively indeed—he had to admit that this sort of thing in public was playing into Soekarno's hands. I am thankful to see that it has quieted down again. But that is a trouble under the surface, and a weak spot in the Malaysian situation.
I will not keep your Lordships any longer, because time gets on. I should like to conclude by saying that in Asia we are in this unstable position. Thirteen countries have been declared independent since the end of the war. Many of them are young and unable to stand up for themselves. They are in this difficult situation and they are threatened by subversion and aggression, and we simply have to support them. Furthermore, the Americans and the British must stand together, or they will fall separately. So, therefore, I think that the Government is absolutely right in its present policy. Much more important than any internal policy differences in this country is that we stand together in Asia. Looking back, I suggest that we remember that, by standing firmly together in Europe fifteen years ago, we are now in the happy situation where we are no longer afraid. That could be the case in Asia, especially remembering that China quite clearly has no intention of confronting the United States of America in a military sense.
7.48 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I am sure the whole House has been deeply impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, speaking, as he does, with such a weight of authority on this particular subject, and I have no doubt that his words will duly have their effect on our present Government's attitude in regard to that part of the world.
The range of to-day's Foreign Affairs debate has already been so wide that I feel no apology is necessary for reverting again to the Middle East, although I am afraid that I shall approach it from a rather different angle from that taken by my noble friend Lord Samuel. After the Government's well-intentioned efforts to seek a cease-fire in Vietnam, there now seems a real danger of a lull in their peace-making efforts. I would urge them not to weary in their endeavours, and even, if need be, to turn their efforts in other directions.
1400
The crucial need of the hour is that Russia and the United States should not go their separate ways. That is why the move back to Geneva is so warmly to be welcomed. Perhaps the day may come when they will even combine to offer their material and technological aid to the developing countries, preferably under the ægis of U.N.O., and perhaps also with our own country's active participation. Such a joint effort would obviously prove to be supremely in their own interests. Not only would it be more valuable to the beneficiaries, but it would remove at one stroke any temptation for the developing countries to play off one great Power against the other. It would also avoid the great Powers themselves trying to outbid each other in their efforts to render aid.
To-day by far the most fruitful field for Russian-American co-operation would be in the Nile Valley, and particularly in hastening the completion of the Aswan Dam. It could finally exorcise the ghost of Suez. And in striving to bring about this joint effort by Russia and the United States, our own Labour Government are supremely fitted to play the part of honest broker, because our hands are clean over Suez. The problem of developing the Nile Valley has become urgent because its population is increasing rapidly, at the rate of 750,000 each year. This increase cannot be wholly met by industrialisation. By supreme efforts of planning, and the establishment of new industries, some 350,000 new jobs have been created annually in the Nile Valley, barely half the number required. Unless substantial outside help is given, the standard of living must inevitably decline, and political strife and human impoverishment will follow in its wake.
The future greatness of the Nile Valley lies not in the extension of its hegemony over the adjoining territories but in the richness of its own soil. Vastly increased areas of cultivation can be created on both banks of the Nile, by irrigation works that will follow the completion of the Aswan Dam. There is also another factor that will follow its completion. By bringing vast new areas under cultivation, and raising the standards of living of their peoples, these areas become automatically hostages to peace. The harnessing of the Jordan waters for the benefit of all their surrounding peoples

1401
will become a mere trickle, in comparison with the volume of water unleashed by the floodgates of the Nile. So long as strife persists in the Middle East and the shadow of war still hovers over that part of the world, the dropping of a single bomb on the Aswan Dam, could cause such havoc in the Nile Valley that the flooding of the Red Sea in the Exodus story would seem, by comparison, a mere storm in a teacup. That is why the speedy completion of the Aswan Darn would not only bring untold benefit to the whole of the population of the Nile Valley, but also provide the surest guarantee against the renewed outbreak of physical war in the Middle East.
In what other ways can Britain be of help in this vital area? We are already committed to the future independence of Southern Arabia. But it should be pointed out in Aden that, when Western influence is withdrawn, the commercial importance of Aden may decline. Instead of remaining a port of call for international shipping, its emphasis may move from Steamer Point and Little Aden to Ma'ala, and Aden may become merely a port of sailing dhows, plying their local trade down the East Coast of Africa, and around the Arabian Peninsula.
The risk that Aden may follow in the wake of Suakin and become a dying port, is one that we should drive home to the forces of nationalism in that area. I hope that our Government will not shrink from their duty in that respect. Public opinion in this country received favourably the Prime Minister's reassertion that the Suez Canal should now become a truly international waterway, in the fullest sense of the term, and allow access to the shipping of all nations. But the climate of public opinion in the United Arab territories, to such an extent as it has been able to declare itself at this stage, seems as yet hardly ready for this change. For the moment this must remain a hope deferred, though world statesmanship must continue to urge that the complete opening of the Suez Canal to all international shipping may not be too long deferred.
We have constantly to remind ourselves also that wild words uttered in Cairo are intended for home consumption; and the wilder the words, the more localised their impact becomes. Their effect is rather like a Khamseen, which blows hot for a few days, and when it has blown over
1402
everyone heaves a sigh of relief and is thankful to resume his peaceful avocation. Even Balaam's ass ought to be convinced by now that where Hitler failed Nasser is hardly likely to succeed. Meanwhile, none of the countries of the Middle East can afford to relax its vigilance. They remain crippled by their burden of armaments, glowering with hatred or suspicion; ready to wound, but unwilling to strike; but, above all, reluctant to destroy at one hasty stroke all their laborious efforts to promote the health and happiness of their peoples and their hard-won independence. What a sorry spectacle for all their growing populations, desiring only as simple human beings to be allowed to live in peace!
