Sitting of 3 March 1965

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

NEW WRIT
For Saffron Walden, in the room of the right
honourable Richard Austen Butler, C.H., called up to the House of Peers.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).
  [Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to empower the mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the borough of Huddersfield to acquire lands, to construct works and to impound and abstract water, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Transport under or by virtue of any provisions of that Act—

  (a) requiring the Minister to pay a proportion of—

  (i) the cost of acquiring land and easements for the purpose of constructing and maintaining works consisting of a special road and an embankment;

  (ii) the cost of constructing, maintaining and inspecting those works;

  (iii) the costs, charges and expenses preliminary to, and of and incidental to, the preparing, applying for, obtaining and passing of that Act;

  (b) providing for the indemnification of the Huddersfield Corporation by the Minister against claims in connection with the construction, maintenance, use, failure or want of repair of those works;

  (c) imposing requirements on the Minister in the event of his abandoning the special road.—[Mr. Tom Fraser.]

  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  LAW OF SUCCESSION (ILLEGITIMATES)
  Mr. Abseasked the Minister without Portfolio if he will extend the terms of reference and the membership of the Committee now dealing with the law of succession relating to illegitimacy so that all the present legal disabilities suffered by the illegitimate may be reviewed; and if he will ensure that the Committee will be enabled to review the working of the Affiliation Act.
  The Minister without Portfolio (Sir Eric Fletcher): The Committee sitting under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Russell is considering not only the law of intestate succession relating to illegitimacy, but also the desirability of extending the Inheritance (Family Provisions) Act, 1938, so as to include illegitimate dependants. The working of the Affiliation Proceedings Act is essentially a matter for the Home Office, which is responsible for keeping the Act under review. It would not be appropriate to refer that matter to Lord Justice Russell's Committee.
  Mr. Abse: Would not the Minister regard it as desirable, when we have a Committee considering the legal disabilities of the illegitimate, and when it is well known that there were representations made by all women's organisations about the narrowness of the terms of reference, that we should choose this moment to refer to the Committee matters such as the unsatisfactory working of the Affiliation Act, and can he not hold out some hope that, when there are some 2 million illegitimate people in this country, they can look forward to some committee being appointed which will examine the workings of the Act and to giving an opportunity for some legal, formal recognition of the paternity of putative fathers as occurs in so many other countries?
  Sir E. Fletcher: The matters which can be conveniently referred to the Committee regarding the disabilities of illegitimates have been referred to the Committee. As I said just now, the working of the Affiliation Proceedings

  1295
  Act is a matter for the Home Office, and it is not necessary, if any changes are made in the operation of that Act, for the Committee either to inquire into or report about them.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: Would the Minister say how often this Committee has sat to date and when it is expected to report?
  Sir E. Fletcher: I cannot give the number of sittings without notice. If the hon. Lady will put down a Question I will answer that. I am hoping that the report will be received reasonably soon.

  INDUSTRIAL AND ROAD ACCIDENTS (CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES)
  Mr. Abseasked the Minister without Portfolio if he is aware of the hardship falling upon those who have suffered road or industrial accidents and who have commenced proceedings for damages as a consequence of their being unable to have the issue of liability determined until the final prognosis of their condition is determined; and if he will review the rules of the Supreme Court so that issues of liability and quantum may be tried separately.
  Sir Eric Fletcher: I am aware of the hardship that sometimes arises because those who have suffered road or industrial accidents cannot have the issue of liability determined until they are able to quantify their claim for damages. I am familiar with the proposals of the Law Society that in suitable cases the issues of liability and quantum of damages should be tried separately. I have no doubt that this is a matter which will be considered by the Sub-Committee sitting under the chairmanship of Lord Pearson to revise the Rules of the Supreme Court.
  Mr. Abse: Will the Minister draw the attention of the Sub-Committee not only to the details presented by the Law Society, but to the general view held that grave anxiety falls upon a worker who has received serious injuries, but who very often has to wait for years before it is possible for him to know whether he will receive anything at all? If the Minister is referring any matter to the Sub-Committee, will he please emphasise the
  1296
  desirability of cases being heard speedily? Will he point out that the present situation prevents this and often leads to injustice?
  Sir E. Fletcher: I will see that that matter is considered by the Committee. The House will appreciate that there may be disadvantages in a system which would lead to a duplicity of trials, but I would hope that the Rules would be amended so as to permit that practice to be made possible in suitable cases.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that the Admiralty Court primarily tries the question of liability and that thereafter the damages are assessed at a reference before the Registrar, if necessary assisted by merchants? This practice works very well. Will the Minister encourage this in other branches of the courts?
  Sir E. Fletcher: I will see that that is considered, but the House should appreciate that a great many of these claims for negligence are settled out of court and that if there were a procedure enabling the question of liability to be determined in advance it might well be that there would be less prospect of as many settlements as there are now.
  Mr. J. T. Price: When considering this matter further, will the Minister also bear in mind that about 95 per cent. of all claims at common law, both running down cases and accidents under the Factories Acts, are settled by negotiation outside the courts? In that respect, some of the injustice about which my hon. Friend complained is no doubt allayed. Nevertheless, will the Minister bear in mind, particularly when referring this matter to any Committee, that the whole state of the law at the moment is unsatisfactory under motor insurance, because the indemnity exists for paying damages regardless of all the obscure and almost metaphysical arguments under contributory negligence which take place in the courts and which confound even the best of lawyers, let alone laymen, and this is a matter—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister had better answer at that point.
  Sir E. Fletcher: I have no doubt that these matters will be considered by the Committee, and I am sure my hon. Friend

  1297
  would agree that it would be a mistake to take any steps which would prejudice the possibility of a number of actions being settled out of court.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the Committee have within its terms of reference the possibility of recommending legislation, in addition to a revision of the Rules of the Supreme Court? There may be questions relating to damages which could not be dealt with within those Rules.
  Sir E. Fletcher: I appreciate that there are such questions, but the terms of reference of this Committee are confined to making recommendations for the revision of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

  RECOVERY OF DEBTS (COMMITTEE)
  Mr. Shepherdasked the Minister without Portfolio if he will state the procedures which must be satisfied before a person may be sent to prison for debt.
  Dame Joan Vickersasked the Minister without Portfolio whether, in view of the fact that thousands of people are sent to prison yearly for contempt of court for not paying their debts, he will bring in legislation to enable the money to be collected by deductions from salaries or earnings.
  Sir Eric Fletcher: Before anyone can be sent to prison for non-payment of a judgment debt the judge must be satisfied that the debtor has, or has had since the date of the judgment, the means to pay the debt and has refused or neglected to pay it. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor considers that the time has come for a full inquiry into the law and practice relating to the recovery of debts. This would include a review of the whole question of imprisonment for debt and the substitution of some other method of recovery. For this purpose, my noble Friend has therefore appointed a Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Payne. The other members of the Committee are Judge Baxter, Mr. Registrar Bryson, Mr. Robert Egerton, the hon. Member for Oldham, West, Master Jacob, Professor O. R. McGregor, the hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan), Mr. John Shufflebotham and Professor G. S. A. Wheatcroft.
  1298
  I am circulating the terms of reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Shepherd: Is it not the case that the debtor has to be brought to court before his ability to pay is finally determined; therefore, is it not wrong to talk about imprisonment for debt? Will the Minister bear in mind that it would be highly undesirable if the law were so changed that people who were not able to pay and had no intention of paying were further encouraged to incur debts? In many respects the law is too lax in this regard.
  Sir E. Fletcher: I have said that it would be wrong for me to anticipate the findings of the Committee, but I am sure that these considerations will be borne in mind by the Committee.
  Dame Joan Vickers: I am very pleased to hear that reply. Does the Minister realise that about 7,000 people are in prison at the present time for contempt of court for not paying their debts? I gather that about 1½ million cases come before the courts every year and that a great many of these people are on National Assistance. Is the question of their dependants being looked into to see what happens to them?
  Sir E. Fletcher: Every relevant aspect of the question will be looked at. As the hon. Lady said, it is a serious problem that there are about 7,000 people in prison at any one time for non-payment of debt.
  Following are the terms of reference:
  The Committee's terms of reference are to consider whether any changes are desirable in the law and practice in the High Court and the county courts relating to the recovery of debts and the enforcement of orders for the payment of money or the delivery of goods; whether the courts should have power to postpone the operation of an order for possession of mortgaged property, and to make recommendations.

  LAW REFORM
  Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister without Portfolio if he will now state what measures of law reform are to be introduced during the current Session.
  Sir Eric Fletcher: The measures of law reform introduced this Session include the Protection from Eviction Act,

  1299
  the Administration of Justice Bill, the Criminal Evidence Bill, the Trades Disputes Bill, and the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Bill. The honourable Member naturally cannot expect me to anticipate other measures in the Government's legislative programme which have not yet been introduced. In addition, the Law Commissions Bill is, of course, a major contribution to law reform and is designed to prepare the way for a series of law reform measures.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: Can the Minister say when the Law Reform Commission is likely to produce reports which will lead to legislation, and, in particular, when does he think the Committee to which he referred in the previous Question will report and lead to legislation on the question of imprisonment for debt? There is a great deal of public interest in the matter.
  Sir E. Fletcher: With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I have just announced the setting up of the Committee. I hope, as we all do, that it will get down to work speedily and act with despatch. The Law Commissions Bill has had a Second Reading in the House, and it is now before the Standing Committee. It is the intention of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to appoint members of the Law Commission as soon as the Bill has obtained the Royal Assent, and we hope that shortly thereafter it will be in a position to make recommendations.
  Sir B. Janner: Can the Minister give us any idea when the reform of the jury system is likely to be brought before the House?
  Sir E. Fletcher: I am not at the moment in a position to make any statement on that subject.
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: Can the Minister say whether there is included in the ambit of the law reform, in the contemplation of his noble Friend and himself, a study of the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as a prelude to formulating and initiating proposals for a Commonwealth Court of Appeal for the consideration of our Commonwealth partners?
  Sir E. Fletcher: That subject will certainly not be excluded from the mat-
  1300
  ters which the Law Commission will be able to consider and make recommendations about if it wishes.
  Mr. Lipton: Is consideration being given to the proposal brought forward in the last Session of Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) in relation to marriage law reform which would enable parties to a marriage, separated for many years, to take divorce proceedings for the termination of the marriage?
  Sir E. Fletcher: That is a subject which is constantly in the minds of all hon. Members.
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister without Portfolio if he will make a statement on the nature of the law reform he plans to introduce in the next six months.
  Sir Eric Fletcher: The Law Commissions Bill has had its Second Reading and is now in Standing Committee. The Law Commissioners, when established, will be closely concerned with the introduction of further measures of law reform. I think it would be better not at this stage to anticipate what their proposals will be.
  Mr. Hamilton: Does that reply mean that we have to wait until the Commission reports before any action can be taken in any field at all in the next six months? Can my hon. Friend say whether there is an order of priorities, within the knowledge of the Government, about what will be done in this field in the next six months? Can he indicate specifically whether the Government have any intention of facilitating the Measure and enabling the House to modernise the law on abortion, which is causing increasing concern on both sides of the House and in the country?
  Sir E. Fletcher: One of the first tasks of the Law Commissioners will be to make recommendations with regard to questions of priority, but the rapidity with which measures of law reform can be introduced depends to some extent upon the Parliamentary timetable.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: Does not the Minister agree that a great deal of work has been done over the years on the whole question of law reform? Will he

  1301
  say what is being done to try to simplify the timetable of the House of Commons, which is the real hold-up to further measures of law reform? Can he further say what is being done to try to secure more skilled Parliamentary draftsmen?
  Sir E. Fletcher: In answer to the first part of the noble Lady's supplementary question, the Select Committee on Procedure is considering this question. I gave evidence before it recently. It would obviously be wrong for me to attempt to anticipate its report, but I hope that it will be received at an early date. The question of an adequate supply of skilled Parliamentary draftsmen is a matter which has engaged the attention of my noble Friend and myself. We are satisfied that some of the fears that have been expressed on the subject are exaggerated and that there will be no difficulty in recruiting the services of a sufficient number of Parliamentary draftsmen to enable the measures of law reform which we envisage to be drafted.

  TRIBUNALS
  Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Minister without Portfolio whether he will urge the appropriate committee to consider reforming the law so as to bring the conduct of all tribunals under the surveillance of the Council on Tribunals.
  Sir Eric Fletcher: Section 10 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958, already enables an order to be made bringing any tribunal, other than the ordinary courts of law under the surveillance of the Council on Tribunals, and I do not think that anything further is required.
  Mr. King: Is the Minister convinced that the local valuation courts come within that surveillance? Is he aware that complaints have been made as to the conduct of the procedure within those courts? Whether or not those complaints are well founded, does not he agree that they deserve examination? Secondly, will he lend the support of Her Majesty's Government in this field, in view of the fact that many of these worried ratepayers are unrepresented and are unskilled in matters of law and
  1302
  should receive from the valuation courts the maximum degree of sympathy and even positive help in the presentation of their cases?
  Sir E. Fletcher: I am aware of the complaints that have been expressed on this subject and I can inform the House that the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Scotland are considering whether to make an order under Section 10 of this Act for the purpose of bringing these local valuation courts within the jurisdiction of the Council on Tribunals.

  LEGAL AID
  Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister without Portfolio if he will make a statement on the operation of legal aid; and what plans he has for a review of the present system.
  Sir Eric Fletcher: The Reports of the Law Society and the Lord Chancellor's Legal Aid Advisory Committee for the year 1963–64 were laid before Parliament and published yesterday. From these Reports the hon. Member will see that the civil legal aid scheme in England and Wales is still expanding as a great and beneficial social service. Details of the operation of the scheme will, as always, be reviewed in the light of these Reports. As the hon. Member will know, a departmental committee under Mr. Justice Widgery is considering the arrangements and machinery for providing legal aid for criminal proceedings.
  Mr. Ridsdale: Does the Minister realise that, whereas legal aid cost the taxpayer £4½ million last year, the cost of litigation to the man of limited means, in proportion, was much higher? Will he do something to see that only a simple fee needs to be paid? Does he realise that the cost of litigation is extremely high? Is it possible to devise a simpler method of divorce proceedings so that these costs can be reduced?
  Sir E. Fletcher: I am aware, as the House will be, that in view of the operation of the legal aid scheme the cost of litigation is now a matter of concern not only to the litigant but to the State. Hon. Members will see that a number of suggestions are contained in the Report.

  1303
  They will be the subject of careful and early consideration by my noble Friend and myself.
  Mr. Abse: Will the Minister note that it is abundantly clear from the Report that a great deal of money has been spent by the community on subsidising divorce. No less than £4 million has been spent on divorce and only £40,000 has been spent by the State on marriage mending through the Marriage Guidance Councils? Is it not time that we stopped dodging the issue and faced the fact that we could reduce costs if we reformed divorce law, which at present is replete with humbug and hypocrisy, and is so full of elaborate complications that it is making its operation unnecessarily expensive?
  Sir E. Fletcher: My hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on all the adjectives and sentiments that he has expressed, but it is significant that the Advisory Committee strongly recommends that close attention should be given to increasing the Exchequer grant to voluntary societies concerned with marriage guidance.

  ROADS

    Humber Bridge
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement about the Humber Bridge project.
    Mr. Solomonsasked the Minister of Transport if he will now make a statement on the Humber Bridge project.
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Minister of Transport if he will now make a statement about the Humber Bridge project.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Tom Fraser): I have agreed to discuss the project with the Humber Bridge Board later this month. This project and the related question of a new trunk road network between Hull and the Great North Road are also being discussed with the local authorities concerned. I will make an announcement as soon as I can after these discussions are completed.
    Mr. Wall: Does that answer mean that the Minister is considering this project on a national basis, or is it merely
    1304
    on a regional basis? Does he agree that recent developments in bridge-building techniques considerably strengthen the case for this bridge?
    Mr. Fraser: I appreciate the fact that improvement in bridge-building techniques have brought down the relative cost of building bridges, but a suggestion has been made that Hull could be as well served by improving the links with the A1 and the M1. What I am doing at present is to put the different projects before local authorities and invite their comments upon them. I would have thought that that was the right thing to do.
    Mr. Solomons: When my right hon. Friend is giving further consideration to this matter, will he remember that a bridge over the Humber would improve the economic potential of the area—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am not, you know—would improve the economic potential of the area and, therefore, increase the employment catchment area? Furthermore, if, as we hope, Hull is made a sub-region, will not that provide an opportunity for a larger number of people to use the recreational, educational and industrial facilities of the city?
    Mr. Fraser: I have reason to believe that when the Humber Bridge Board comes to see me later this month it will put some of those points strongly before me.
    Mr. Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his most helpful answer. Is he aware that as far back as 1931 the then Mr. Herbert Morrison gave permission for this bridge to be built, with a 75 per cent. grant in aid? We in Hull are hoping that my right hon. Friend will also give his permission in the very near future.
    Mr. Fraser: I am fully aware that the proposition that a bridge should be built across the Humber has been discussed over a long period. I am hoping that very soon we shall reach finality in the discussions which have gone on.
    Sir C. Osborne: When the Minister looks at this matter, will he remember the claims of the port of Immingham, in my constituency, on the southern part of the river and see what can be done to

    1305
    improve the road from Immingham to the Midlands?
    Mr. Fraser: I will do that, though I think that is a different question.