Other efforts could be made by our Government to clear up uncertainty in the Middle East. While accepting reluctantly the present deadlock over the Suez Canal, could we not try instead to promote the creation of direct air corridors for civilian airlines over all the countries of the Middle East? These talks could well be initiated through the Mixed Armistice Commission of the United Nations. Each country in the Middle East would gain immeasurably from such a step, once the initial fears had been dispelled, and realise fully that it had nothing to lose. Other matters could also be considered by our Government. The promotion of trade agreements between this country and all the countries of the Middle East for the export of British goods could demonstrate our active disapproval of any trade boycott, which can only defeat its own purpose by prolonging tension in that area.
Can we not now be realists enough to accept the status quo in the Middle East and consult with our Commonwealth partners about the transfer of some Departments of our Embassy from Tel Aviv to the seat of government in Jerusalem, thus falling into line with so many countries which have already taken this step? The edict of U.N.O. in 1948 about the future of Jerusalem has now become utterly unrealistic, and the present situation is as anomalous as if the British Embassy were located in Amsterdam instead of at The Hague, or in New York instead of at Washington.
I do not wish to dwell unduly on our share of responsibility in perpetuating

1403
the Arab refugee camps, which are still pouring out their daily hymn of hate to a new generation of refugees growing up in their midst. But what has happened to the impetus of World Refugee Year so glowingly referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood? All over Europe, displaced persons from Estonia and Latvia, and other Baltic States, were prevailed upon to realise the hopelessness of their hatred of Russia, and to resettle in other territories exiled from their homes. All these festering sores of human misery have now dried up, and the refugees have been given a new hope and a happy future in the countries of their adoption. Why must the exception still persist, of these Arab refugee camps doomed to eke out their pitiful existence?
One day it will be realised that the perpetuation of these refugee camps as hotbeds of hatred is yielding only diminishing returns, and that precious human material of enormous value to the adjacent Arab countries is being allowed to languish in the Middle East. Strange as it may seem to us now, this is a part of the world from which, in the past, ideas of peace have gone out to mankind. Today it is an area stricken by strife and seething with discord and enmity. Perhaps the very depths of this enmity must reveal its utter futility, and our country may yet have a role to play in that part of the world as a healer of the breach and a promoter of peace.
8.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I used to attempt to be present in the Chamber while everyone spoke before me, but the tail is getting longer, and in my habitual position at the tip of it I find that I last rather badly and have to go out for tea; so I am sorry that I have missed three speeches this afternoon. I should like to add my congratulations to the maiden speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, and to congratulate him in particular on the boldness of his main point: that to speak with conviction abroad we must be solvent at home. Had the speaker been Lord Cromer, I should have muttered to myself, "Ah, yes!—the speech. They all make it." But it came from a different quarter and is all the more convincing for that.
1404
I have not before had the pleasure of hearing the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. He is the second speaker on the Government Front Bench, coming to us from an international platform, who has been for me immensely impressive. The first was the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, whose maiden speech I described as thrilling, and I believe that description was generally accepted. In the case of Lord Chalfont, thrilling may not be the right description. In fact, I thought his approach was of a "dead pan" nature, but gradually the disciplined, intellectual integrity of what he said had a great effect, and I felt that he should leave us not only with our good wishes but with our assurance that he is a man that everybody could trust.
To the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I owe several items of thanks: first, for having introduced the Motion; secondly, for having reminded me in a letter that I had made a muddle of the date when I said I could not be present; thirdly, for encouragement to put whatever point I had in mind; and, finally, for the great lucidity of his own speech, which was easy to hear and easy to follow.
I want to go back very briefly to August 5, 1914. At about five o'clock in the morning I was fishing for pike in a Sussex lake, and at eight o'clock our property agent passed by. He was a jolly man, the joy of every spaniel who caught sight of him, but on that day there was no joy in his face. He said, "We are at war with Germany. There is no knowing when or how this will end." For the first time, at the age of fourteen, I think I was really afraid, because this had been talked about by my parents, and I think from that day to this no day has passed without my thinking of peace and war during a part of it.
During the course of these meditations, I have had an increasing belief that justice has something to do with peace, and injustice something to do with war. For example, it struck me that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles attempted to impose on Germanic peoples as yet unborn a wholly improper and unjust burden. By degrees, I felt it so strongly that I drifted on in the Army having the conviction that a calamity of great proportions was bound to arise again on that account alone. Since the Second World War the injustice which has most

1405
oppressed me is the thought that we made our peace by drawing a line, to the East of which 100 million civilised Christian peoples were placed in a Communist prison. To some extent that is still the case to-day, and I hope that whenever there is bargaining or negotiation which involves Europe the thought will be borne in mind that these people, too, wish to be free as we are, and that their interests should never be neglected.
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is really right in believing that the rich are less aggressive, if that is the correct interpretation of what he said. I feel that the Russians are quiescent for a number of reasons. They have got the colonial empire which they wanted, and they have discovered that there is no question of our trying to recover it by force. But some of the subject peoples may decide to rebel, as Hungary did, and with more vigour. I think there is a constant danger in Eastern Germany; not that I think Eastern Germans have a greater claim on our feelings of justice than the rest of Europe. After all for long the profession of Prussia was war. However, I feel that so long as the captive nations remain captive there is danger, and there is injustice which leads to danger.
To turn from Europe for one brief moment to the Far East, I think of a circumstance which may well develop, say, after Vietnam and which we could do much to prevent. There is a possibility that the Chinese People's Republic will appear on the borders of Kashmir and demand, oddly enough, that the Resolutions of the United Nations he carried out or they go in. Were that to occur, it would be similar to the pistol held by Hitler at the time of Munich to apply the principle of self-determination (by which we all desire to live) to the Sudeten Germans. That, if I may say so, was the one merit of Munich; that Germans were placed in Germany instead of Czechoslovakia. Such is the danger, it seems to me, of Kashmir—a small place, one like Alsace, which may easily produce a war. Should we not exercise every pressure we can to get it solved? It has been aggravated, in fact, by the help, in a military sense, which we have given to India, greater than that which we have given to Pakistan.
1406
There is one more area of danger which I should like to mention before I conclude, and that is Africa. Personally, I am not at all happy with the recipe of "instant Uhuru" which we have applied to such large tracts of Africa. I am deeply interested in Africa. I served there forty years ago, and have kept in touch with their aspirations ever since. But I do not think we have done wisely in being so rapid. For example, recently, when Dr. Danquah died in prison in Ghana without being charged, without being tried, without being convicted and without being sentenced, the President of Nigeria thought it right and proper to make a speech calling attention to these facts, expressing his own personal regret that it should have happened and declaring:
"If we Africans merely substitute indigenous tyranny for alien rule, we have betrayed the cause for which we fought".
The radio commentator in Lagos, in making his comment on this, called the attention of his hearers to the fact that in only 5 out of 35 (as I think it was then) independent African States was there anything that could be described as an authentic and free Opposition. The divine right by which the Governments have risen to power—divine as some of them call it—of "One man, one vote" has been sterilised by the addition to that slogan of "One Party", which makes the other right totally irrelevant. I could give a number of examples to illustrate the anxiety which I personally feel about these things. I have the impression that in many cases a tyranny no better than a Communist tyranny, except that it is more incompetent, has been set up with our connivance all over the place—and when I say "our" I mean of the Europeans, who have moved faster and further than anybody since the Roman legions left Britain. I conclude by expressing the very earnest hope that this "instant Uhuru" will not be applied to Rhodesia and Portuguese Africa, for whom I hope a period of preparing the background, if necessary for thirty years, will be allowed.
8.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, may I first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, on his charming maiden speech, in which he assured us that our endeavours since the war to do some

1407
good in this world have not all been quite so unsuccessful and misdirected as they have sometimes appeared to be? The modesty with which the noble Lord spoke did not quite conceal the fact that he is much wiser and knows a great deal more about this subject than any of us on either side of the House. For the last three or four years the noble Lord has been reading all the telegrams. Not only that, but he has read all the minutes sent in by Ministers on both sides, which I believe are not seen by their opponents when there is a change of Government. The noble Lord has now abandoned the supervision of the Foreign Office for the supervision of another non-comprehensive educational establishment, whose accommodation, I believe, is far superior to and much more modern than that at the Foreign Office, but about which the poet Thomas Gray wrote the line:
"Where ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise".
I was not educated there, but I believe the noble Earl, Lord Longford, was.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: So was Lord Walston, if it comes to that.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I hope that Lord Caccia will have plenty of leisure there—enough leisure to come here and speak to us very often again.
My Lords, in a Parliamentary democracy, where the Government and the Opposition sometimes succeed each other either at long intervals or short intervals but usually at unpredictable intervals, it is usually a good thing that we should try as far as possible to have a bipartisan foreign policy. Although it is always a duty of an Opposition to expose and criticise any mishandling or bungling of foreign affairs, we ought to try to frame what we say in such a way that our friends and allies will have confidence in the consistency of our policy. This debate has centred mainly on three things: on disarmament, on South-East Asia and on European unity; and on all of these things I should like to see a bipartisan policy prevail.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who is now being bumped in a wagon-lit, has our good wishes, not only for to-night but for the next few weeks at Geneva. I listened carefully to everything he said. I did not expect him to say anything new,
1408
and he did not say anything new, but what he said was none the worse for that. I think, to be quite frank and realistic, the truth is that we could have had disarmament at any time since 1946 if the Russians had wanted it. I think that is the basic fact. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that he was going to do work which was serious and which was not just a public relations exercise—which, of course, is true so far as he is concerned. But I do not think it would be unfair to say that every Disarmament Conference for the last 18 years has, from the Rusisan point of view, been primarily a public relations exercise which they did not seriously expect to produce any result.
But that is not the whole story. It is always possible that Russia may want a result. Very often their emphasis and their policy changes with lightning suddenness, without very much warning. Therefore we must never cease to be patient, we must never stop hoping, and we must always be ready. I understand some people have criticised the Government for not being ready on July 20, which is the date the Russians proposed, instead of July 27. I do not blame the Government for that at all. I think they have done very well in getting ready by July 27. I think we should always be ready to persevere in these negotiations and should never give up the attempt. We must not assume that this time it is going to "come off". If it does not, never mind; we must still go on. But we must never cease to be ready to discuss disarmament with them.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the noble Earl really suggesting that the failure of the whole series of Disarmament Conferences is due just to the Russian attitude? Is it not the case that both sides have used them in their national interests, and for propaganda purposes, rather than for the serious purpose of disarmament?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I know that it is morally very gratifying to take an attitude like that, and to say that we are equally to blame; but in my view it is simply not the case.