    School Entrances (Parking Restrictions)
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement about the experiment on a modified form of parking restriction outside schools.
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a further statement regarding experiments on parking restrictions outside schools.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: I intend to start an experiment next month outside 10 selected schools in London. Waiting by vehicles for any purpose will be prohibited at specified times when children are likely to be going to or from school. Some of the school entrances have been made safer by repositioning gates, erecting guard rails and so on. I hope this will show us the way to keep school entrances clear and safe when children are using them, without imposing needlessly restrictive measures or placing too heavy a burden on the police.
    Mr. Wall: While welcoming that statement by the Minister, can he say what additional road marking this will involve? Will he undertake to furnish full information to local authorities so that they will be able to extend the scheme if it is successful?
    Mr. Fraser: There will be some additional road marking, which is, of course, not obligatory by itself, but these other restrictions which we propose will be statutory restrictions. We have to experiment with the different ways of protecting children outside schools in the hope that we shall find a way suitable for extending the provisions and so making schools safe throughout the country.
    Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be disapointment at the slowness with which this consideration is proceeding? It is two and a half months since he told the House that he was arranging this experiment, but he has not, apparently, arranged it yet.
    Mr. Fraser: For 13 years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—there were discussions about the need for something to be done. Two and a half months ago I said that something would be done. I have had my discussions with the local authorities and the police, and something will now be done.
    Mr. Strauss: Is my right hon. Friend aware that reference to HANSARD will show that many of us have been pressing for such an experiment for many years and that he is to be warmly congratulated on at last putting this into operation?
    Mr. Fraser: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.

    Road Accidents (Christmas and New Year)
    Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Minister of Transport if he will now state the conclusions reached from the comprehensive analysis of Christmas and New Year road deaths, including the extent to which alcohol was a factor.
    Mr. Henry Clarkasked the Minister of Transport what percentage of motor accidents in the Christmas period was partly or wholly attributable to drunken drivers.
    Dr. Summerskillasked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet concluded his study of the causes of road deaths last Christmas; to what extent these accidents were caused by the drinking of alcohol; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Snowasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the relationship between drinking and road accidents, based on the evidence derived from his study of the statistics over the last Christmas and New Year holidays.
    Mr. Oakesasked the Minister of Transport if he has yet completed his study of the causes of road accidents which occurred at Christmas 1964; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: The final road accident figures for December, 1964, including the Christmas holiday, are being published today, but these do not reveal the factors involved. The Road Research

    1307
    Laboratory is still collecting and analysing detailed information about road accidents at Christmas and the New Year, including the rôle played by alcohol. I do not expect to receive its report until after Easter.
    Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although the campaign against drinking while driving, which was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) and continued by the present Minister, has undoubtedly done good, nevertheless the vast majority of people now believe that a more stringent law is required on this subject? Does he agree on this, and, if so, when does he propose to bring forward legislation on the subject?
    Mr. Fraser: I understand that there is a Private Member's Bill before the House at present dealing with this matter. If an opportunity is given to me to make my position clear on the Bill when it comes before the House, I think that would be the better way rather than answering off the cuff a question now.
    Mr. Clark: No one in the House holds any brief for the drunken driver, or even the drinking driver, but does not the Minister think that the huge emphasis placed just before Christmas on drink as being the main cause for accidents may well have lulled non-drinkers into a sense of false security and increased the accident rate?
    Mr. Fraser: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman.
    Dr. Summerskill: In view of the fact that the Private Member's Bill which he mentioned is concerned with a breathalyzer—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is not."]—would my right hon. Friend consider introducing legislation to make it an offence for a person in charge of a vehicle to have a blood alcohol concentration above a certain figure, for instance 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres? Would he also consider introducing legislation making it possible for police officers to give an opinion as to the extent of a person's intoxication, as this might lead to more convictions?
    Mr. Fraser: In the many pronouncements I made in the course of the campaign last Christmas, I made it clear that
    1308
    I was not against the introduction of legislation imposing an upper limit on the amount of alcohol in the blood permitted under the law to a person in charge of a motor car. On those occasions, however, I said that I would be obliged to await the report and the analysis made by the Road Research Laboratory on the check which they were making over the Christmas and New Year period. Since then the Bill to which I have referred has been very properly introduced, and I think that, before I carry the matter any further, it would be preferable to have an opportunity of discussing the Bill on the Floor of the House.
    Mr. Oakes: When my right hon. Friend receives the figures of the Road Research Laboratory, will he ask them to differentiate between those drivers who drink regularly and those who do not normally drink throughout the year but have a drink at an office party or with their friends at Christmas? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the results of such analysis may provide some startling information?
    Mr. Fraser: I think that the matter to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention is probably much better considered by the medical authorities than by the Road Research Laboratory. As I expect a further report from them in the next two months, I think I had better not comment on this proposition.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the Minister aware that, when the statistics were collected about road accidents in December, 1963, we were promised that consideration would be given to legislation on this subject? Is it not true that there is a mass of data on this subject, not only from Britain but from the United States, Scandinavia and many other countries in the world? Why is he not in a position at least to make up his mind in principle today about introducing this legislation?
    Mr. Fraser: I thought I had given a pretty broad hint to the House that I have accepted this thing. I think that public opinion is now ready for legislation of this kind, but I think that we have to have legislation which will stand up to criticism. Procedures which are accepted in other countries would not be readily accepted in this country. That is why

    1309
    I want to have enough time to consider the advice which I will get from the Road Research Laboratory as well as from the medical authorities.

    Motorways
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport what plans he has to speed up motorway construction and to link it in particular with port reorganisation, having regard to the fact that with a motorway system there would be little to choose either in time or distance from the Midlands to such ports as Bristol, Hull, Liverpool, London or Southampton.
    Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Transport what measures he proposes to take to speed up the acquisition of land for motorway construction from industrial centres to the ports.
    Mr. Palmerasked the Minister of Transport if he will co-ordinate his plans for motorways with plans for port re-organisation and, in particular, in relation to the Midlands, with the further development of the port of Bristol.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: The construction of motorways is proceeding as fast as possible within the limitations imposed by finance and the statutory procedures. It is my practice to seek, at the earliest possible moment, compulsory powers to acquire land required for all motorway construction. With the completion of the first 1,000 miles of motorway in the early 1970s road access to almost all major ports, including Bristol, from the Midlands and elsewhere, will be greatly improved. Plans for the inter-urban road programme in the 1970s will take full account of the needs of ports for good road access.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that motorway links to ports would give the greatest possible opportunity for decentralisation and relief of the congestion at the London docks with all goods and freight coming into London? Is it not important to look at the whole scheme again to see whether ports like Hull and Liverpool will be linked to the Midlands in a comprehensive way?
    Mr. Fraser: This is exactly what I am doing. I want to ensure that all these
    1310
    ports can play a major part in the export drive and that they are adequately linked to the industrial centres where manufacturing is concentrated.
    Mr. Bence: Would my right hon. Friend see whether he can avoid the frightful delays and frustrations of the last ten years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Thirteen years."]—of the last 13 years, caused by difficulties in acquiring land because of the efforts of big landowners to hold up disposal of their land so as to get a higher price? Will he see if he can stop this delay in land acquisition for high profit and high prices, so that we can get on with the motorways?
    Mr. Fraser: I have been pressed from many directions to speed up the land acquisition procedures, and I am bound to say that I would like to do so. This is a matter to which I am giving urgent consideration, but I would not like the House to think that any speed-up in the procedure introduced now would be likely to increase the road programme in the short term.
    Mr. Palmer: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind, since the amount of money for motorway construction is bound to be limited, the special claims of the port of Bristol, which, in relation to the Midlands—particularly if the Port-bury scheme is allowed to go ahead—will turn out to be one of the finest export ports in Europe?
    Mr. Fraser: I appreciate the part which has been played and will be played by Bristol. This is why I am anxious to ensure that road access to Bristol is as good as we can provide within the limits imposed.
    Mr. Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman now agree that it was extremely unwise of his party at the election to hold out the prospect of large increases in expenditure upon the roads over and above the existing programme? Secondly, will he bear in mind the view of the Rochdale Committee in its Report that road transport offers the means of active competition between docks in the consumers' interests?
    Mr. Fraser: We are going to have many docks for a great many years to come. We have probably got too many ports at the present time, and there is

    1311
    a good deal of inefficiency arising from ships having to call at too many ports—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the roads?"]. So far as roads are concerned, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that his hon. and right hon. Friends have been seeking to impress on me the inadequacy of the present road programme generally. The present road programme was to be financed by his right hon. Friend from a 4 per cent. growth in the economy. Unfortunately the party opposite left us with a programme but no 4 per cent. growth in the economy.
    Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to maintain the programme, cut it, or increase it? Will he tell the House that?
    Mr. Fraser: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but despite the failure of his Government to provide the means to finance the programme which they left us, we are determined not to cut the programme, and as soon as resources can be made available to enlarge it we shall do so.

    A.2 (Lamp-posts)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Transport, in view of the large number of concrete lamp-posts that have been knocked down on the A.2 trunk road between the Black Prince, Bexley, and Watling Street, Dartford, what is his short-term policy for minimising the danger which these present, as they are close to the roadway and in many cases there is no kerb between the road and the verge.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I regret that within the limit of resources available we cannot justify giving special short-term preference to improvements on this road. The bypass scheme, which should be started in about twelve months' time, will relieve the overloading which is the principal cause of accidents here.
    Mr. Dodds: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are two more concrete posts down to-day? Is not he aware that at times this stretch of road looks like an outsize bowling alley with the pins knocked down? Is it policy to replace the same posts within a few inches of the roadside instead of putting them back
    1312
    several feet on the grass verge and having a longer arm at the top for the light?
    Mr. Swingler: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. This is a matter into which we have gone very carefully. Indeed, we have had a London traffic expert to examine this part of the road and have considered the question of a speed restriction. We have discussed with the lighting authority the possibility of putting the lamp columns back. The trouble is the cost in relation to the cost of the bypass scheme. In the present circumstances, and considering the priorities, neither the lighting authority nor we ourselves are able to make funds available. I am very sorry about it.

    Lay-bys (Public Conveniences)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Transport, in view of the lengthy consideration that has been given to the need for public conveniences at lay-bys on trunk roads, and particularly during the summer months on those roads popular with holidaymakers, if he will make a statement giving details of progress made in this respect.
    Mr. Swingler: I have nothing at present to add to the Answer given to my hon. Friend on 24th February.
    Mr. Dodds: Will my hon. Friend tell me why there is no greater sense of urgency in this matter? Does not he agree that it is a deplorable state of affairs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—particularly in the summer months when men, women and children have to mingle at the side of the road? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Does not he agree that it makes nonsense of all the efforts we have been making towards personal hygiene when this state of affairs is allowed to continue? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
    Mr. Swingler: If the House is disposed to consider this matter seriously, I may say that we know that this insanitary state of affairs exists in many places. We deplore it, and something has to be done about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] My right hon. Friend issued a circular to local authorities in favour of better sign-posting of lavatories on these roads because we think that is in the interest of the public. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In spite of the view of

    1313
    some hon. Members, we are discussing with a number of authorities how we may bring about better provisions on these roads.
    Mr. Scott- Hopkins: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this is an urgent need in rural areas where holiday traffic creates problems? Does not he realise also that local authorities are unable to finance these things and that financial assistance from central Government funds is needed? Will he urge upon his right hon. Friend that it is a matter of great expediency that funds be made available to local authorities for the provision of facilities on trunk roads in holiday areas?
    Mr. Swingler: In spite of the attitude of some hon. Members, we are disposed to consider this matter seriously and think that better provision should be made. We realise that there are difficulties about finance and the allocation of responsibility. That is why we are having discussions with other Departments and local authorities.
    Mr. Mawby: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many small local authorities feel there is a need to establish something of this kind, but knowing that the traffic in question is through traffic and nothing will accrue to their rates they are loath to take any action? Is he aware that if a national plan were devised local authorities would be happy to pay their share to provide what is obviously a very important facility.
    Mr. Swingler: These are precisely the subjects we are discussing with local authorities. I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement shortly.
    Mr. Scott- Hopkins: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    M.6 (Liverpool Spur)
    Mr. Hefferasked the Minister of Transport when a spur from the M.6 motorway to Liverpool is to be included in the roads programme.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: Communications between Liverpool and the M.6 are already being greatly improved by the dualling of the A.580; the Lancashire County Council's proposals for a new South Lancashire motorway are being
    1314
    actively considered. But I cannot say when any such scheme could be included in the programme.
    Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, while we appreciate the efforts that are being made, nevertheless such a spur as is suggested is really essential if we are to develop our ports for a real export drive and develop the economic potentialities of the region?
    Mr. Fraser: A great deal of money is now being spent on improving the highways in this area, in particular on the A.580 which I mentioned. I appreciate, however, that it is not enough and that further improvements will require to be made. That is why the studies to which I referred are being undertaken.
    Mr. Tilney: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that while the branch and other roads he mentioned are important, other roads are not anything like adequate enough? Will he do his utmost to see that a proper link with the M.6 is brought into being?
    Mr. Fraser: I will do my best within the limits of the resources available to me. I fully appreciate that what is being done is not enough, but I have a fairly heavy programme and it is increasing at the rate of 14 per cent. each year. I therefore cannot undertake to increase it now. However, as soon as resources become available, I would like to be able to do so. This is one of the areas in which there is much need for better and improved highways.
    Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that he could not undertake to increase this programme. Why did his party undertake to increase it when they met the electors last October?
    Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman likes asking highly charged political questions. May I, in return, ask him a question—
    Hon. Members: No.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can assist. I pointed out yesterday that it is troublesome enough getting questions asked of Ministers and answered. We cannot have Ministers asking questions. Mr. Heffer for the next Question.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Speaker: If the Minister wants to answer the question he has been asked he may do so, beyond asking a further question.
    Mr. Fraser: In answering, might I say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is a little mistaken?
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Fraser: I am answering his question and not asking another one. The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in saying that we were going greatly to increase the roads programme. We said that we would increase it, but what I would like him to bear in mind is that he, together with his right hon. Friends, bequeathed to me a programme which was to be financed out of a 4 per cent. growth in the economy, but they did not leave me the growth in the economy with which to carry it out.

  RAILWAYS

    Closures (Aberdeen)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Transport if he will vary the conditions on which railway closures in and near the county of Aberdeen were agreed to, as the alternative bus services are inadequate, infrequent and too expensive.
    Mr. Swingler: If my hon. and learned Friend has any concrete evidence that any essential needs are not being met, I should be grateful if he would send it to me.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister know that evidence has been already adduced showing that not only individuals but whole communities have been frustrated in their communications by many of these closures, thereby increasing unemployment and frustrating trade development in and around Aberdeen? Will he look into this with a view to applying some constructive ideas to it?
    Mr. Swingler: We are prepared to look into it. We have received, however, no general complaint against the closures to which our predecessors gave consent.
    1316
    If my hon. and learned Friend can supply specific evidence, we are quite prepared to vary the conditions.

    Railway Stations (Taxis)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the British Railways Board, to prevent it from imposing restrictions on the access of taxis to railway stations.
    Mr. Swingler: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister know that one firm of taxi licence holders is given a monopoly to ply to and from Aberdeen railway station, to the exclusion of all other taxi owners in the city, thereby inflicting great loss and inconvenience upon the general public? Will he rectify this?
    Mr. Swingler: This is a managerial matter for the British Railways Board and it would not be appropriate for intervention by the Minister. It is a matter which was gone into in 1958 by a committee which reported that the present system of giving tenancies outside London was satisfactory. Firms have the opportunity to tender to the Board. We know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has been in communication with the Board about the matter, but it is something upon which the Railways Board must reply.
    Mr. Hughes: But is it within the Minister's direction—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think we had better get out of our taxis.