LORD BROCKWAY: I think it is the case.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, in my view we could have had disarmament at any time during the last eighteen

1409
years if Russia had sincerely desired it. But that is no reason why we should not persevere.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, rightly said that in the present circumstances the most important thing was to get an agreement on non-dissemination. He spoke of two drafts which had been considered by the Government, one of them together with the United States and the other together with Canada. I am not going to ask the Government to tell us whether these drafts are the same as, or different from, the drafts which were drawn up last year, when my Party was in power, and which are no doubt in the Foreign Office files; because I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, that it is not at this moment in the public interest to discuss the details. The last Government tried to do this and had had drafts prepared for a very long time. The same applies to what he said about the peacekeeping force and the United Nations. I entirely agree with him that if a peacekeeping force (which of course would have to be accompanied by disarmament by the great Powers), is ever to be effective, the United Nations is the only agency of which we know at present through which that force could be provided.
The disarmament plan which we supported, and which was drawn up at the Commonwealth Conference of 1961, did, in fact, provide for a peacekeeping force, following disarmament through the United Nations. So also did the United States plan which we adopted: not because we thought it better than ours, but because it did not much matter which plan we adopted, so long as we obtained agreement. As Lord Chalfont said, if there is a fire and two fire engines come along, you do not mind which one you use. But for the present problems we do not want to put too heavy a burden on the United Nations; we do not want to put upon their shoulders a burden too heavy for them to bear. To get what we want now, disarmament, and an agreement on the non-dissemination of nuclear weapons, the fundamental task is to get agreement between the United States and Soviet Russia. Until we get agreement between those two Powers, the United Nations will be powerless and unable to do anything. Therefore that must be our objective now.
1410
Most of your Lordships who have spoken—and I wish I had time enough to refer to all the excellent speeches that have been made—have mentioned Vietnam. On that subject the Government have lately made one or two tactical moves which have been criticised as being misjudged. It is perfectly reasonable and legitimate to make criticism of that kind, which may very likely be right. But I think it is far more important not to seek to find what tactical errors the Government have made, but to support the Government against the opposition which comes from a very large section of their own Party, especially in another place, and which, in my view, if it were to prevail would be disastrous and might even lead to another world conflagration.
I think that the statements which the present Foreign Secretary, Mr. Michael Stewart has made, in another place, at Oxford and elsewhere, on the war in Vietnam, have been quite first-class. In my view, he has always struck the right balance. He has made it plain that our country wants peace; that we will do our utmost to promote peace, and will neglect no opportunity of doing so and of persuading both our friends and our adversaries to come to the conference table. But at the same time he recognises that if a conference is held upon the basis of an American withdrawal, the only result will be that every country in South-East Asia which is now free and independent will in a short time become the victim of Communist aggression and slavery. President Johnson has declared that he will negotiate unconditionally. Does any noble Lord believe that the Americans are there in order to gain anything, in order to gain territory, or in order to gain wealth or trade? Of course they are not. They are there for exactly the same reason that we are in Malaysia—to protect a free people who are weak against aggressors who are strong and who are trying to take away their liberty. That is the whole essence of the problem.
I should like very much to speak about many other matters—for example, about Latin America, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, spoke, and which I think is neglected too much—but I must conclude with a brief word about Europe. Many of your Lordships, my noble friend the Leader of

1411
the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and others have spoken about the need for European unity. I do not want to press the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who is going to reply too hard, because I know that if one tries to incite the noble Earl to say anything he does not want to say it is rather like taking the lid off a beehive; the resulting dialogue is apt to be protracted and diffuse.
A NOBLE LORD: But you get honey in the end.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am hoping that he may be able to say a little more than was the case when this matter was debated two or three months ago. At that time I expressed a view, with which I hope some noble Lords may have agreed, that our main reason for wishing to join the Common Market and for signing the Treaty of Rome was not to gain economic advantage for ourselves, but to promote the prosperity of Europe; to promote the defence of the Free World; and, not least, to enable Europe to give more effective economic help to the undeveloped countries, to redress the imbalance between world poverty and destitution, on the one hand, and world affluence, in the industrial countries, on the other: an imbalance which presents us with such a glaring contrast between North America and Europe, on one side, and Asia, Africa and the great continent of South America, on the other. South America, of course, was built up very largely by British capital and I wish that we could pay more attention to it than we do.
My Lords, those are the reasons why I think we ought to press on in our aim of joining the Common Market. We have in this Government a Ministry which I think is called the Ministry of Overseas Aid and which is concentrating on the question of how we can help the poorer nations of the world. The other day we were told that it would issue interest-free loans. I do not know whether any have been issued yet, or whether any will be issued now for a long time—after the Statement yesterday on economic policy. But if I were asked why it is that Britain and Europe have done so little, compared with the United States, to help the poorer countries of the world, my answer would be, "Be-
1412
cause Britain is not in the Common Market." I think that a most cogent reason.
I was very encouraged by a statement made in another place last week by Mr. Padley, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. I think it is in order for me to quote from it because he is a Minister of the Crown and it is in order to quote what is said by Ministers in another place. Mr. Padley said:
"As has been made clear, we on this side of the House stand for a Common Market embracing the Six, Britain and any other countries which wish to join. We are in favour of Britain participating from the beginning in any discussions on political unity in Europe and we have made far-reaching proposals on defence which are of importance to Europe as well as to the Atlantic Alliance."