    Railway Workshops (Repairs)
    Mr. Harold Walkerasked the Minister of Transport if he will state the apportionment of costs of repairs carried out in British Railways workshops to new, privately manufactured, rolling stock.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: No, Sir. I am told by the Railways Board that this information would be very difficult to compile and that, in any case, to disclose it would be against the commercial interest of both the Board and its suppliers.
    Mr. Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the 325 workers who are

    1317
    facing redundancy in the traditional locomotive manufacturing centre of Doncaster are becoming increasingly resentful of the fact that they are compelled to work regularly on repairing the inefficient products of private enterprise? Is he further aware that in the workshops at Doncaster recently nearly 300 locomotives made by the Brush Electrical Engineering Company Ltd., which had done very low mileages indeed, had to have new axles fitted to them—
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Oh, no.
    Mr. Walker: —and that many new or nearly new locomotives fitted with Mirlees-National, Bickerton and Day engines have had to be stripped down by workers who are facing redundancy? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that British Railways have had to hire—
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Does an hon. Member wish to raise a point of order?
    Mr. A. Royle: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to endeavour to make a speech at Question Time?
    Mr. Speaker: I always hope that hon. Members will keep supplementary questions as short as possible in the interests of other hon. Members. Perhaps so far as the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) got with his supplementary the Minister could now answer.
    Mr. Fraser: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern about his constituents who are employed in the railway workshops at Doncaster. However, I think that he knows full well that the questions which he is putting to me are management matters with which only the Railways Board can deal. It would be intolerable if I were to get myself involved in those matters.
    Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. Friend's previous reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  TRANSPORT

    Inland Waterways
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make a decision on the policy to be pursued
    1318
    concerning British Inland Waterways; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: Not yet. Policy for the future of the inland waterways must be worked out in the light of the progress which the British Waterways Board has already made and is making, and in the context of current national and regional planning.
    Mr. Bellenger: While appreciating the many subjects with which my right hon. Friend must deal, may I ask him to bear in mind the fact that this is one of major importance, that it has been before his Department for a considerable time and that a decision is overdue?
    Mr. Fraser: When the 1962 Act was passed it envisaged that a new policy for waterways would not be evolved quickly. As a matter of fact, Section 23 of that Act seems to anticipate that it might take about five years to evolve a new policy. In any case, I am awaiting the Report of the British Waterways Board and, when I get it, I will certainly consider, as a matter of urgency, the preparation of the legislation which would inevitably follow if we are to put this matter right.
    Sir B. Janner: Will my right hon. Friend consider this as a matter of some urgency? Is he aware that those who use the waterways are themselves contributing considerable amounts by way of voluntary contributions towards providing amenities, not only for people who use the waterways for business purposes, but for those who spend their leisure time on the waterways? Will he bear in mind that, since our waterways are an asset to the nation, this matter should be regarded as one of considerable urgency?
    Mr. Fraser: I feel sure that my hon. Friend will agree that I must await advice from the British Waterways Board as to the extent waterways are used for commercial purposes and to what extent they might be used for amenity purposes.

    Driving Offences (Drink or Drugs)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce legislation to increase the sentences imposed on drivers of vehicles found guilty of driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: I have no evidence that the maximum penalties provided by law for this offence are inadequate.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend not conscious of the fact that educational or poster propaganda on this matter has failed up to now to reduce the number of accidents, many of them serious, resulting from drunken driving? Does he not recognise that the recently reduced prices of liquor will do nothing to help him in his campaigns in this regard, and will he consider these people as potential murderers and seek to punish them accordingly?
    Mr. Fraser: The maximum penalties provided by the law for drunken driving are very high indeed. The minimum disqualification period, for example, for a first offence is one year and for a second offence three years. Very heavy fines may be imposed, and imprisonment of up to two years if the case is heard by a jury or four months for the first offence and six months for the second if it is tried by magistrates. It would be difficult for me to justify increasing the maximum penalties laid down under the law.
    Mr. Grieve: Does the Minister not think that, while the penalties which may be imposed upon offenders are quite adequate, what is urgently needed is greater education of public opinion so that in proper cases juries are more disposed to convict?
    Mr. Fraser: That may be so, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman can help me to educate public opinion I will be grateful to him.
    Mr. John Hall: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage of accidents is due to drunken driving or driving while under the influence of drugs?
    Mr. Fraser: Throughout the year roughly 20 per cent.

  SHIPPING

    Liverpool-New Brighton Ferry Service
    Mr. Hefferasked the Minister of Transport if, pending an integrated transport system on Merseyside, he will take steps to subsidise the cross-river ferry service from Liverpool to New Brighton.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: I do not consider that I would be justified in giving grant aid in a case like this.
    Mr. Heffer: Whilst I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Right hon."]—the situation—
    Hon. Members: Speak up.
    Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a relative newcomer to the House, and in all my experience in the trade union and Labour movement I have never at any time experienced the sort of constant foolish, silly and sixth form interruption that hon. Gentlemen—
    Mr. Speaker: I am being addressed on a point of order. It is therefore desirable that I should hear what it is. Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell me what the point of order is?
    Mr. Heffer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is this. Is it in fact permissible for hon. Gentlemen constantly to interrupt when Members are trying to make a serious point?
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot quote the words of Erskine May off the cuff, but it is pointed out that in so large and tumultuous an assembly as the House of Commons such happenings, though strictly irregular, might sometimes occur. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would make his point.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman—
    Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) is seeking to address me on a point of order. If that is so, I wish the House would allow me to hear him. If he is not, we must get back to the Question.
    Mr. Silverman: As to its seriousness, you must be the judge, Mr. Speaker. This is the point of order I want to raise. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was subjected to a whole barrage of interruptions from the other side because he inadvertently used the words "hon. Friend" instead of "right hon. Friend". Would it not be right to advise experienced Members of the House of Commons that that kind

    1321
    of barrage of interruption does not help the House?
    Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to pronounce upon the reasons for sudden interventions of this kind. I never know what inspires them. Do let us get on and have the question asked.
    Mr. Heffer: The point I was trying to make to my right hon. Friend was this. Is he aware that, whilst it is recognised on Merseyside that the local authorities are in great difficulties in relation to the running of these ferries, nevertheless they fulfil a real need, particularly for elderly people, in the summer months? It is on that basis that we would like the Minister to consider the idea of a subsidy to continue the running of these ferries.
    Mr. Fraser: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about this ferry. As he knows, the ferry is owned by Wallasey Corporation. Although I understand that the Corporation is in difficulties with the operation of the ferry, it has in fact to seek my approval to withdraw the service. This has not yet been done, so officially I know nothing about it. In giving my hon. Friend the Answer I did, I had it in mind that the Minister has power, with Treasury approval, to make advances to a local highway authority for the maintenance of a road ferry connecting classified roads. That is the limitation of the grant aid I can make available. I am not sure that this is a case in which I could in any case give grant aid, but I may in due course have to consider a representation from the Wallasey Corporation in the matter.
    Mr. Powell: In view of the terms of his hon. Friend's Question, would the Minister make it clear that, in his view at any rate, the integration of transport does not involve the subsidising of one form of transport by the users of another or by the public at large?
    Mr. Fraser: What we are trying to find out in this country at present is who is subsidising whom, because nobody yet knows to what extent a good deal of road transport in this country is in fact being subsidised by the general public.

    ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
    The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
    Sir W. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT: To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he is aware that, with the new arrangement of Questions, an oral reply can only be received from a Minister once every seven weeks; and whether, since this is not in the public interest, he will move to amend Standing Order No. 8(3) to extend Question Time or take other action to improve matters.
    Sir KNOX CUNNINGHAM: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he is aware that it is now almost impossible to receive an oral answer to any Question put down at No. 45; and if he will seek to re-arrange the positions of those Members answering on Mondays for the Church Commission and Kitchen Committee and the position of the Lord President of the Council on Wednesdays, to No. 25 on the Order Paper.
    Mr. KERSHAW: To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will propose to the Select Committee on Procedure that the Prime Minister's Questions should start at three o'clock on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): With permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. 45, 46 and 47 together.
    I am concerned about the apparent failure to reach more Questions for Oral Answers, and I hope that the Select Committee on Procedure will decide to look at this problem.
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Is not the reason for this delay the fact that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has created so many new Ministers that there simply is not enough time to go round? Is he further aware that when Ministers do come to the Chamber to answer Questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not all."] A point. I repeat: is he further aware that when Ministers do come to the Chamber to answer Questions they bring so many of their personal staff to help them to answer them that they hardly have to answer any Questions themselves?

    1323
    As a final point, is it not a fact that the First Secretary of State did not even bother to turn up at all to answer Questions and, as a result, may have to go for three months without being attacked by back-benchers on this side? Is that right, or is he scared?
    Mr. Bowden: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has to some extent answered his own question. The length of his supplementary would indicate very clearly one of the main problems which is facing the House. After a very long wait of many months, in which he has transferred his Question from Wednesday to Wednesday, I took pity on him and answered it today, because this is a real problem.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not quite right in suggesting that there are more Ministers to answer Questions. In fact, as a result of the procedure introduced by the last Government, instead of two days a week for some Departments there is now one. In fact, in this one respect 25 of the 28 have been reached this Session. I am not saying that that is enough. I would like to see many more.
    The House ought to bear in mind a number of matters. First, today we have reached 24 Oral Questions, which is a 50 per cent. increase on yesterday, when we reached 16. Whatever the Select Committee on Procedure may do about this, if the matter is referred to the Committee, the remedy and the answer is finally in the hands of Members themselves. Fifteen to twenty years ago we used to get through 60 to 80 Oral Questions, instead of the present 16 to 20. Also, supplementary questions used to take seven lines of HANSARD. They now take 17.
    This is really a matter for the House. If hon. Members consider Question Time to be of importance, they themselves can do something about it.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very few Questions are put down to hon. Members answering for the Church Commissioners and the Kitchen Committee? Could not their place be altered on the Order Paper as a matter of convenience to Members, without having to refer to the Select Committee? Does not the right hon. Gentleman welcome this chance to
    1324
    improve the Government's not-so-dynamic image of action?
    Mr. Bowden: I think that the Select Committee on Procedure should look at this matter first. I would remind the House that we used always to reach the Prime Minister's Questions at No. 45. They would never be reached at No. 45 today.
    Mr. Kershaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whilst it is often legitimate for a Minister to wish to avoid some Questions, the Prime Minister seems to have made a practice recently of spinning out his answers to an inordinate length so that we seldom get beyond the Prime Minister's Question Q.4? I do not think that this is due to supplementary questions.
    Mr. Bowden: Yesterday three of the Prime Minister's Questions were reached, but he answered a number of other Questions within those three. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would be delighted to answer more Questions, but within the one hour which is now allocated to Oral Questions I do not think that we can at this stage extend the period from 15 to 30 minutes. As I mentioned earlier, he used to start with Question No. 45. Now he starts regularly at 3.15 p.m.
    May I mention another matter, in passing? At present, the Order Book contains 113 pages, which means that no one putting down a Question for Oral Answer can now hope to get a reply at least until April.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Ernest Brown, when Minister of Labour, himself answered 100 Questions in one day, which shows that even under the old rules more Questions can be dealt with if Members so desire?
    Mr. Victor Yates: How long does my right hon. Friend think that we shall have to wait before we can get a report on this matter? As he has already said, some of us who put Questions down only when we feel there is a need to express dissatisfaction with a Department now find that there is no prospect whatever of getting our Questions in before three or four weeks after Easter? Let us hope that we can get some Questions in before the General Election.
    Mr. Bowden: I should have thought there would be plenty of opportunity for all Members to get many Questions in before the General Election, but that is by the way.
    The Select Committee on Procedure, if it so wishes, could introduce an interim Report almost at any point, but it is not only a matter for the Select Committee. That Committee can suggest a number of things. It can suggest reducing Questions from two to one per Member a day. We used to have three; we reduced it to two, and that did not seem to do anything at all. Whatever the Select Committee on Procedure decides and recommends, provided it is accepted by the House, there is no certainty that it will work unless Members wish it to work.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome the decision that he has taken? I think that there is very general dissatisfaction in the House at present about the handling of Question Time, which has always been regarded as a rather unique feature of this legislative Chamber, and one of particular value.
    Things are not going quite right. It may be due to the length of supplementary questions, or perhaps the length of answers, or perhaps certain abuses which, I think, are creeping in. Therefore, it is quite right that we should have as quick an examination of this matter by the Select Committee on Procedure as can possibly be done. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will use his influence to expedite that consideration.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  Mental Health Service
  Mr. David Griffiths: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 19th March, I shall call attention to the need for continued progress in the Mental Health Service, and move a Resolution.
  Feilden Report
  Mr. Bishop: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 19th March, I shall call attention to certain aspects of the Feilden Report, and move a Resolution.
  Home Ownership
  Mr. Grant: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 19th March, I shall call attention to home ownership, and move a Resolution.
BILL PRESENTED
  MONOPOLIES AND MERGERS
  Bill to make further provision for the constitution and proceedings of the Monopolies Commission, for the matters dealt with by the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act 1948 and related matters and for preventing or remedying mischiefs that may result from mergers of businesses or similar transactions, and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Douglas Jay; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. George Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney-General, and Mr. George Darling; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 92.]

  DEFENCE
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call on the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence, it may be convenient that I should indicate that there will be selected the Amendment in the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and other right hon. and hon. Members, and no other.
  3.46 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): I beg to move,
  That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1965, contained in Command Paper No. 2592.
  I should like to start with a remark which, I hope, will not be controversial. I do not think that I can let the occasion of presenting my first White Paper on the Defence Estimates pass without paying a tribute to the calibre of the military and civilian personnel who serve the Secretary of State at the Ministry of Defence. I think that the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) will agree that for experience, intelligence, dedication and hard work they form a team which has no equal in Britain or in the world.
  I should like to say a special word on behalf of the Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral of the Fleet Earl Mountbatten of Burma, who, Members will know, is retiring this summer. I am sure that we will all agree that he adds to his other qualities a special distinction of imagination and thrusting energy which mark him out as one of the really great Englishmen of our time, and I very much hope that when he leaves the Ministry of Defence he will continue to put his exceptional gifts at the service of the nation in another capacity for many years to come.
  A Minister who has such men to serve him must feel a certain humility, or even awe. But there is still a job for him to do, and it is a job that can only be done by an elected representative of the people, who is responsible to Parliament. The Minister has the job of seeing that this whole tremendous operation of defence, involving an expenditure of £2,000 million a year and 800,000 people, both civilian and military, operating all over the world, makes sense in terms of the nation's needs, that it serves the objectives of our foreign policy, and that it is
  1328
  compatible with the needs of our economy. If the Minister does not do it nobody can, and, unless he is willing and able to exercise this responsibility, it is almost certain that the operation will get out of control. In fact, it has repeatedly got out of control in recent years.
  The first job of every new Defence Minister over the last 10 years has been to cancel a major project of his predecessor. The right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) cancelled certain military aircraft projects. Lord Watkinson cancelled Blue Streak. The right hon. Member for Monmouth, when he first came in, cancelled Blue Water. I had to cancel the HS681 and the P1154. In one respect I was more fortunate than my predecessors, because the reorganisation of the central headquarters carried out by the right hon. Gentleman on the advice of Earl Mountbatten has enormously improved the machinery for the control of policy.
  But I must tell the House that the right hon. Gentleman did not use this machinery, and the result was that taking over responsibility for Britain's defence policy last October was like being pitchforked into the cab of a runaway train. There have been times, for example, when we have had no battalions of the Strategic Reserve in Britain which could be sent abroad without exceeding the amount of family separation which is a normal part of Service conditions. If we exceed this amount of separation we have very little chance of getting and keeping voluntary recruits.
  I found when I took office that the Royal Navy had had to put some weapons in mothballs in its ships for want of technical ratings to man them. It is well-known to both sides of the House that the previous Government's aircraft programme compelled us to go abroad to get the R.A.F. planes that were needed at the time we needed them. The problem was not only a problem of deficiencies in the Services. In vital respects our defence policy was in open contradiction to our foreign policy. In particular, the previous Government's obsession with the myth of an independent nuclear deterrent was working against their own declared aims, both in relation to the solidarity of the

  1329
  Western Alliance and in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.
  At the same time, defence costs were rising at a rate completely incompatible with our economic growth. Even so, the Government were failing to get value for the colossal sums of money that they were spending. I confess that this year's Defence White Paper is simply the first engagement in a long campaign to re-establish control of the nation's defence and to take a firm grip both on policy and on expenditure.
  I am as disappointed as anybody on either side of the House that I have not been able to do more in the first four months. I find myself, astonishingly, agreeing with the Amendment on the Order Paper put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), at the end of the Motion to add:
  "congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its decision to review its commitments, to renounce its independent nuclear role, to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, progressively and drastically to reduce expenditure on armaments and to work devotedly and realistically for international disarmament, but would welcome greatly accelerated progress in the reduction of Great Britain's overseas commitments, towards the abandonment of pretensions of national nuclear independence, and in the establishment of a world security system, free from reliance on nuclear weapons".
  I never expected that to happen to me in a defence debate, but I agree with my hon. Friend, although I feel that he probably exaggerates the simplicity of the problem which I face and also underestimates what we have already done, to which I will come later.
  The plain fact is that we cannot do all of this at one blow. I can only remember one occasion when a Minister of Defence did that, and that was the right hon. Member for Streatham, in 1957, when he decided to cancel our military aircraft projects because there was no future for supersonic military aircraft. It was to be done by a missile called, I think, Blue Streak. Later, the right hon. Gentleman dismissed the Polaris submarine as a weapon which would be obsolete by 1965. These were very dramatic decisions, but, unfortunately, they were all wrong. The right hon. Gentleman had not done his homework before he took them. The result was that by the time he found out he was wrong we were further back than
  1330
  when we started, with results in the field of military aircraft which we are only just beginning to overcome.
  If one simply jams on the brakes hard, the train is liable to leave the rails and it is at best a slow and precarious operation to get it under control again. The 400,000 men in our Armed Forces are working all out all over the world at the jobs which the nation has given them. We cannot simply walk out of existing commitments without respect to the views of our allies, or to the consequences of our withdrawal. We cannot tell our soldiers, sailors and airmen to fall out and hang about and wait until we have decided what the new policies will be. But if we do not stop everything at once then we must let the pipeline continue to provide our forces with the equipment which is at this time in 1965 long overdue. In fact, the whole of this year's increase in defence expenditure is accounted for by improvements in equipment for the Air Force, the Navy and the Army.
  During the last four months, therefore, all we have been doing, and I frankly admit it, is to take a grip on the problem and take the most urgent steps that are absolutely necessary. The most important decision that we have taken is that Britain cannot go it alone in a nuclear age. Military, political and economic facts alike rule out atomic jingoism as a basis for our national defence policy. Until disarmament can be achieved, Britain's survival and our national security must depend on the strength and solidarity of her alliance with the United States and Western Europe. We have, therefore, used our existing and programmed nuclear forces not to try to sustain the dangerous delusion that Britain could take on the whole weight of Soviet Russia's thermo-nuclear power alone. We have offered to pool them in a collective allied force in which those of our allies who do not have nuclear weapons of their own will have complete equality with us. We believe that by doing so we shall succeed in discouraging and not provoking the spread of national nuclear weapons.
  The proposals which we have made for an Atlantic Nuclear Force, which the House accepted last December despite the most vigorous opposition from the party opposite, have already saved the Western Alliance from what threatened to be a

  1331
  catastrophic crisis over the M.L.F. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is the case. Anybody who reads the speeches made by right hon. Members opposite and the article, for example, by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), which was published on election day, must know that the various allies were threatened with a catastrophe in allied co-operation in the autumn of 1964, if ever that proposal continued to be the subject under discussion in the way then planned.
  Now our proposals are the basis of all discussion inside the Atlantic Alliance about the central problem of atomic sharing which has tormented it for so many years. The basis is the British Government's proposals for an Atlantic Nuclear Force designed to meet the legitimate anxieties of our allies who do not have nuclear weapons of their own without promoting the spread of nuclear weapons under national control.
  These are proposals which have no analogy whatever in the policy of the previous Government. The United States Government welcomed these proposals when we put them to them in Washington last December. The response of Federal Germany has been a helpful one and raises no issues which cannot be resolved in negotiation. We hope here to move shortly from bilateral to multilateral discussion of our proposals.
  We have done very well in the diplomatic field on this, but what struck me, in reading the Order Paper yesterday, was that we have made a lot of progress also with the party opposite, because in their Amendment they are congratulating us on the policy which we have adopted for dealing with our nuclear weapons. They attacked them like fury a few months ago as a unilateral abnegation of the British deterrent. These really were the words of the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft). Now they are regarding these same proposals as a way of keeping an independent British deterrent.
  We know the right hon. Member for Monmouth well. We love him as a performer. He is a versatile fellow, for in 1958 he resigned from the Government because he opposed the British atomic programme altogether. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. In 1964, the right hon.
  1332
  Gentleman fought the election on the myth of a purely independent national deterrent. Only last December he spoke violently, and so did the Leader of the Opposition, against our proposals for an Atlantic Nuclear Force because they meant pooling our forces with our allies. Now, apparently, the right hon. Gentleman is welcoming the White Paper for saying again in the same words exactly what right hon. Gentlemen opposite attacked us for saying last December.
  We know the right hon. Gentleman. He will put this new case in person this afternoon with the same synthetic passion as he put in the last one, rolling his eyes, slapping the Dispatch Box, stepping back and looking round for approval.
  Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Look who is doing it now.
  Mr. Healey: The question which we shall be asking ourselves when the right hon. Gentleman rolls out these fancy phrases, and which I ask him to answer when he stands up later, is whether this is a sincere conversion to the Government's policy or an elaborate plot, elaborated with oriental cunning, to try to split the Government? I must say that the right hon. Gentleman's parliamentary tactics are as tortously inscrutable as a piece of transparent plastic.
  I shall be interested to hear from the right hon. Gentleman exactly what it is on which he congratulates us. Is he congratulating us on saying in the White Paper exactly what we said last December. He then described it as though it was almost treason against the nation. What precisely is it? In fact, of course, the right hon. Gentleman knows in his heart that these proposals are the only possible lines along which we can hope that N.A.T.O. will be able to solve its most serious problem, the problem which has been dividing it for the last 10 or 12 years.
  The other major problem facing N.A.T.O. is to reach agreement on a strategy for the defence of Western Europe which makes sense in terms of the political, military and economic realities of 1965. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me at least in this, that the strategic concept under which the N.A.T.O. commanders have to work at present is many years out of date. It is absurd to expect that

  1333
  N.A.T.O. could fight, even more win, a general war in Europe lasting for several months after the nuclear exchange had started It just is not "on".
  President Johnson told the American people last September that in the first nuclear exchange 100 million Americans and more than 100 million Russians would all be dead. In any so-called tactical nuclear battle in Europe the damage and casualties would be no less catastrophic. Organised society would cease to exist. In such circumstances, even the idea of organised warfare is a blasphemous mockery.
  The Russian leaders know this as well as we do. They know what would happen if they took steps which led to a nuclear exchange in Europe. It is hardly conceivable that they would deliberately initiate any action which would be likely to lead to such an exchange. They must know that there is no objective which they could hope to gain in Europe which would be worth the devastating price which they would be paying in the attempt to gain it. But if this is so—and I think that this view is taken on both sides of the House today—we can, surely, dismiss from our military calculations the idea of an all-out premeditated attack and concentrate instead on organising the forces capable of deterring the kind of attack which might conceivably arise either through pure accident or through political or military misunderstanding, in other words, a war by mistake.
  This is the only real problem we face in Europe at present, and even this kind of attack must, by definition, be limited both in scale and in area. Anything larger than a local incursion could not rationally be regarded as a mistake. If we concentrate on dealing with this type of contingency, the war by mistake, then we can make far better use of what forces we have in N.A.T.O. to ensure that nuclear exchange does not take place at all.
  We know perfectly well that none of the allied Governments will make a major increase in the resources which they now devote to the defence of Western Europe. At the Military Council of N.A.T.O. last December I asked the Finance Ministers who were sitting round the table whether those who were prepared to offer additional resources to
  1334
  N.A.T.O. defence would put up their hands. None did so. We know that it will not happen. Western Germany, the country which, after all, is most directly threatened here, has actually cut its defence budget this year.
  So let us concentrate on making the best use we can of our existing forces to deal with the sort of dangers which are likely, not those which are inconceivable.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: In the Labour Party's election manifesto it was specifically said:
  "Our stress will be on the strengthening of our conventional regular forces so that we can contribute our share to NATO defence …"
  Do I now understand that the right hon. Gentleman has turned a somersault and proposes to weaken it?
  Mr. Healey: If the hon. Gentleman will listen carefully to what I say, he will realise that that is precisely what I am not saying.
  If we concentrate on using the forces we have for the danger which we think is likely, we shall find it possible to reduce our reliance on nuclear warfare by using these forces in a conventional rôle. For example, we would not, as at present, tie up a high proportion of N.A.T.O.'s total tactical air striking forces for widespread and sustained nuclear attack on targets far behind the battle area, because such attacks could not take place without escalation to general war, and then they would be superfluous.
  But if the same aircraft were available for the support of our forces in conventional warfare, the need for a nuclear exchange might never arise. This is the point I make, and I think that the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) will agree that it is totally in conformity with the line we have always taken in the House and in our election manifesto.
  I believe that it would be useful if the N.A.T.O. defence Ministers could discuss these problems at a special meeting before long. My impression, after talking to the Defence Ministers of the major N.A.T.O. allies in the last few months, is that, provided we avoid "theology" in our discusions, provided we stop talking about the level of the threshold, the trip-wire, the plate-glass window, vitrification, and the rest, and concentrate on

  1335
  discussing what we can do with what we have got to meet the dangers which we all believe are the only likely ones, we can make real progress. I am very hopeful that, in the next few months, we shall see a real advance towards revising N.A.T.O.'s strategy in this sense.
  Mr. Julian Amery: Does the right hon. Gentleman's comment about targets deep behind the enemy lines imply that there is no need for a Canberra replacement of the TSR2 type?
  Mr. Healey: No, but I do not believe that the need for a Canberra replacement depends on having nuclear strike aircraft. We have made this clear already. I made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman in our discussions 18 months ago. The case for a TSR2 or TFX, a Canberra replacement, rests primarily on its potential rôle in conventional warfare, and also on its rôle in warfare outside the European theatre. The right hon. Gentleman may well disagree with me about that, but he must at least admit that I am quite consistent. I said this in opposition, and I say it again now.
  But this question—this also bears on the point which the hon. Member for Hendon, North raised when he intervened—of what is the best use we can make of the forces which N.A.T.O. has in Europe, is quite distinct from the problem discussed in paragraph 17 of the White Paper, which is what particular level of forces Britain herself should maintain in Western Germany. I shall now say a few words about that.
  Under the Brussels Treaty as revised, the previous Government undertook to maintain 55,000 men on the mainland of Europe, assigned to SACEUR, and not to withdraw them against the wishes of the majority of the co-signatories of the Treaty. This undertaking does not bind us in the event of acute overseas emergency; and also, if maintenance of our forces in Europe throws too great a strain on our external finances, on our balance of payments, we may make a review of the financial conditions on which they are maintained. The present Government, of course, accept this commitment. We do not believe in unilateral abrogation of agreements made by the previous Government.
  1336
  It is well known that Britain's inability so far to reach the target which the previous Government set, and which they never reached, has been justified by the serious emergencies facing us overseas, particularly, in recent months, in Malaysia. I am glad to say that our allies inside N.A.T.O. have never failed to show understanding when we have had to ask them to let us withdraw units temporarily from B.A.O.R. to the Far East. But I believe that the strain of this commitment on our balance of payments must be taken very seriously indeed.
  Three years ago, it cost us the equivalent in Deutschmarks of about £68 million to keep our forces in Germany, but the Federal Government at that time reduced the strain on our resources of foreign currency by buying nearly £54 million worth of equipment in Britain. They met something like three-quarters of the total cost in foreign currency. This year, the cost of B.A.O.R. has risen to the equivalent in Deutschmarks of £85 million, and we have no assurance that German purchases in Britain this year will rise above £25 million in value; and this at a time when the British defence budget has risen yet again, but the Federal German Government have found it possible to make major cuts in their defence expenditure, an expenditure which, I remind the House, involves no burden whatever on the German balance of payments.
  I think that, with the best will in the world, it will be difficult to persuade the average Englishman to carry the economic burden of maintaining the present level of forces in Germany at a time of exceptional strain on our balance of payments, when West Germany seems able to do so little to relieve that strain and particularly when the total British defence budget is one-third greater than that of West Germany. I am sure that this is an issue which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be taking up during his visit to Germany in the next few days.
  Britain's defence responsibilities are not limited to Western Europe. We are the only country actually contributing forces to all three of the regional alliances. We are at present the only Western Power covering any substantial military responsibilities between Suez

  1337
  and Singapore. North of Singapore, only the United States stands with us.
  I do not blame anyone for wondering —and I know that this applies to some hon. Members on the Liberal benches, many of my hon. Friends and no doubt some hon. Members opposite—whether it is really necessary for us to carry this unique burden overseas in an age when our old imperial responsibilities have passed away. But the fact is—and I do ask hon. Members to recognise this —that if we simply abdicated the responsibilities we now carry, without making any arrangements to share them or to hand them over to anybody, there is a grave risk that some parts of this great area would dissolve into violence and chaos, for we must face the fact that the main danger of war today lies outside Europe and not inside it.
  We have seen war going on outside Europe again and again in the last few years. If we had not been in a position to respond, as we did a year ago—and I pay the last Government due credit for this—to the requests of our Commonwealth partners, Tanganyika, Kenya and Uganda, for immediate military help, it is possible—I believe even likely—that the whole of East Africa might have returned by now to the tragic primeval chaos into which the withdrawal of United Nations force plunged much of the Congo.
  Nothing is more certain than that, if we had failed to meet our treaty obligations to the newly independent Government of Malaysia, there would be large-scale fighting over much of Southern Asia. Our contribution to the defence of Malaysia so far has been essentially a deterrent to war and not to fight a war. Total British casualties, including Gurkhas, so far in the last 18 months have been just over 100. But the presence of our forces there—forces which are known to be able to deal with possible contingencies—has, I am convinced, prevented major warfare in that part of the world and the sort of agonising suffering by human beings with which other parts of that area have been afflicted in the last few years.
  I would point out that the justification of our military presence east of Suez is not the building of a wall against Communism. Nor is it for the protection of
  1338
  selfish British economic interests. It is essentially the maintenance of peace and stability in parts of the world where the sudden withdrawal of colonial rule has too often left the local peoples unable to maintain stability without some sort of external aid.
  I ask hon. Members to recognise that the newly independent peoples of these areas—many of them lately British Colonies and now independent partners in the Commonwealth—have just as much right to peaceful progress as any of us in the West. Of course, it would be best if we could reach a peaceful solution of their problems and I know that the whole House will hope that the absurdity of confrontation between Malaysia and Indonesia may be brought to an end by negotiation as soon as possible. But we must recognise that aggression and imperialism are no monopoly of people with white skins and that Asian peoples have just as much right as European peoples to protection against the threat of aggression if they feel they face it.
  Britain can, as it happens, make a contribution towards meeting their needs in these respects. It is a contribution we should be proud to make. But we cannot do it indefinitely on our own. We cannot be the permanent policeman for the whole of Africa and Asia. Whatever might have been possible in the nineteenth century, the days of pax Britannica are over. We must share our responsibilities with our friends and allies.
  I know that this is the view of the Liberal Party, as expressed in its Amendment, but I ask right hon. and hon. Members of the Liberal Party to recognise that we shall only persuade other countries to share this burden if we can convince them of our own reliability in the long term and that we intend to carry our share, even though only a share, in these responsibilities. It is because the Government have succeeded in persuading Australia and New Zealand of our long-term intention to play a rôle in this respect that their Governments have found it possible, in the last few weeks, to agree to making very substantial new contributions alongside Britain towards the defence of Malaysia. I think that all hon. Members on both sides of the House will deeply welcome this, but let us recognise, in doing so, that these friendly Commonwealth

  1339
  Governments have not previously agreed to make these contributions, and would not have done so today had they not been satisfied that we were prepared to continue bearing our share, and a fair share, of any burden.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to deal with the presence of H-bombs in the Far East and indicate for what purpose the V-bombers carrying H-bombs are stationed there?
  Mr. Healey: I shall say a word about that, but there is no evidence as far as I know that any V-bombers carrying H-bombs are stationed in the Far East. But, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, it has never been the custom of British Governments to give that sort of information and I hope that it never will be. There is no occasion for it whatever.
  The other point I would like to make about the burden is that the whole of Western Europe benefits from our contribution to stability in the Middle East. Nearly all Western European countries get their oil from that area if they are not prepared to contribute to this burden—and I understand very well if they are not prepared to make a direct contribution—then I hope that they will take account of what we are doing in the Middle East when we discuss how to share our common burden in Europe. I do not think that that is too much to ask.
  It must, however, remain our main aim to enable the United Nations to take these responsibilities over from individual Western Governments or combinations of Governments. A major element in the foreign and defence policies of the Government is to ensure that responsibility for peace-keeping outside Europe falls increasingly on the United Nations. But that is obviously a long and difficult road, especially at the present time. As a token of our faith in and support for the United Nations we have, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced last week, made an offer of British forces and equipment for use in United Nations peace-keeping operations.
  We are already providing a wide range of services for the United Nations operation in Cyprus. These include what might be described as "front-line"
  1340
  troops, but I think that we all know that the occasion will not often arise when the Security Council will be prepared to allow a great power to supply front-line combat troops for U.N. operations. That is why our present offer is confined to logistic support, on the assumption that the United Nations will find infantry from other countries, and we believe that we should be prepared, on request and subject to our own commitments to other countries, to provide logistic backing for up to six battalions.
  The Secretary-General of the United Nations has been informed of our offer in general terms and we hope soon to discuss it with him in detail. If this seems desirable, earmarking arrangements will be made to facilitate the speedy selection and deployment of units, as available, for United Nations purposes. I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition was so cold in his response to my right hon. Friend's announcement last week. I ask him to recognise that the offer by Britain of military support for United Nations peace keeping is not a diversion from our national defences, but is, in this age, the only way of making national defences really effective in the long run.
  So far, I have said something about how we are ensuring that our defence policy serves the objectives of our foreign policy. I want now to say a word about its impact on our economy. The fact is that we in Britain are still spending too much on defence. The total bill is higher than it was last year, although at least it represents a smaller proportion of our national income and we have cut the increase proposed by the previous Government by £55 million, which is more than half in real terms.
  The British people are now spending on their security twice what they spend on betting, but they are still spending 25 per cent. less than they are spending on drink and tobacco. It is as well that we should get all these things into perspective, and perhaps we can get them into better perspective if I give a few facts about what other countries are doing in this respect.
  Much has been made of the fact that America and Russia have brought down their defence bills during the last 12 months, but, of course, they brought them down from very much higher levels.