My Lords, I think that an admirable statement. What I like about it most of all is that it does not mention those five conditions which are supposed by the Party opposite to be so important; not that they are necessarily bad intrinsically, but I should like to impress on your Lordships that to reiterate them, to mention them, is very apt to be misleading.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: At the risk of uncovering a beehive, or whatever it is of which I may be accused, may I say that I made a long speech entirely devoted to this question and I did not mention those conditions. I do not feel that the noble Earl ought to accuse the Government or its representatives in this House of stressing those conditions.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: To be quite fair to the noble Earl, he did not gratuitously mention them, but when the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, interrupted and asked about them, he was obliged to say that the Labour Party still adhered to them. I do not accuse the noble Earl of advertising them gratuitously. I am afraid, however, that other Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have done so, I think mistakenly. I think it causes a great deal of misunderstanding. Some of them are unnecessary, in respect of the Commonwealth and EFTA. Everybody knows what is the position about them.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, it was the condition about no common foreign policy that was the real difficulty.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am coming to that. If you keep on saying, "We are going to be faithful and loyal" as a condition of going into the Common Market it is rather like Mrs. Micawber, who used continually to assure her husband that she would never desert him, to which he could only reply, "My dear, I am perfectly aware of it". It is unnecessary to keep saying it.
As for foreign policy, do your Lordships really think that we want to have a more independent policy, more at variance with European countries than is General de Gaulle? If we are going to reiterate these conditions, possibly giving the impression that we do want to be more at variance with the rest of Europe than France is at present, is it not likely to give the impression that we do not want to join and are trying to make impossible conditions? As for economic freedom and independence, there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome to prevent a Socialist country from joining the Common Market, or a country which is in the Common Market from nationalising any industry. If we keep saying that we are not going into the Common Market unless we are free to nationalise industry, all we are doing is giving the impression that we want to pursue an economic policy at variance with the rest of the Six. That would be a deterrent against our being admitted.
As for agriculture, as I think I said before, the great difficulty is not that agriculture would be starved but that it would be over-fed, so much so that it would have more support than it wanted and food prices would therefore be too high.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I wish to say only one sentence. Surely we should create more misunderstanding if we gave the impression that we are prepared to join the Common Market without mentioning the conditions under which we are prepared to join?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, my Lords, I think that shows an absolute misunderstanding of the whole question of negotiation. Every country which has gone into the Common Market makes conditions, and the whole process of discussion among the Six ever since the Market began has been in making conditions with each other and that is what
1414
so much of the trouble has been about. Everyone knows from the result of the long negotiations at Brussels what are the conditions for which we stand. I say that I think the unnecessary reiteration of the conditions has given a false impression.
I should like the noble Earl or the Prime Minister to make an authoritative statement on the lines of the statement made last week by Mr. Padley, a statement of a really positive kind, or, to use an adjective which I believe the Government like, of a "dynamic" kind, showing that we really positively and sincerely want to come in and that we do not want to take advantage of the present difficulties of the Market, either to join up with the other Five against France or to use our technological agreement with France to the detriment of the others. What we ought to want to do, and what we should say we want to do—and no sacrifice of pride would be involved in saying it—is to sign the Treaty of Rome and to join the Common Market for the common good of all of us.
8.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has spoken as charmingly as ever and I would offer him only one piece of respectful advice. It is that if he wants to help this Government to pursue actively a European policy, to attempt to force them to say at every moment how they stand in regard to these conditions which we enunciated some time ago is the worse way to do it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: All I am suggesting is that they should not say anything at all about the conditions.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: As I was about to explain to the noble Earl, who seems enormously pleased with that answer, if he will restore his mind to the earlier debate he will remember that I made a long and carefully considered Government statement in this House without stressing these conditions. There was no question of reiterating them. But people of one Party or another were so anxious to discover whether they had been repudiated that they raised the issue and therefore I had to say that they had not been repudiated. To call that continually reiterating them is extremely unfair and, if I may say so, is defeating

1415
the object that the noble Earl, and quite a few others on the Benches opposite, had in mind. But enough of that subject.
May I say another word to the noble Earl, who was in his most delightful mood, which I hope that he will retain in the economics debate next week? He was anxious to strengthen the hand of the Foreign Secretary, who has received well-deserved praise from the noble Earl and from the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. There again, if I may say so, it is not the service which I think that he had in mind to do my right honourable friend, Mr. Stewart, if he praises him in one breath and in the next breath denounces a large section of his Party. That is the kiss of death, or, if not the kiss of death, at least the kiss of sickness, and I can only suggest that perhaps it is not the most statesmanlike way to tackle the problem.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, the noble Earl is not accusing me of saying anything like that, is he?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I do not think so. If the noble Lord feels that he is guilty of that, I will join him in that mild censure, but I was not meaning to censure him. I can mention other speakers without seeming to criticism them automatically, and I do not think that I have anything on that score with which to reproach the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn.
Before I come to the central issue of the debate, perhaps I should say a word of apology to anyone who, like the noble Lord, Lord Glendevon, feels that the arrangement of speakers was not the most helpful to the House. I think that perhaps most of us are aware that my noble friend Lord Chalfont had to leave unexpectedly to-night and we had to arrange speakers in this way.
LORD GLENDEVON: My Lords, if the noble Earl will forgive me, I was not complaining about the arrangement of speakers. I simply put a perfectly sincere question as to why we were going to have two winding-up speeches, one by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and the other now by the noble Earl. That is what I was asking.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: That is what I am answering.
LORD GLENDEVON: With respect, the noble Earl brought in the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, but that is a red herring. I never mentioned him at all. His speech was not a winding-up speech.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: When I can break into the argument, may I say that the original arrangement was that I should speak first, then my noble friend Lord Chalfont and then my noble friend Lord Walston. Perhaps the noble Lord is with me? When we knew that my noble friend was leaving early, we had to rearrange this and introduce this unusual order of speakers.