  1341
  America is still spending 9 per cent. of her national wealth on defence, as against 6·8 per cent. in Britain, and the cuts which Mr. McNamara has made this year have simply brought the expenditure in the United States down from £98 to £96 per head. That compares with a current level of £39 per head in Britain, less than half.
  Russia has brought its defence budget down, but is still spending nearly 12 per cent. of its national wealth on defence. This works out at about £50 a head, nearly twice what we are spending—£11,000 million on its total defence budget Many countries have increased their defence budgets in the last year far more than we have. Poland's defence budget has gone up by 5 per cent., Roumania's by more than 10 per cent. and Yugoslavia's by more than 20 per cent.; but Yugoslavia is a neutral country, of course, and neutrality can be a very expensive business in the modern world.
  The fact remains that we are still spending a higher proportion of our national wealth on our defence forces than any other country of our size, than any of our main competitors in world trade, and this expenditure bears particularly heavily on our balance of payments and on the type of resources, both in manpower and in manufacturing capacity, which we need most of all to get our economic situation right.
  We have made a start this year, a small one but a start. We have saved £55 million compared with the plans of the party opposite. The House may be interested in some of the details about how this saving is made up. By far the biggest single item comes from the changes in the aircraft and submarine programmes which I have already announced, and both these changes give us better fighting efficiency at lower cost. The next biggest item of saving arises from the cancellation of certain expenditures on nuclear weapons.
  At the other end of the scale, we have dropped many smaller items, including one which I was staggered to find there—£300,000 which was to have been spent on ceremonial dress. The changes in the aircraft and submarine programmes alone, although they will not save as much next year, will save us £350 million altogether over the next 10 years. I believe that
  1342
  it will be possible to make further savings by further changes in the equipment programme during the coming year.
  However, I must warn the House that there is a limit to the degree to which the problem of defence expenditure can be solved by savings on equipment. Nearly half of our defence budget goes on pay, allowances, housing, movement, and so on, of the men and women in our forces. That degree of expenditure is liable to go up year by year at least as fast as our national wealth, because if we need all-Regular forces we must be prepared to provide them with pay and conditions which rise in parallel with those of their civilian brothers. This means that the manpower costs, which represent nearly half of our defence budget, tend to rise automatically at least as fast as our national wealth.
  Nearly all the other half of our expenditure goes on equipment and, as the White Paper points out, the cost of equipment tends to rise very much faster than the national wealth.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the ceremonial dress mentioned is the ordinary walking-out dress for soldiers?
  Mr. Healey: No. In this case it was ceremonial dress for the R.A.F. It was certainly expenditure which we did not regard as justified in the present economic circumstancese of the nation. I would be surprised if, looking at it again, the right hon. Gentleman would find it to be justified, but perhaps he will answer that question when he makes his speech.
  The cost of equipment rises very much faster than our national wealth and so, if we try to hold the defence budget firm over a long period simply by reducing expenditure on new equipment for a constant number of men, we are liable to finish up with the best-fed, best-dressed, best-looking and worst equipped Army in the world, because in the end manpower costs will swallow up all the money originally available for equipment. This is the basic problem which we face, and in the long run the surest way of achieving major reductions in our defence budget and then keeping the budget constant is to reduce the number of men and women in the forces, because then

  1343
  both manpower and equipment expenditure will fall proportionately.
  Incidentally, it is no good simply closing foreign bases unless the men who serve in them are demobilised, because otherwise the overall defence expenditure will have to be increased in order to provide new accommodation and facilities for them somewhere else.
  But the number of men in the Services cannot be cut unless the jobs they have to do are cut. One of the great tragedies of our defence forces in recent years has been a tendency to cut the manpower, but to leave the jobs they have to do untouched, and that is why our forces have been so overstretched in recent years. That is why the Government are now engaged in a far-reaching review of all the jobs done by our Armed Forces, both at home and abroad, in order to measure their overall costs against their value to the nation. We then propose to determine the best mix of forces and equipment to do the jobs which really make sense.
  This review will take several months yet. Meanwhile, we have opened a sustained offensive to get value for money across the whole range of our existing defence expenditure. That means, first, deciding the most economic and efficient means of administering our total defence effort. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for the Army will be dealing in some detail with that this evening.
  The other major front in the offensive in getting value for money is the fight against the sort of waste which has characterised so many of our equipment programmes over the last 13 years. We all know of the £300 million down the drain on aircraft and missile projects which were cancelled before they could be completed. The basic problem is to choose the weapon system which is best and cheapest for the job in hand and then to ensure that it is produced at the time and at the price required.
  This means avoiding the sort of duplication between the Services which gave us three separate ground-to-air missiles in the last 10 years. It means aiming at the maximum interoperability of weapons and equipment. This was one of the factors which led us to choose the Phantom aircraft, because it can
  1344
  operate off carriers as well as from land bases.
  Above all, it means avoiding unnecessary sophistication. There has too often been a tendency in the past, when any item of equipment was being considered, to go for the maximum in sophistication which the state of the art would allow, irrespective of whether it was required to meet the need. It is because we were prepared to take a hard-headed look at the real needs of the job in prospect that we decided to choose the C13OE as a Hastings-Beverley replacement in place of the more sophisticated HS681. When we looked at the problem concretely, on the map, we found that there were adequate airstrips in the various parts of the world where we were likely to operate which would enable the C13OE to operate within 100 nautical miles of the scene of any likely ground operations.
  The additional capability of the HS681 —the capability offered by a slightly shorter take- off—was very marginal compared with the fact that it cost three times as much. [An HON. MEMBER: "The take-off is much shorter."] It is not much shorter. The C130E can take off, depending on the distance it has to fly, in a maximum of 3,400 ft. and a minimum of 3,000 ft. The HS681 was planned to take off from a 1,700 ft. runway. There is a difference in order of magnitude, but it is not great. It is not important in terms of the concrete places where we expect to use the aircraft.
  The point which I must make to hon. Members opposite, which they never took in when they were in opposition, is that it is no good going for James Bond's Aston Martin if a jeep will do, particularly if we cannot afford the Aston Martin and, anyway, will not get it when we need it. This is the basic problem which we face.
  Mr. Julian Ridsdale: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we had not had an aircraft of the quality of the Spitfire we should have been in a very bad position? Will he answer a question about the C130E? Is not the speed of the HS681 very much greater than that of the C130E?
  Mr. Healey: The speed of the HS681 is about 20 per cent. greater, but speed is not the important factor when we

  1345
  are dealing with transport aircraft. The Spitfire was a completely different problem. The Spitfire problem was the one we faced with the P1154. The previous Government were asking the R.A.F. to fly subsonic Hunters for another seven years until their total operational life was extended to 15 or 20 years against possible opponents who already had supersonic MiG 21s. That is where the hon. Gentleman's point comes in.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Why was the C130E picked instead of the Belfast, which has a larger carrying capacity and which could have been built in this country, saving dollars?
  Mr. Healey: The reason was very simple. I know and sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's special interest in the Belfast. The Belfast as now built is a very expensive strategic transport. A tactical transport with the capability we require could have been developed on the basis of the Belfast, but it would have cost as much as the HS681 and would have been inferior to the HS681 in performance and would not have been available in time. We looked at this most carefully. Obviously, if we could have got a British aircraft to do the job, we would have taken it. But this was not the case with the Belfast. Probably, if it had been, the right hon. Member for Monmouth would not have gone for the HS681; he would have gone for the Belfast improvement instead.
  Once a project has been selected—and we propose to use very stringent tests of real operational requirements on the map—the next problem is to secure development and production at the time and cost required. I will not weary the House with details of the appalling escalation in cost and slippage in time from which so many projects of the previous Government suffered, but I would emphasise again a problem which is certain to bear ever more heavily on any British Government in the years ahead.
  I believe that I will carry the whole House with me here. Research and development costs for sophisticated modern weapons may be as large as the production costs for the number of
  1346
  weapons which Britain herself can afford. That means that unless we are to become entirely dependent on foreign countries for our arms—I know that the whole House wants to avoid that—we must seek either to share research and development costs with foreign Governments or secure additional foreign markets for our products, and this may mean being ready to adjust a purely national requirement to meet the requirements of a potential foreign customer.
  During the last debate on defence the Minister of Aviation and myself gave the House some details of the aircraft projects on which we hope to work with foreign Governments. I should like to give the House a few more details following the visit which he and I paid to Paris last Saturday, because we made very substantial progress on this particular issue in our talks with the French Defence Minister, M. Messmer. I hope to be able to inform the House during the next few weeks of a firm agreement between the French and British Governments for co-operation in the production of a joint strike trainer, and in studying a longer term project employing variable geometry, which is one of the most exciting of the new developments in aeronautics. When technical studies are further advanced, we shall also be discussing with the French Government again later this year how we might best collaborate on a common helicopter and a common aircraft for airborne early warning.
  Although we are only at an early stage in these developments, our talks with the French show what can be achieved by friendly Governments in a determined attempt to co-operate in finding common solutions for common problems. I shall hope to pursue similar objectives with our other allies in the next few months.
  From the brief sketch which I have given of the economic problems we face in defence one thing stands out: Provided that we co-operate even more closely with our friends, we may be able to solve our defence problems, or at least survive them, over the next 10 years or so. After that, the problem will be insoluble unless we can co-operate with our political opponents on some form of arms control and disarmament.
  The problem is not just the terrifying rate at which the arms race between the

  1347
  great Powers is still proceeding, and the totally unacceptable costs involved for Powers like Britain in seeking to keep up with powers like Russia or the United States. More fearsome still is the fact that the most modern weapons are now available for sale to any country which thinks it can afford to buy them—perhaps at only a nominal price if the supplying country sees political or economic advantage in disposing of them in this way. So even a country like Indonesia, if it is prepared to buy abroad, is able to possess today a supersonic fighter better than anything which Britain could have produced under the previous Government's programme in the next seven years.
  For too long in the past foreign policy, defence policy and disarmament have been kept in separate compartments. We believe that they are inseparable aspects of the same problem. We must always be ready to see arms control as a possible answer even to our narrow problems of defence. In Europe, for example, where both sides are at last coming to recognise that the costs of using force for political gain are out of all proportion to what they can hope to gain, there is everything to be said for trying to solve the problem of security by co-operation between opposing camps on arms control instead of continuing an arms race which neither side can expect to win.
  Cannot we reach agreement on protection against surprise attack by mutual inspection of the arms and forces on both sides of the Iron Curtain? This is not a controversial or Bolshevik view; it is a view that was strongly held by General Eisenhower and General Norstad. Cannot we reach agreement on freezing the existing levels and then reducing them—that was the view held by Lord Avon and Mr. Dulles—always provided that the balance of security is maintained and we reach agreement inside the Alliance on what we propose to do?
  Outside Europe the need for active initiatives on arms control is even more apparent. If nothing is done to discourage the new nations from entering a new arms race among themselves, the results may be disastrous for all their hopes of economic advance and peace. There is already a gentlemen's agreement among the great Powers to refrain from passing nuclear weapons on to countries which do not now possess them. Could we not seek
  1348
  to extend this agreement to cover the more sophisticated conventional weapons as well?
  Above all, there are the sombre implications for peace in Asia and the world of the Chinese nuclear explosion, which may be repeated in the next few days. If those countries which may feel themselves threatened by China's possession of such weapons decide to seek security by producing similar weapons for themselves, we may see a rapid chain reaction which will not be confined to Asia, and which will finally dispose of any immediate hope of stopping the spread of atomic weapons. It must be the urgent desire of all who value peace to find other ways of meeting this problem.
  As I said before, the best answer to this problem would be a guarantee from all existing nuclear Powers to all non-nuclear ones. We must work for this. Anything less raises daunting problems, especially for countries with a policy of non-alignment. But worst of all would be the spread of independent national deterrents. It would mean an appalling waste of resources which are desperately needed for human welfare and a very substantial increase in the danger of war.
  My quarrel with the Liberal Amendment is that it seems to suggest that there is an easy answer to this problem. There is not. I cannot give an answer to the problem—no single nation can—but I know that every pound that we spend on defence in the modern world will increase our insecurity, and not our security, unless it is calculated to create the conditions in which the nations can agree upon disarmament.
  It is under 20 years since the first atomic bomb exploded in the desert of New Mexico. That is not a long time for mankind to come to terms with a revolution which has upset many of the basic principles of international politics painfully elaborated during the last 3,000 years. But Her Majesty's Government have learned at least one lesson, of which many of us on this side of the House were deeply conscious long before atomic power was thought of. That is, that the only possible security is collective security. Chauvinism and isolationism, atomic or conventional, are a sure road to catastrophe.
  The only form of collective security which will work in the end is one which

  1349
  will bring us together, not only with our political friends, but also with those who disagree politically with us. That is the principle on which the White Paper rests and that is the spirit in which I ask the House to approve it.
  4.42 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "while deploring the unjustified and misleading party political statement in the opening paragraph of the White Paper on Defence and the absence of any clear account of Her Majesty's Government's proposals for maintaining the strength of the Armed Forces at a level consistent with the roles undertaken, nevertheless welcomes the recognition by Her Majesty's Government of the importance of a powerful nuclear capability".
  We are at the outset of a two-day debate which it is traditional to have upon the broad aspects of defence. It is the Government, in their opening paragraph of the White Paper, who have decided to highlight the party differences. That is their choice and not ours. It is not necessary, however, to spend the whole of a defence debate stressing the differences between the Opposition and the Government. Indeed, it may on occasion be more embarrassing to indicate the points on which they agree. That this thought has not occurred solely to me is illustrated a little by the thought-provoking Amendment, which is not being called, which has been put down by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman).
  If I might congratulate the Secretary of State for Defence upon one thing, if nothing else, it would be upon the remarkable and anatomical performance of making his speech, or three-quarters of it, to the benches behind him. He said that I would spend my time turning round and looking for applause. The right hon. Gentleman turned round quite a lot. [An HON. MEMBER: "He did not get any applause."] Do not let us exaggerate. I saw the expression. It was frigid, but not wholly unfriendly. I do not want to disconcert the right hon. Gentleman.
  I want to start on some of the things about which we agree. I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State pay his tribute to Lord Mountbatten. I was privileged to serve with Lord Mountbatten and I think that anyone who has served with
  1350
  him would say that it was an exhilarating and very good experience for any man in that position. Certainly, I welcomed the years I spent with him and the right hon. Gentleman is right in paying tribute to the immense contribution which Lord Mountbatten has made in so many fields to public life in Britain.
  I should also like to say a few words about the form of the White Paper. I do not criticise it, because it is in the form, although the contents are not entirely the same, in which I left it in the Ministry of Defence. In particular, the Defence White Paper this time is not a loose confederation of Service views. It makes an attempt to state a defence view. It lays emphasis upon the functional approach and the introduction of functional costings announced two or three months before the end of the last Parliament.
  I welcome the account in paragraph 184 of the development of the new Ministry of Defence. Its formation was a revolutionary change and, I think, the House will agree that the steps which are recounted are sensible. In particular, I draw attention to paragraph 35, about the establishment at Byfleet of a headquarters for defence operational analysis. I believe this to be the key to a great deal of the problems which confront us. It is essential in the world in which we live that defence problems should be treated to proper scientific analysis, not on a single Service basis, but on a defence basis, otherwise all the hopes that the right hon. Gentleman has about making sensible savings for the future will be disappointed.
  I accept what is said in the White Paper about the centralisation of communications, lands, airfield construction, logistic procedures and supply services. All these are important and far-reaching, but we need to go further.
  Something has been done about the unification of overseas headquarters, but the Secretary of State needs to have a very close look at the headquarters at Singapore. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say a word or two about this later. I am far from happy that that headquarters is yet unified in the sense that any of us who have studied the problem would wish it to be. Some overseas headquarters have reached the limit in unification which they can

  1351
  achieve until there is greater unification in the headquarters here where the right hon. Gentleman does his work every day.
  I note and applaud the establishment of the committee on the rationalisation of air power and I wish it well. The adoption of the Phantom will help in this in having the same aircraft for the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy. Whatever other arguments there may be, let us seize that opportunity and make the most of it and try to get rationalisation of aircraft. Nor do I in that way underestimate the importance of the P1127. Many hard things have been said about it in an overseas rôle. I do not go out of my way to slander British projects; plenty of that goes on. The B.B.C. can say what it likes about computers and the rest, but let us in the House of Commons pay tribute to our technicians. The P1127, certainly in a European context, is a magnificent aircraft and I very much hope that it will be developed and stretched. Europe would do well to take a considerable interest in it. I have always felt that. It has been my consistent view.
  I accept, also, that the across-the-board responsibility of the Defence Ministers follows closely the lines that I laid down. What one looks for, however, is something more. Virtually all this was in train when the right hon. Gentleman took over. One searches for an assurance that the impetus is really being carried forward.
  We are really at a cross-roads in defence organisation. Either we move forward to a functional approach or we will slip back into a rather loose federation of Service chiefs struggling expensively for their Service empires. That is the choice and that is the decision which must be made, and will be made sometime during the next 12 months.
  The instructions that I had given—I do not mind disclosing this—as I left the Ministry were these. The words I used were that the issue was not whether a functional approach should be adopted, but when and how. That is the right approach. I am not seeking to be overcritical, but when I read the White Paper on this aspect I am a little nervous about whether my instructions have been properly carried out under the present
  1352
  Government. I read in paragraph 48 on the question of the unified headquarters:
  "The creation of unified headquarters over-seas and the progress of rationalisation must inevitably blur the line of single-Service management and create an automatic impetus towards new organisational arrangements."
  If the Secretary of State thinks there is anything automatic in the Civil Service approach to unified control I beg him to thing again. There is nothing automatic about this. Nothing will happen if he just sits there. It needs a great deal of drive to achieve it. Then we get this phrase from the right hon. Gentleman:
  "The question is not whether further changes take place, but what changes, in what direction and at what pace."
  What an amazing glimpse of the obvious. We have read in the paper that the right hon. Gentleman has written this White Paper himself. I must say that I cannot congratulate him on his prose style.
  Mr. Healey: It may be for the convenience of the House if I tell the right hon. Gentleman what happened about his ideas. We carried out a study in the last three months to investigate the idea of functional organisation. We discovered that the right hon. Gentleman had left no ideas behind as to what a functional organisation should be. We had to devise a model and then test it, and we found that there was no basis, on the test we were able to apply in the Ministry, which would enable us to judge whether it would in any way assist or hinder the troops in carrying out their day-to-day jobs. That is why we had another look at it. We are looking at the problem as it ought to be looked at, not as an abstract problem, but as one of immediate economy and efficiency, and as a problem from the point of view of the men in the field.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I can well understand this. My suspicions are justified. The rats did get at it.
  Let us take each case on its merits. Let us look at it, and we find that all the drive, impetus, absolute determination to see that we go forward to a functional approach has in fact been lost. It is indeed a disappointment.
  There is something else that is missing. I had given instructions that much fuller information should be given about future plans. One could take many illustrations, but I take this one as typical. Let us

  1353
  take the subject of helicopters. I think it is one which is of interest to the whole House.
  Let us look at paragraph 27. It says that we are short of them and ought to have more. It says:
  "British forces still suffer from a serious shortage of helicopters, and the reliability of some of those currently available has been unreasonably low."
  I think that a lot of people who have been in Sarawak and Borneo would generally support his view and know that the Belvedere had a number of teething problems and so forth. But then, going on with the White Paper, we see what really happened.
  We read that in the South Arabian Federation:
  "Helicopters and light aircraft of the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the Army gave continuous support to the ground forces and moved troops as well as large quantities of food, water and ammunition."
  We go to the Far East and read:
  "Throughout the year, Whirlwind, Wessex I and Belvedere helicopters of the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy have been based on Sabah and Sarawak and increased the mobility of the Army and the Royal Marines."
  I'll say they did! It takes about five days to go 10 miles in that area without them, and without them these operations would have been impossible.
  We go to Tanganyika:
  "Throughout the operation Wessex helicopters from the squadrons on board the carriers acted in support and R.A.F. Belvedere helicopters assisted in the landings."
  We go to British Guiana and we find once again that—this is the right hon. Gentleman's own White Paper—
  "helicopters of all three Services made possible the rapid deployment of patrols to troubled areas; a combined force of Army and R.A.F. helicopters has been established to help in operations."
  We come to fishery protection and we find as we go on that, by heavens, they are working there as well.
  I am prepared to accept that any final perfection is indeed difficult to attain, but certainly what was done we can see from the examples has been magnificent. Nevertheless, one does move on avidly and eagerly to see what the right hon. Gentleman is going to do about it. I had to read a long way before I came to that, at paragraph 154.
  1354
  I shall not read it all. Broadly, summarised, it says, we must do the best with what we have got. That is what it says. There is no radical, dramatic approach. One felt little sense of that, and then one came to paragraph 155:
  "The introduction of the Wessex Mark 2 twin-engined troop-lift helicopter into Royal Air Force service during 1964 has added considerably to the capability of the front line."
  Indeed it did. Then it says:
  "More helicopters of this type are to follow."
  I am sure. It says:
  "The Royal Navy is receiving further Wessex Mark 5 helicopters for troop-carrying and will also be acquiring Sioux helicopters …".
  This was known before. It is nearly a year ago we announced it. We also announced:
  "The Army, too, is to have a substantial number of Sioux helicopters for support duties with combat units; and deliveries of the Scout helicopter will continue."
  All this was announced months before. It says:
  "New deliveries will continue to increase significantly the size and capability of our helicopter forces over the next few years."
  Of course they will. They could hardly fail to do so.
  What we want to know is what the right hon. Gentleman is going to do about it. I could give many other illustrations, but let us take this one illustration of what bothers me about this. There is not the slightest indication of any real determination to grapple with any of the problems—and there are problems—with regard to equipment.
  With helicopters there are, broadly, two types. There is the troop carrying helicopter. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to increase them for troop lift, or not? Perhaps someone could explain this during the debate—
  Mr. Healey Mr. Healey rose—
  Mr. Thorneycroft: Let me finish.
  Then there is the reconnaissance helicopter, the Bell, now commissioned for the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy. It may be that new orders have been placed over and above what had been placed before, or plans laid.
  There are problems about numbers of pilots who can be trained; there were problems, even, at the higher level of

  1355
  costings, as to what other sacrifices may have to be made to balance certain increases. There is a limit to them.
  Could not we be told about that? Really, I think an important principle is involved here. I put this to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not see why information on the broad levels of future plans with regard to equipment could not be disclosed to the House of Commons and to the Press. We already announce in total what future costings are going to be. I frankly believe that we might give a great deal more information to the House on helicopter proposals, for instance, in which hon. Members on both sides of the House are interested. I should imagine that most of the information is probably already known to all our enemies anyway, and I cannot conceive that it would do any harm to tell the House of Commons about it. I cannot see why the instructions I left were not carried out by the Secretary of State. I think, again, that he would have done much better to have struck to the instructions I left.
  Mr. Healey Mr. Healey rose—
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I will give way in a minute.
  This is the sort of information which could be given. It would not do any harm. I will give way in a minute. I know the right hon. Gentleman may be in a difficulty at this moment about some of these things. He may not know the answers. That is quite possible. I do not blame him for not knowing all the answers all the time. But he is studying a great range of equipment problems, and in the summer he is going to be ready, and I think the House ought to have another White Paper in the summer, when he has got clear what his ideas are. At that time—I am not being too critical now, but at that time—I would ask him to ensure that it is a very much more informative White Paper. I would ask him not to throw over this idea. There are enormous security precautions about telling the House of Commons anything, and there are great staffs employed keeping secret from the House of Commons and the Press things which most countries in the world already know, I imagine, and
  1356
  on which there may be appearing comments in the American magazines. When he gets these decisions made, and when he issues the White Paper, which I hope he will say we can have in the summer, I hope that we shall be given a great deal more information about these subjects.
  Mr. Healey: I appreciate the points made by the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not particularly appreciate the patronising way in which he made them. He produced two White Papers without giving any of this information. Each time he indicated a desire to do better next time, but he did not succeed.
  The basic problem, as the right hon. Gentleman must know, is that we are dealing with forces which are seriously under-equipped and under-manned. By giving more information, we are revealing not strength, but weakness, and I had to consider this when deciding how much to put into the White Paper at this time. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that when we next produce a White Paper—and I will not say now when it will be—we shall try to give more information within the limits—and they are serious limits—of not damaging either our security or weakening the morale of our forces. These were the central problems which I faced this year.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: That is an extraordinary intervention, when one realises that the White Paper starts by announcing to the world that our forces are seriously over-stretched and dangerously undermanned. It seems extraordinary to suggest that that can be announced to the world, and yet it would be dangerous to give an indication that we had changed from six-company lift for troop carrying helicopters to eight-company lift. It seems a proposition which I am sure even the right hon. Gentleman's back benchers find difficult to accept.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us how dangerous it was to give anybody the impression that our forces were weaker than they were. I deplore the fact that he opened on that note. It was a transparent piece of political slapstick. The comfort which it gave to the enemies of this country was much greater than any satisfaction it gave to anybody on either side of the House. I say that to give credit to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Nor

  1357
  is that particular sneer at the ability of British forces very well borne out by the account of their brilliant achievements during the last 12 months. They were the admiration, and, indeed, in many respects the envy, of the world. There is not one Western Power whose military authorities are not open in their praise for the organisation, the equipment, and the manner in which these things were carried out. We would do far better to cut out a little of this political slapstick and spend a little more time on praising, and rightly praising, the men who discharge these functions.
  If they are over-stretched, what should we do? We must either reduce the rôles, or increase the numbers, but one reads in vain through this White Paper to find the slightest indication of either course. If someone is to make a charge of that kind, it is vital that he should be specific as to the solution that he puts forward, otherwise it is better not to make the charge. If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about them being under-equipped, it seems odd that the Government, dangerously as we think, have downgraded the operational requirements of two important aircraft. If the right hon. Gentleman considers that the national contribution which is made to the Armed Services is too small, it is a little odd to read in the same paragraph that the Government propose to make a continually smaller proportion of the national effort available to the Armed Forces.
  The White Paper opens with this rather synthetic party roar, but it ends with a whimper as the realities of the situation begin to strike home to the right hon. Gentleman. I think that he would do far better to study the problem—and by heavens it is a real one—not in party, but in national terms.
  Mr. Walter Monslow: With all his forensic eloquence, the right hon. Gentleman is talking about what should be increased. Does he recollect his famous resignation speech, when he said that the country was going from crisis to crisis, and that we could not go on expanding in the manner in which we were expanding if we were ever to gain economic rehabilitation. Those are your words. Do you still stand by them or not?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. I have heard "you" being used a lot this afternoon and only sometimes correctly. I am dizzy at the way in which earlier the right hon. Gentleman took me round the world. If the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow) wants to address a remark to another hon. Member, it must be done through the Chair.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I am always against controversy. I deeply appreciate the hon. Gentleman's vivid recollection of any speech of mine. I only hope that he will recall this one with the same clarity that he recalls that speech six years ago.
  The problem which confronts the right hon. Gentleman, as much as it confronted his predecessors, and will confront his successors, can be fairly simply stated. It is how to reconcile the rôles and the resources. The rôles are not laid down by the Secretary of State. They are laid down by the Cabinet, by the Prime Minister, and by the Foreign Secretary, and as they are laid down today they include—if the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne will permit me to say so—a powerful nuclear rôle, a European rôle, and a wider rôle in the world outside, imposed on us by treaty obligations.
  I must warn the right hon. Gentleman. Whatever faith he may have in the costings shown to him, whether by the Minister of Aviation or by Mr. McNamara, I hope that he will not lean too heavily on the prices immediately given, or stake his reputation on them. Nor do I think that computers will help him much. They will merely turn human errors into gigantic ones. The right hon. Gentleman will find the carrying out of these three rôles, in any form, extremely costly, and increasingly costly, for the reasons which are set out very well in paragraph 6 of the White Paper, because it costs so much more to have an interdiction bomber, or a regiment of artillery, or tactical nuclear weapons, or what one will.
  If, therefore, the rôles are maintained while costs rise, and one aims—and the right hon. Gentleman's aim is to hold the budget at about £2,000 million—at constant prices, one reduces the proportion of the national effort to meet the increasingly costly rôles. The result is that someone will suffer, and that someone will be the British Service man.