LORD GLENDEVON: Perhaps that is rather better.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I did not hear that. I should like to say how much I agree with many of the things the noble Lord said. In some cases perhaps he went farther than any Government spokesman, irrespective of Party, could go on these topics, but I can endorse explicitly what he said about our goodwill towards the United States. I know that he is well qualified to speak about this and I am sure I shall carry him with me if I say that in all history one cannot point to such spectacular generosity on the part of a great nation as we have seen in the case of the United States since the war. I think that anybody who is to-clay anti-American is like a man who is anti-Semitic or, for that matter, anti-Irish—a man with a diseased mind.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, will not expect me to try to answer his speech. I do not think it could be answered at all. We were all extremely grateful that it was made. It was an example of what your Lordships' House can offer to the world in a way which perhaps no other Chamber can offer. He is a man whose immense firsthand knowledge has been placed entirely at our disposal.
If I may cover rapidly one or two of the speeches made since my noble friend Lord Walston made the first summing up, we had expert speeches about the Middle East from the noble Lord, Lord Segal, and from the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who comes over here especially when released from his work in Israel. I can say what they already know, but which I must say again—our whole policy is devoted to the furtherance of

1417
peace and stability in the Middle East, combined with the improvement of living conditions in the area. We have this continually in mind. I do not know that I can add anything in a general way to-night, except to say that the particular questions my noble friends raised will receive answers from the Ministers in the Foreign Office or myself. But let me say one thing to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who knows so much about the British information work in the Middle East. In the Government that work is valued very highly. In these days of economy, I do not think it is much good my standing here and saying that in no circumstances could expenditure on that count ever be reduced or suggest that it should be increased. But I should like all concerned to feel that in the most genuine sense this work is regarded as being of immense value.
Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who has sat through so many speeches, will allow me to answer his broad view of international affairs as I proceed through my main answer. It has been a debate enriched in various ways, particularly by the presence of the noble Earl, Lord Avon, and of the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, to whom so many tributes have been so justly paid. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said that the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, had now taken over the supervision of a well-known comprehensive school. Leaving over the question of whether it is or is not a comprehensive school, I wonder what the discussion will be like to-morrow between the headmaster of Eton and the Provost of Eton. I am sure that the Provost, being the senior officer, will be able to impose discipline, but I think that to describe his function as the supervision of education would not be the normal use of words. However, that is something for the Eton authorities to work out among themselves. I will come later, if I may, to one or two of the fundamental points made by the noble Lord, Lord Caccia. We all followed him with great respect and interest and hope to hear him many times again.
We missed from this debate, I am sorry to say, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who was unable to speak after all. We bear in mind that long series of debates which he initiated to so much purpose over the years. Maybe it is in the minds of not a few of the old hands here that
1418
they were replied to quite often some years ago by Sir Alec Douglas-Home, as he now is, who was so immensely popular and respected here. I should just like to say—I hope that I shall not cause any embarrassment to anybody—of the period since Sir Alec left us, the old familiar lines have been true:
"He nothing common did or mean
Upon that memorable scene."
I hope he will have further opportunities of service to the country for many years, wherever that service may take him.
An issue running through the debate and through the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the charming speech of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, was this question of co-operation between the Parties, or, if one tries to take it out of Party context, of the contunity of British foreign policy. Without dwelling on that subject so long as I might have done if I had been opening the debate, I would only say that throughout our history so far as we should like to go, but certainly for 150 years, there has undoubtedly been an element of continuity in British foreign policy, particularly in the sense that when any Government come in, it is bound to be unsatisfactory and maybe disastrous if there is any very sharp break which involves inability to carry along the great majority of the nation. In that sense, there must be continuity.
On the other hand, I think that in the taking over by our great Foreign Secretaries—I will not run over their names now—there was an element of initiative as well as an element of continuity, and where that has been most successful the initiative has been supported by the leaders of the other Parties. That was certainly true of Mr. Ernest Bevin, when he was so strongly supported by Sir Winston Churchill and the noble Earl, Lord Avon, in all the work leading up to the organisation of the defence of the West. I myself feel that any satisfactory policy, whether produced by a Labour Government, a Conservative Government or, it well may be, a Liberal Government, must always have this element of continuity, but if there is going to be an historical policy there must be initiative to cope with new circumstances and maybe to introduce new ideas.
It is now about 17 years since I worked as assistant Minister in the Foreign Office

1419
and, speaking for myself, though I am sure it would be true of others, in coming back to Government after the long interval of 13 years one finds a great difference in the atmosphere to-day. In those years after the war, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, will remember and the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, as well, there was a painful tension in the air. At any moment it seemed possible—not probable—that there might be a Communist attack in Europe. That was the particular problem that weighed down all those concerned with policy immediately after the war.
The atmosphere to-day is quite different so far as that is concerned. The danger point has now risen in Asia, particularly in South-East Asia. I will not dwell further on that subject. I think that most of us followed with profound respect the analyses of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Earl, Lord Avon. To a great extent, without necessarily agreeing with every word, I think we can agree with their accounts of what happened. The view of the Government—and this agrees, I think, with the view of the noble Earl, Lord Avon—is that we must not, so to speak, rejoice in the conflict between Russia and China. It may be that ultimately the present policy of China will bring the United States and the Soviet Union closer together, but for the present it has driven a wedge between them which has caused great difficulties in Asia.
What I should like to stress, to give a kind of characteristic insight into the approach of the present Government, is the view held by the Government, and, I believe, by their advisers, that there has never been a period in our history when such large changes were taking place in the world so quickly and unpredictably. That strengthens the need for initiatives of various kinds. I do not think we have had any real criticism of the initiatives to-day, although perhaps, if the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, had not been making a maiden speech, he might have been mildly critical. But these particular initiatives are always a matter of arguments. I was reading the last volume of the absorbing biography of the noble Earl, Lord Avon—at least, it is the volume that was published last—and he there describes how he wanted to go as Envoy to Russia before the war, after
1420
he ceased to be a Minister, but that this was vetoed by Mr. Chamberlain and Lord Halifax. I am not saying that it would have been a good thing or a bad thing for him to have gone at that time; but there is always an argument when you adopt any kind of unfamiliar initiative.
We are taking initiatives of various kinds. The initiatives in South-East Asia are well-known. But I should like more stress to be laid than has been made in this House hitherto—though I made an announcement on the subject the other day—on the great success that has been achieved in easing the tension between India and Pakistan over the Rann of Kutch, and in achieving a ceasefire. Tributes have been paid officially. I was authorised myself to pay tribute to the work of our High Commissioners. But I am at liberty, I think—and I am sure my noble friend the Lord Chancellor will endorse what I say here—to inform the House of the ceaseless efforts and the nearly successful efforts made at that time by the Prime Minister and the Commonwealth Secretary.
As regards Europe, I am afraid I go away as mystified as I came, a situation, I gather, which I share with the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I do not think he can expect me to make some new statement to-night about our intentions with regard to Europe. My noble friend Lord Walston has dealt with the matter fairly carefully. However, I should like to tell the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn (without dragging them into the dialogue which he thinks I provoke too readily), that I still do not know whether they are, in fact, in favour of imposing some conditions before signing the Treaty of Rome. I gather that they must be. I cannot believe that the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, would be prepared to sign the Treaty of Rome as it is, without conditions. If that is so, I do not know, really, what they are talking about. We have said that there are still conditions, which no doubt would be discussed in negotiations; and I am sure the noble Earl and the noble Lord would make conditions. We have not been told that they would make no conditions, and I assume that they would make some. I cannot honestly believe that at this moment of time, with all the difficulties in which the Six countries are engaged, which we all regret, they would seriously

1421
suggest that we ought to embark on negotiations in an attempt to enter.
LORD GLADWYN: I am afraid I have not made myself clear. It is not a question of conditions. If we have negotiations, we have to negotiate on something. What we desire is that they will sign the Treaty of Rome and accept all the political and economic implications of that Treaty.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I have said that there are conditions.
LORD GLADWYN: Implications.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I cannot agree to being tied down to a particular statement. The Government have said again and again that they would like to join the Six on suitable conditions. Here there seems to be no disagreement. It becomes a matter of words. The noble Lord might like to make different conditions from those which the Government would make. But what is the point of saying in that general way that we should accept them, I do not know. We have said that we favour it, and that we should like to join. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn must know that at this moment it would be quite out of the question.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: To my mind, the signing of the Treaty of Rome imposes economic conditions; it does not impose any political conditions whatsoever.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: That is a very arguable matter indeed, and I doubt if the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, would agree with that—would he? I think I had better not ask him; that was an injudicious remark on my part. But I think that if the noble Lord has a talk with the noble Lady afterwards he will no doubt prove to her why I do not think he agrees with her. There is no fresh statement coming to-night on the Government's intentions. I have always been an unrepentant European. But I cannot say that if the noble Earl was in the place of the Government he would do anything different from the Government; and that I believe is also true of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. I cannot agree that there is this great difference between the Parties. I think that some of the words being used by noble Lords opposite are fictitious; they
1422
are manufacturing a difference where one does not exist. Everyone must form his own opinion about it.
I was a little depressed, possibly through a misunderstanding, at something that fell from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on the subject of the Commonwealth. As he knows the Commonwealth and has served the Commonwealth better than I have, and has travelled much more widely in the Commonwealth, I listen carefully to what he says. He said that the Commonwealth is not a military force—I agree with that—and not an economic force. But he also said that it could not be a political force or bloc—I am not sure of his exact words. While I agree that at present on many matters some members of the Commonwealth may well vote one way and others another, personally I take the view—and I know this is the view of the Government—that the Commonwealth represents a force for peace for which there is no parallel in the world to-day. One either believes this or one does not. I know the noble Lord has great devotion to the Commonwealth, and I hope he, too, believes it. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that if one expresses the conviction that the Commonwealth can greatly serve the cause of world peace, one is not moving away from Europe. There is no clash between these two things.
When one thinks of the Commonwealth to-day, we see, as the Prime Minister said, that it is a microcosm of the world itself: above all, a company of nations which transcends creed and colour, and it is spread across the world. I believe strongly that the real initiative to-day is to give help in Asia and in many other parts of the world as well, and I believe that the possibility of this country helping world peace is multiplied manifold by our position in the Commonwealth. There is here the germ of a world order, and the framework through which we can bring it about. This is my belief, and the belief of the Government, and I should hope, in general terms at least, that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when he has the final word, would agree with this.
The last Commonwealth Conference was an immense success. I believe that the initiative they achieved was the expression of a new kind of purpose on

1423
the part of the Commonwealth, and I feel that there are untold possibilities of what can be achieved in similar ways as we go on. For one moment I turn back to something which was said by the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, about British power and influence in the past and at the present time. I am glad that, with his much greater authority in Foreign Affairs—he taught these matters academically—he takes the view which I have always taken: that there is a great danger of exaggerating the power and influence which we possessed in the nineteenth century. People are apt to talk as though in some way we not only ruled the waves but ruled the world as well, and are disappointed in the Press because they find we are not doing it at the present time. There are 50 million people here and 3,000 million in the world, and whatever the precise ratio in the nineteenth century, it was not so totally different. I think that it is a great mistake to suppose that there was ever a time when we in this country could decide what happened in the crucial parts of the world.