  1359
  It would have been better if the taunts about over-stretching and under-equipment had been left until after the right hon. Gentleman had got a little further with a real study of the grimness of the problem which confronts us.
  It must be for the Government of the day to determine the tasks, but the tendency is always to increase the demands made upon our forces. The other day the Foreign Secretary announced that logistic support was to be offered to six battalions to be earmarked for the United Nations. I am not criticising that as a proposal. I did not agree with what he said about earmarking. It was rather foolish if he was really suggesting the earmarking of actual units. But I am not quarrelling with the question of logistic support. I am talking about it as a military problem. If it meant anything, it meant some form of increased commitment, and that increased commitment would be reflected in contingency planning, in increased costs, and in studies within the Ministry of Defence.
  I know the machine which I left behind. The right hon. Gentleman paid tribute to it. I know that before that statement was made, that proposal was costed in the machine which I left behind. I know that it was costed in terms of men, material, money and transport aircraft. Will someone tell us, in terms of men, money and transport aircraft, what that proposal means?
  It is not a great matter, but it is an illustration of the way in which commitments grow. Unless the provision to meet them grows, someone suffers. However good the ideas which are drawn up by the Foreign Secretary—and I am not criticising them—if they are to be matched by a decline in the funds available we are on the highway to military disaster.
  As to the particular rôles—I leave the nuclear rôle for a moment—I assume that the rôle in Malaysia and the Gulf, for reasons beyond our control will remain. My hon. Friend will ask about that, but I assume that there is little we can do to cut back there at the moment.
  The remaining rôle is Europe. What should be the strategic concept in Europe, and what should be our contri-
  1360
  bution? When I first began to study these matters, the strategic concept in Europe was massive nuclear retaliation by the United States of America. That was at a time when they had massive nuclear superiority. Two years ago it swung back to something much nearer prolonged conventional war. It was my privilege to listen to the Americans trying to persuade a great audience of rather cynical Europeans of the virtue of prolonged conventional war.
  The French were consistent throughout; they believed in a small force—the "trip wire"—and that any calculated or premeditated attack should be met immediately by a massive nuclear strike. Twelve months later a sort of compromise was reached, called "variable options"—all these concepts have names —in which there would be substantial conventional forces; there would be defence in depth; there would be a 90-day reserve, and resources would be available, especially in Britain, in terms of the Territorial Army, and so forth. Studies are going on at the moment in N.A.T.O. on that basis, and it will undoubtedly come up with bigger requirements. It will ask for more forces than it has at the moment. It always does.
  I thought it right to give the House a history of the matter. It is against that background that one reads with fascination the Government's contribution to this enormous problem. It is dealt with in 20 lines, in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the White Paper. Paragraph 17 says:
  "Our forces in Germany impose a heavy burden on our balance of payments."
  Indeed they do.
  "Within the framework of our Brussels Treaty commitment they must always be subject to review in the light not only of our obligations to our N.A.T.O. partners but of our total defence burden and of the nature of the military threats in Europe and in other parts of the world where we have responsibilities."
  That is quite true, and the right hon. Gentleman quite rightly made some comments on it and expanded it a little. Do the Government intend to institute a review? I take it that they do. It is important to know this. If troops are to be withdrawn—which would save money in terms of our balance of payments—will they be demobilised? The Minister of Defence for the Army is specifically

  1361
  responsible for this problem, and he is to reply to the debate. Unless they are demobilised the cost, in terms of the Budget, will probably be greater rather than less. They will be removed from existing barracks to new barracks which will have to be provided over here.
  What are the implications in respect of the men or, if there is none, what are the implications in respect of reserves—say, the Territorial Army? Is it planned that under this type of review the future of the Territorial Army will be brought into question? If we are to have fewer troops, and if it is right that the strategic concept will be altered, what about the weapons?
  Does the order for the 155 gun stand, or does it go? What about heavy armour? Will the same quantities be required? What about tactical nuclear weapons? These questions must be answered if these reviews are to be instituted. These are the questions which present themselves to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I would like a firm indication of what is in the Government's mind.
  Paragraph 18 says:
  "At present all N.A.T.O. forces in Germany, including our own, are deployed in accordance with a strategic concept which in our view now requires revision."
  These are fighting words. It is quite a big thing to review the whole strategic concept upon which N.A.T.O. is based. The House must not dismiss the importance of that sentence. The paragraph continues:
  "In recent years the United States has developed an overwhelming nuclear strike force which is committed to the direct support of Western Europe in case of war."
  These words must be like music to the ears of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.
  "Its purpose to deter aggression."—
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: I am much obliged for the compliments which the right hon. Gentleman continues to pay me by dragging me at intervals into his argument. Will he bear in mind the fact that so far I have not contributed a single word to the debate?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Member has tabled a fascinating Amendment,
  1362
  and I hope that he will catch the eye of the Chair if not today, then tomorrow.
  Paragraph 18 goes on to say:
  "In the unlikely event that it should fail, its use would cause such destruction that it is impossible to conceive of a land campaign in Europe lasting for many days. It is therefore pointless to tie up resources against the risk of a prolonged war in Europe following the nuclear exchange. The principal military purposes of allied forces in Europe"—
  and I ask the House to note this—
  "should be to deter miscalculated incursions and to suppress any ambiguous and unpremeditated local conflicts first and foremost by conventional forces, before they can escalate into major war."
  I agree that "broken-back" warfare is not a very viable proposition, but what kind of conventional war will precede—not follow—a nuclear strike? Will there be defence in depth? If the principal purpose of conventional forces is to deal with what is miscalculated, ambiguous and unpremeditated, what is the rôle for what is unambiguous, calculated and premeditated? This question must be answered. It goes to the very root of this strategic concept.
  All these strategic concepts, and all that is written about them, can be resolved into simple elements, namely, how many men are required, and how soon is one to use nuclear weapons? Those are the real questions to be faced in this matter. The views expressed in paragraphs 17 and 18 are easily recognisable to anybody familiar with this field, as I have become familiar with it. They approximate closely to the views of General Ailleret. They pin the conventional rôle to what is ambiguous, unprepared and miscalculated. This strategy is Gaullist in its approach. I do not say that it is necessarily wrong. I am not criticising the right hon. Gentleman; I am stating the factual rôle. It may come from a surprising quarter.
  But I ask the Government not to be ambiguous themselves in a matter like this. I ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Defence for the Army, to talk to us freely and frankly, so that we can understand what kind of strategic concept they want. It is not enough to say that it is to be changed. They must say what kind of concept they have in mind.
  Then, as to the nuclear concept. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on

  1363
  taking such full advantage of the Nassau Agreement, with V-bombers not only in Europe but in the Far East. The Times talks about the
  "imperceptible glide into nuclear strategy."
  Glide yes, but "imperceptible" I am a little more doubtful about. The Government wrapped it up a little, but they do not seem to have wrapped it up altogether from some of their friends. I do not want to unwrap it. I do not want to tear away the curtain—better it should be veiled a little—from the right hon. Gentleman's nuclear pretensions. But I must say a word about the Atlantic nuclear force. It appears most extraordinary that Paragraph 13 should start:
  "The threat to Britain's survival can be met only by the strength of the N.A.T.O. Alliance …"
  when the A.N.F. is almost the only thing which would split N.A.T.O. from top to bottom.
  I find that sentence a remarkable piece of humbug, even from the right hon. Gentleman. His military advisers will explain to him that this new nuclear force with a United States veto would be a complete waste of time and money. It would be far better to spend the cash either on conventionals, or, if he wants, on roads and hospitals, for all the contribution it would ever make. His advisers would also explain to him, if he asked them, that such a force, smothered within the organisation, with safety catches, is an utterly incredible deterrent, so it will have no military effect whatever. If he wishes to refer to it, will he say why there is no mention of its cost, or of the suggested subscriptions people ought to pay, or of who pays what and to whom, or whether the new M.L.F. is going inside it, or what command structure it will have? It appears to be outside N.A.T.O., so that in future we have SACEUR in charge of N.A.T.O., wih the Strategic Air Command behind and this extraordinary misbegotten creature, bristling with safety catches, waiting unhappily on the wing. I think that the House is entitled to some exposition of this remarkable proposal.
  I must, however, tell the right hon. Gentleman—perhaps I ought to disclose this to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, if I may again refer to him, to whose important speech we are looking
  1364
  forward—that this will never happen. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne knows it, the Secretary of State knows it. The only engagement which this nuclear force has ever been in was to sink the M.L.F. and that was apparently successful. That was its only battle honour. I do not know that President Johnson would have liked to have heard that that was the outcome of the serious talks which he had with the Prime Minister in Washington, but it did succeed in that engagement. Too many people in too many countries know that its sole purpose is to get the Prime Minister off the hook. To imagine that they will pay large sums of money for that purpose—however well deserved and interesting—is an illusion. The impression left on me by this White Paper is that it leaves unresolved and in part unrecognised the central issue of defence and foreign policy. Paragraphs 13, 17 and 18 on the A.N.F.—
  Mr. Michael Foot: The right hon. Gentleman said a little earlier that when it was proposed that a policy should be revised, it was always advisable that the speaker should state what he would substitute, so when the right hon. Gentleman condemns the Atlantic Nuclear Force—he may very well be right in his condemnation—is he arguing that he would be in favour of returning to the M.L.F. and, if so, would he expound his view of that force?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I thought that it was common ground that the right hon. Gentleman had sunk the M.L.F. I hoped that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) would pay credit to the right hon. Gentleman. He might press the Secretary of State a little closely in debate.
  Mr. Foot Mr. Foot rose—
  Mr. Thorneycroft: No, let him relax.
  There is, centred in paragraph 13, a slightly uncertain phrase which might mean that, lurking in the middle of the A.N.F., would be the M.L.F. which upsets the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.
  Mr. Foot Mr. Foot rose—
  Mr. Thorneycroft: Just one moment. Let him keep calm. I know that both he and his party have come out flatfooted against it, but I am prepared to

  1365
  accept from the Secretary of State that he has sunk the M.L.F. He has put in its place the perhaps even more unrealistic A.N.F. The important point here, I believe, is that they are both dead. They will never happen. The right hon. Gentleman will rely on the perfectly good nuclear organisation which exists in N.A.T.O. at present.
  What I was putting to the right hon. Gentleman was that I believe that the White Paper leaves unresolved and unrecognised the central problem. These paragraphs seem to me to be self-contradictory on the one issue which really matters. Are we prepared, in the elaboration of strategy, to move rather nearer to the French position, or do we wish to stand apart from it? If we differ, in what way, and for what reason and with what consequences?
  I am speaking to leading members of the Government who are about to go to Bonn and Paris. I think that this is an opportunity to hear something of their thinking before they go. I would hope that, before the Prime Minister goes, he will read and re-read these paragraphs. He might also read an article by the French Ambassador and by Mr. Drew Middleton in this week's Spectator on these subjects. The issue round which the White Paper skirts in terms which are cryptic, at times evasive and at times confused, is the issue of our long-term relations with the continent of Europe. I believe that this deserves a much more clear-headed and courageous statement than it has had here. I believe it to be in the long run more important for the future of this country than the immediate fortunes of any of the parties in this debate. I believe that what is said about it in this debate may matter more than any other subject.
  I commend this Amendment to the House. The Government have elected to force a Division in this debate by their opening paragraph in the White Paper, to make it a party issue. I see their purpose. They want to force their own supporters, under the guise of attacking the Conservative record, to march into the Lobby in favour of a nuclear policy. One can understand, though one must deplore, their tactics. The White Paper, as presented, casts doubt both on the Government's understanding of the issues, particularly of
  1366
  Europe, and on their willingness to supply the means to execute the rôles which they have set themselves. It records a major move towards a deterrent policy and we think that it is right that we should mark it and approve it.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman Mr. Sydney Silverman rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is attempting to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman before he sits down. Mr. Silverman.
  Mr. Silverman: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject may I remind him that so far—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—he has not said a single word about the Amendment which he has on the Order Paper. I do not think that he even moved it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of course he did."] Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to move it, and if he does, would be explain a little what it means? Only one word—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne to invite the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) to make a second speech.
  Mr. Silverman: I certainly had no intention of inviting the right hon. Gentleman to make a second speech—one was enough. But there is an Opposition Amendment, and therefore I wanted to ask him a simple question about what it means. It states at the end of the Amendment
  … welcomes the recognition by Her Majesty's Government of the importance of a powerful nuclear capability".
  The right hon. Gentleman apparently approves of that—he welcomes it. What I want to point out to him is that, somehow or other, the word "independent" has disappeared. Does the right hon. Gentleman's party no longer believe that the nuclear capability is independent?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Before I call on the first speaker from the back benches, may I observe to the House that already there are 39 hon. Members seeking to catch the eye of Mr. Speaker. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members who are called will remember that when they are making their speeches.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: I am a little embarrassed at introducing a discordant note into what, so far, seems to me to have been a quite "phoney" engagement between the two Front Benches. Indeed, my objection to this White Paper is that, taken as a body of proposals, it is almost exactly what I would have expected the right hon. Gentleman opposite to have proposed had he been sitting on this side of the House. I am still waiting for some explanation why the Labour Party defence policy, which we worked out over a number of years together, has been abandoned, and the Conservative policy adopted in its stead.
  Our line on the atom question has never been that we wished to abolish the independent nuclear deterrent. Our doctrine was that there was no such thing, that there was not an independent nuclear deterrent to abolish. This did not mean that we lacked a nuclear capacity. Of course we had that. It did not mean that we lacked the capacity to cause great injury to the Russians. Of course we could inflict injury in a few hours comparable with the great injuries they suffered in the last war. The injury would not have been fatal and would in no way have even reduced their capacity to destroy us, which was complete and absolute. Our case was that a nation which was indefensible could not have a credible nuclear deterrent because there were no conceivable circumstances in which we could have dared to use it. I think the Rand Survey paper worked out that it would have taken about 13 H-bombs to bring this country to an end as a governable community. We are within range of and without any defence whatever against at least 500 H-bombs, and a nation in that position cannot, by reason of its geography, have a credible deterrent.
  If that applies to our own deterrent, it applies equally, of course, to the A.N.F., because any deterrent over which we have a veto cannot be credible. We should always have to exercise that veto and so would any other indefensible European country. Therefore, the A.N.F. would, if it had ever come into being, simply have been a subtraction from the deterrent capacity of the West and would have contributed nothing to it. I should have thought it a wholly
  1368
  objectionable proposal and I agree with the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) that having done its job in sinking the M.L.F.—on the whole I think that was probably right—it certainly has no future life. I should have thought that it had built-in safety devices in having specific provisions which would make it unacceptable to everybody. It had a built-in American veto which is de Gaulle's whole case against N.A.T.O. As for giving the Germans equality, it gave us nuclear weapons, Polaris and V-bombers which we manned, which we commanded and which were part of our forces—even though they were assigned to N.A.T.O. —and asked the Germans to believe that they had nuclear equality by being allowed to contribute some of the personnel of mixed manned either land or surface-ship force. That is the sort of equality which I think segregationists in the Southern States used to describe as "equal but different". I should have thought it something highly unlikely to convince the Germans.
  There are only two ways in which we can give equality to our German allies. We can allow them to have nuclear weapons similar to our own or we can stop having nuclear weapons ourselves. Why we require quite incredible, unusable and highly expensive nuclear weapons in the European field I am still utterly unable to understand. I think they do nothing for the Alliance, except divide it, and if we dropped them I do not think it would take the French so very long to discover that after all their expensive and weakening effort they had reached the same sort of obsolescent futility in which we find ourselves in that sphere. There can be only one Western deterrent, only one credible Western deterrent, and that is indivisible and in America. Having sunk the A.N.F., we are left where we came in, with a British nuclear deterrent committed to N.A.T.O., in our case to be withdrawn if the Alliance breaks down and in the case of hon. Members opposite to be withdrawn in the event of a vital national interest. There may be a distinction, but I doubt whether there is a difference.
  I come now to the question of B.A.O.R. Here again I do not think it is any new discovery to find that that Army is not guarding the frontier. It is not posted to meet a Russian aggression. When I

  1369
  was there three years ago I pointed out in a paper which my right hon. Friend will remember that our forces were committed to deploy on forward positions, unfortified and unprotected, across difficult lines of communication and at least 24 hours further from us than from the Russians. Forces disposed such as our forces in Germany are disposed, and in the way Stalin's forces in Russia were disposed in 1941 for a political effect, are utterly at the mercy of an attack. Indeed, Stalin lost 100 divisions in a fortnight, none of which were able to engage the enemy at all. So from that point of view, in the event of a Russian invasion there, our forces would have a far better chance of intervening if they were back here in England than if they were posted, as they are at present, in Germany. However, I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that that is not the risk today. It is not going to happen. We are not there as a defending force but as a military presence.
  At dangerous frontiers it would be convenient to have a United Nations army, but it is not available, so the next best thing is to have international armies. On both sides, running through Europe, we have international armies and I agree that they should stay there because, while they are there, there is no great danger.
  The other point which we must bear in mind is the tremendous cost to us of bringing that Army back to Britain. Apart from its whole infrastructure, its equipment and so on—and all who have been to Germany have seen the scale of it—would need a new town of 150,000 people to accommodate the Army and its dependants who are at present in Germany. The charge on our resources —the burden on our building industry and so on—would be enormous and I cannot believe that it would be the best way of coping with the balance of payments problem involved. I cannot help feeling that the ingenuity of the Alliance will find a better way.
  I come to our third major commitment, the Indian Ocean, and I say at the outset that I do not believe that we have any British interests whatever in that area. The idea that we can maintain trade by maintaining a military presence is entirely obsolete. If somebody else owned the oil of the Middle East they would be equally keen to sell it and, if that somebody else was not controlled
  1370
  by the Gulf oil interests from America, they would be selling it at about half the price because Middle East costs are about half those of America.
  One of the sums I have never been able to work out is whether the profits which we draw from the oil companies are more or less than the additional price which we pay for our oil to maintain Gulf prices. It is a difficult sum to work out, and the same goes for tin and rubber. We are in the Indian Ocean area for altruistic reasons. We are there, I think rightly, to support the interests of others.
  Malaya is a successor country which we brought into existence and she should be defended from quite unjustifiable aggression. That we are seeking to do, but we cannot go on doing it indefinitely. It is a commitment which we should wind up as soon as we safely can. The suggestion that we should take on a nuclear rôle to support India and eventually use Polaris submarines to put nuclear missiles on Himalayan passes seems to me to be among the most fantastic pieces of nonsense I have ever heard. If India requires a nuclear shield she must get off the fence and join the Western Alliance, and so partake of the Western nuclear shield. She cannot remain independent in this respect, having us maintain an Indian Ocean power to support somebody who will not accept us as an ally.
  The thing that worries me more than anything else in this connection is that this is not conceived in the White Paper as something which we are anxious to wind up. We are not looking forward to the day when we will be as out of place in the Indian Ocean as an Indian Navy would be in the Channel. This is being looked at as one of the things which we should extend. There is talk of a new aircraft carrier and, with escalation of costs, that would probably cost £200 million to £250 million—and there is no other use for it.
  I say in parenthesis that I am all in favour of cost escalation in this respect and I hope that it goes on. It is the only promising disarmament line I have yet seen. I should like to see us all armed with a few enormously expensive weapons which we all recognise as being far too expensive ever to use, but this is all in parenthesis. Even on a pessimistic view of escalation costs, I have