The noble Lord took the example of Bismarck's wars, his conquest of Denmark, and the defeat of Austria and France. We were not able to lay a finger on him. We had only a very small Army—it was before the days of the Air Force, of course—and our Navy could not get at him. We are depressing ourselves unduly if we imagine that we have passed into some era when we are not what we were, and if we spend our time lamenting the riches we have lost. I think that there was never an era in which our country had greater opportunities of total influence—I am not talking of military strength—than in the years through which we are passing, and into which we are passing. I should hope and believe that that would be the view of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, who is doing such great work at the United Nations.
We were told earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, that the aims of all Parties were the same. I think it was the noble Lord who said this, but he, and others, have quoted Sir Alec Douglas-Home elsewhere, when he said that the common aims were the security of this country and the peace of the world. I myself have great respect for Sir Alec Douglas-Home,
1424
to whom I paid tribute earlier. I think that though that formulation is often used, it is too limited to-day. It is not enough to think only of peace: we have to think of the prosperity of all nations.
I may well be asked what our country can do, with all its economic difficulties—and I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that we must make a success of our economy: that is clearly the paramount duty, whoever is in power. I should think that we are now entering an era when we are not only concerned with peace (though that is going to be hard enough to keep), but are becoming more and more morally involved in the economic and social fortunes of the whole world. I would say that this era is more advanced than any other in its idealism, and I would say that in that particular task we are capable of mobilising the whole world on behalf of the weaker countries, in a common purpose, more successfully than any nation, and more effectively than we ourselves ever did in the past.
When we think of people like the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, and of the ideals expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, about world government, we must realise that we are challenged, and called to a much greater role than ever before. Unless we realise this, I believe that we are simply falling behind the times. I am not going to accuse noble Lords opposite of being backward—they must decide that for themselves. If they feel that I am talking idealistic nonsense, then I disagree with them, and they with me. If they do share this vision, we can all go forward together. But I believe that in these matters the Labour Party are at once more optimistic and more pessimistic than ever before. We are more optimistic because we have more belief in what human nature is ready to accomplish in our era; we are more pessimistic because we are more conscious or certain of the catastrophe which will happen if we cannot build a world government of this kind. That is a matter of opinion. If anybody agrees with us, we agree with him.
The last word of this Government is that we hope to go down in history—and I believe that we shall—as a Government which was ready to give a new lead in promoting not just the peace of the whole

1425
world but the welfare of the whole world. I think that in that we shall eventually be followed by all in this country, whoever happens to be in power. We are grateful to the noble Lord for starting this extremely interesting debate.
9.5 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I rise only to say four very short things. The first is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, on his maiden speech. I never thought that after an undistinguished career at Eton—if one may brand oneself so unfashionably in these stirring days—I should be able to congratulate the Provost of Eton on anything, but I am glad to be able to do so. I was fortunate enough, too, to have a year in the Foreign Office, that most efficient and most distinguished of Departments, and at that time the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, was the Permanent Secretary. All I can say is that nobody could have more admiration for his efficiency, ability and knowledge of foreign affairs than I have and those of us who worked at that time in the Foreign Office. I think the House is very lucky to have such a distinguished recruit.
I am also grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate, and not least to the noble Lords opposite, Lord Walston, the Leader of the House, and Lord Chalfont, for the trouble they have taken in replying to and taking part in the debate.
There are only two other things I want to say, very shortly. First, I agree, of course, with a great deal of what the noble Earl said about the Commonwealth, but if he feels strong enough to-morrow morning and would read once again what I said, I think it will fall rather more into line than he supposed. I was saying that the Commonwealth was no substitute for joining the Common Market in maintaining our standard of
1426
life or our military defence. In that context, he would probably agree with me.
Lastly—and I hope this will not be too contentious—the noble Earl was rather chiding to my noble friend Lord Dundee. He suggested that if we wanted to support the foreign policy of the Government and the Foreign Secretary we must not point out that there were large numbers of the Labour Party who disagreed profoundly with that foreign policy. He suggested that we were doing a great disservice by pointing that out, although I should think it was fairly well known to those who could read the newspapers. I do not think it is the job of the Opposition to hold the quarrelling factions of the Government together. If they cannot hold their own Party together, they have the very obvious remedy which, I suspect, would be widely welcomed by the people of this country. The last thing that I want to say—
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, there is just one thing I should like to say, and I think I can say it without any personal offence, in view of what I said earlier. We may have had some difficulties, but we have not adopted the tactic of shooting the colonel in order to get out of those difficulties.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that is a little unworthy, because I was just going to pay the noble Earl rather a nice tribute, which I will do in spite of that last remark. I was going to say that my noble friends and I greatly appreciated what he had to say about Sir Alec Douglas Home. It is the sort of thing that we expect from the noble Earl, but, just because we expect it, it is not any the less appreciated. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BRIGHTON SKYDECK BILL [H.L.]
CONWAY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
PEMBROKESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
ROCHDALE CANAL BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION (MERSEY TUNNEL APPROACHES) BILL
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
MERSEY TUNNEL (LIVERPOOL/ WALLASEY), ETC. BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Fourth Report from the Committee made; to be printed.
  THE DUNGENESS "B" NUCLEAR POWER STATION
  THE DUNGENESS "B" NUCLEAR POWER STATION