  1371
  little doubt that such an aircraft carrier would cost £250 million by the time it was built, equipped and got into service. I would regard it as being utter nonsense. If the Americans want our assistance there they have the communications, the bases, through the Pacific, and we could work with them there if they wanted us to.
  Commander Anthony Courtney: I have been following the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument with great interest. Would he care to say what American bases there are west of Singapore?
  Mr. Paget: I was dealing with the Pacific Islands. The Americans still have bases in the Philippines. I was referring to going to Indonesia, Australia and so on through the Pacific.
  There may be something to be said for this Conservative foreign policy, but, on balance, I would be against it. However, I think that there is something to be said for it if only because it satisfies our great American ally—and, unlike some of my hon. Friends, I consider that an important thing to do.
  What I cannot understand the Government doing is, on the one hand, accepting Conservative foreign policy and defence commitments and, on the other, accepting their economic policies as a means of paying for them. I should have thought that one thing which 13 years of Tory rule had established was that the strain on our balance of payments in an uncontrolled economy got us into one balance of payments crisis after another and left us no chance whatever of developing investments sufficient to provide a 4 per cent. increase. or anything like it, in the national product. I am not for a moment saying that we are not a strong enough country to carry this defence policy should we decide that it was necessary, but we would have to be in a position then in which it was possible for us to control our priorities. General de Gaulle has been able to have an agrandising foreign policy for France, but look at the control he has over his economy. Not only is one-third of France's productive power nationalised and within his complete control but he depreciated his currency to the point which he found suitable to his economy, and he controls it. He controls his
  1372
  investment, both in the property market and in the money market. He even controls prices. That is a dirigiste economy. France also has a conscript system. Within that sort of control one can choose to allocate such a level as this to defence. Within our free system it is manifestly unavailable.
  We put it beyond our power to have anything like a de Gaullist policy or de Gaullist controls the moment we said that sterling should be a first priority, because at that point we put ourselves in the hands of the bankers. We went to them. It is no use saying that bank loans are without strings. They are always subject to strings. The borrower's policy has to be such as the bankers deem sound before they are prepared to renew the loan. I do not think any banker would have any objection to the nationalisation of steel. Bankers have been accustomed to nationalised steel, unnationalised steel and semi-nationalised steel. They know that it does not make any difference, that it is irrelevant. It is a bit of nonsense to which they will not object. We have already experienced their reaction, however, to a policy of increased pensions. As to low interest rates, the sort of interest rates which will enable young working-class couples to buy their own houses as we promised them, and the substantial transfer of purchasing power from those who own to those who earn, these are just not acceptable to bankers.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. This is a very wide debate, but the subject is defence.
  Mr. Paget: I am very sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was merely pointing out the economic consequences of spending on this scale. I will leave that point.
  With this defence drain, I cannot see the slightest chance of our getting out of the bankers' hands. A country cannot have this sort of drain and earn its way out of its loan position. So long as our priorities are, first, the maintenance of sterling as an international currency, secondly, the maintenance of a seat at the high table with this kind of nuclear foreign policy, and, thirdly, the expansion of our power to make war in the Indian Ocean, there is not the remotest chance of our being able to develop the level of investment necessary to give us a 4 per cent. increase in our national product. I

  1373
  have the uncomfortable feeling that, in saying this, I am saying something which all my right hon. Friends know.
  The depressing thing is that I have a feeling that the basic decisions here have been funked and that one is simply proceeding upon the basis that they did not have to be taken. There are Departments such as this proceeding with great energy and panache, but proceeding in directions which will be mutually destructive, because the basic decisions are wrong. I remind my right hon. Friend that all our promises to the electorate are based squarely on our being able to find a sufficient balance of investment to give us the 4 per cent. increase in the national product on which all our plans are based. If we do not fulfil those promises, if we fall down on those expectations, Nuneaton and Leyton will not be the nadir of our misfortunes—they will be only the beginning.
  5.55 p.m.
  Mr. Aubrey Jones: It would be indelicate of me, at the beginning of my speech, to add to the discord which exists between the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and his Front Bench on the nuclear question. I will give later my reasons for the apparent similarity between the posture adopted by the present Government and that adopted by their predecessors. They are more subtle and intractable than he made them out to be. I should like to invert the order in which the hon. and learned Gentleman approached this question. I want, first, to talk of the budget as a whole, then of the conventional part, and, finally, the nuclear part.
  This afternoon the Secretary of State said that we had no new policy here, that what we had was a first engagement, a first grip. What we have indeed is a statement of aspiration, the aspiration that defence expenditure be kept fixed in real terms for the next few years. In addition to that statement of aspiration, we had from the Secretary of State one or two hints or trailers about how policy might evolve. I want, first, to comment on the aspiration and then on the trailers.
  In this debate we should address ourselves to the question whether this is a realistic aspiration. What are likely to be the consequences of trying to hold our defence expenditure fixed in real
  1374
  terms for the next few years? As the Secretary of State said, both the Soviet Union and the United States have reduced their military budgets. I do not think that the reduction in the Soviet budget is of much relevance to our problem, because no direct comparison can be made. But we can attempt a comparison with the United States. There are, as I see it, three main reasons for the reduction in the American military budget.
  The first is the fact that when President Kennedy came to power in 1960 he was under the mistaken belief that there was a great missile gap, to the disadvantage of the United States, between the Soviet Union and America. Therefore, there was an accelerated rate of spending on the nuclear deterrent. That has now tapered off. This is one reason for the reduction in the American military budget. There was not the same rate of increase in this country's expenditure on the nuclear deterrent in the early years of this decade, and this particular road to economy is, in my view, closed to us.
  The second reason why the American military budget has been contracted is that there has been a great emphasis in the United States on competitive procurement. Ours, however, is a very limited national framework and our defence industries are contracting. Therefore, this route to economy is also closed to us.
  Finally, we are left with cost-effectiveness techniques. We are at the beginning of them. They can achieve something, but to my mind they will not alone, as I think the right hon. Gentleman conceded, help us to hold defence expenditure at a fixed level for the next few years in real terms.
  The economies have to come from somewhere else. There are only two sources. One could stage a savage and arbitrary cut in the whole of our research and development programme, but it would be foolish to do that at the very moment when we are trying to make independence arrangements with other countries. This would be to throw away our negotiating card. This is ruled out, as the right hon. Gentleman conceded.
  Rule that out, and there is only one other source—namely, numbers of men. The Secretary of State gave figures of expenditure on men, accommodation,

  1375
  and so on. He said that this amounts to 50 per cent. of the military budget. Frankly, I am surprised that it should have been so low, but I take the Secretary of State's estimate. I would myself have been inclined to put it higher. The only real room for economy is the reduction of some commitment or other which will lead to the release of men. The trailer in the White Paper, and which we have heard this afternoon, is that the reduction in the commitment should be in Western Europe.
  I should like, therefore, to say something about the distribution of our conventional effort as between Europe and east of Suez. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the military dangers are entirely east of Suez and not in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman gave some reasons for this. I will give at least two reasons why I believe the military dangers east of Suez are likely to increase. The first is the crash nuclear programme of China, which seems to me to have most ominous implications —far more ominous now than appeared to be the case two years ago. The second is the fact that the Soviet Union is converting some of its conventional forces into marine forces, and one must infer from this that in a few years' time the Soviet Union will appear east of Suez. The dangers there are increasing.
  There is no immediate danger in Europe, although one ought not to discount the potential danger in Europe. As I see it, Russian policy has been concerned with preserving the invulnerability of Soviet territory, and as a means to this end she has historically tried to establish control over the bridgehead leading from Western Europe to the East. If there were a chance of establishing more effective control over that bridgehead, we ought not to discount the possibility that the chance would be seized.
  If we apply the military criterion, then, the emphasis which the right hon. Gentleman has laid east of Suez is right. But the question is whether the military criterion is the right one. The right hon. Gentleman said that the military policy is an instrument of foreign policy. The right criterion, surely, is not the military one but the diplomatic one. Where are the diplomatic objectives of this coun-
  1376
  try? Do they lie primarily in Europe or east of Suez? If we apply this diplomatic criterion, do we get the same answer?
  I suspect that the Government, approaching the question in this way, would reach exactly the same answer. They would place the emphasis east of Suez. This disturbs me. In the last Parliament right and hon. Gentlemen opposite used to accuse my right hon. Friends of using the nuclear deterrent to perpetuate a special relationship with the United States which they thought the facts of the times no longer warranted. I suggest that they themselves are now inviting the charge that they are using bases east of Suez to perpetuate a special relationship with the United States, which, in its turn, is illusory and can deflect this country from its real long term interests.
  A classic example of this was the speech which the Prime Minister made on the last occasion that the House debated defence in December. The right hon. Gentleman said that during his visit to Washington he had had full recognition of this country's unique rôle East of Suez. No one, he said, could "compete with us in the range of the contribution we can make in those vast areas beyond Europe." He said that this is what admitted this country to the top table, and that no one else could do it. Good, true-blue stuff!
  It is no doubt very gratifying that we should please the United States and that we should be admitted to the top table, but does the pursuit of this gratification coincide with the pursuit of the real interests of this country? I do not believe it does. As I see it, the problem of this country is this. We have inherited, as a sovereign entity, certain overseas responsibilities which have grown and which are likely to continue growing in relation to our power to discharge them. We can no longer, as the right hon. Gentleman conceded, discharge them alone. The only conceivable way of discharging them is to fit ourselves into a stronger and more powerful unit. That is Europe. This, I think, is the part which is missing from the policy of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  I have never seen a contradiction between European policy and an east of Suez or Commonwealth policy. I have always regarded European policy as a

  1377
  means of enabling us the better to discharge our east of Suez policy. The main diplomatic objective, as I see it, is Europe, and from this point of view our conventional and military presence in Europe is a great diplomatic significance. Over the past few years we have relinquished command after command in Europe. We have diverted air force units as well as ground troops in Europe, and we have in this way fostered the impression that we are no longer interested in Europe. I hope that we are not now going to add fresh colour to this belief.
  I accept that we should attempt to revise N.A.T.O. strategy in Europe, and if we can reach an agreed revised strategy we can both achieve the financial target of keeping expenditure fixed and we can achieve our diplomatic objective of remaining close to Europe. But if we fail to reach an agreed revision, one of two things must go. Either the right hon. Gentleman's target cannot be reached, or we dissociate ourselves from Europe by a unilateral withdrawal.
  The last, in my view, would be an utter disaster. In looking at the Government's aspirations to hold military expenditure for the next few years, let us not leave out this possible eventuality. This, I think, may conceivably loom before us.
  Captain Walter Elliot: My right hon. Friend seems to be arguing, as did the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), that the defence of the West is not a worldwide problem. Is he arguing that if the area of the Indian Ocean fell under, say, Communist domination, it would not affect Europe and the West?
  Mr. Jones: I regard the defence of the West as a worldwide problem. What I am suggesting is that in attempting to discharge our responsibilities east of Suez we must strengthen our European base. Unless we do that, we shall be less able to discharge our east of Suez responsibilities. So much for the conventional side.
  I should now like to come to the question of the deterrent. As I see it, as a result of the A.N.F. proposals, as far as we know them, one can divide the present British strategic nuclear effort, like Gaul, into three parts. There is, first, the part east of Suez, part of the V-bomber force.
  1378
  There is, secondly, the national contribution to the Atlantic force; and, thirdly, the mixed-manned element.
  Let us look, first, at the force east of Suez. Under the Nassau Agreement this country has assigned its V-bomber force in its entirety to N.A.T.O., subject to the right of withdrawal, one of the contingencies being east of Suez. What we are now doing is exercising our right of withdrawal in perpetuity for purposes east of Suez. It has been said—I believe the Prime Minister has said it—that nuclear war is indivisible. One cannot have nuclear war in one part of the world without affecting the rest of the world. If this is so, as I believe it to be, the corollary is that a nuclear organisation must also be indivisible. The Nassau Agreement, as I see it, was a step towards the creation of a single indivisible nuclear organisation.
  On the face of it, the detachment of part of the V-bomber force from the assignment of N.A.T.O. is a step backwards from this objective. We understand, of course, the reasons why this has come about. The Government are concerned, perfectly rightly, lest India should acquire the bomb, and they may hope that by having an independent bomb east of Suez they can join with the United States and the Soviet Union to offer India a nuclear guarantee. I do not believe that the Soviet Union is likely in any circumstances to join such a guarantee.
  The only conceivable guarantee must be a joint British and American guarantee which, I agree entirely with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, would be the end of the Indian policy of non-alignment. But what is likely to appear is the creation of a Pacific or east of Suez nuclear force. We shall have two nuclear organisations in the world, an Atlantic one and an east-of-Suez one. I should have thought that it ought to be one of our primary objectives, even if this comes about, to try and integrate these two organisations. I would have preferred quite a different approach. I would have preferred to see N.A.T.O. extend its interests and move outwards to other parts of the world. But let us, at any rate, have in mind a single organisation.
  Then we come to the national contribution to the Atlantic Force. I entirely

  1379
  agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. I see no difference between this contribution as it was envisaged by my right hon. Friends and as it is now proposed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Had my right hon. Friends stayed in office the contribution would have been withdrawable when supreme national interests were at stake, that is, had the United States refused to come to our aid. But at that very moment the Alliance would have broken down, and in that sort of situation right hon. Members opposite are now retaining the right to withdraw. These two things, therefore, are essentially the same.
  Finally, we come to the mixed-manned element. I thought that the Minister of Defence slightly misled the House at this point, because he suggested that in the Atlantic Nuclear Force there was complete equality between a country contributing to the mixed-manned element and a country contributing a national contribution It is perfectly true that under the proposals, as I understand them, Germany, as a participant in the mixed-manned force, would have an equal say with ourselves in Atlantic nuclear policy. This is a change and an advance, but in other respects—in two at least—there is no equality.
  First, as I understand it, no new weapons are envisaged. The German participation in a mixed-manned force would be confined to our V-bombers, an obsolescent force with no succeeding force to follow. Secondly, the old discrimination between this country and France—both of which are entitled to withdraw their national contributions—and Germany, which could not withdraw its contribution, would remain.
  Therefore, we have three parts of the nuclear force. The first part east of Suez represents a step backwards. The middle part, the national contribution, represents, as I see it, no change. The mixed-manned part represents one step forward, but all in all there is no essential change.
  Mr. Tom Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman state in the terms of his argument what he conceives are our obligations or otherwise to Malaysia in the face of possible Indonesian aggression?
  Mr. Jones: We have, of course, an obligation to defend Malaysia. All I say is that that is an interest not only of this country but of the United States and indeed of the whole of N.A.T.O.
  A question which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton did not answer, but which my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) touched upon, and one to which the House should address itself, is why it is that despite an apparent violent difference of language both Front Benches have arrived at practically identical nuclear arrangements. The answer—and this is a matter which we should consider very seriously—is that as a country we are on the horns of a very cruel dilemma. The dilemma is that, on the one hand, we want to provide room in the Alliance for France, and if France comes in at all it can only be on the basis of a withdrawable national contribution. We also want to provide room in the alliance for Germany, but in the light of German relations with the Soviet Union we cannot provide for a withdrawable German contribution.
  How can we choose between these two irreconcilable things? What my right hon. Friends did, and this was behind their policy, was to keep this option open. I think that they were right. The essence of the A.N.F. is, once again, to keep this option open, and at the moment I think that it is right to do so. But, indefinitely, it cannot be kept open. Some day or other, and in my belief sooner rather than later, we shall have to choose.
  The essence of the choice is: with whom do we align ourselves? Do we align ourselves with France, or do we seek to align ourselves with Western Germany? I do not pretend to understand what the French position really is. It is possible—I do not say probable—that we might as a country have obtained entry into the Common Market had we been prepared to countenance some kind of nuclear deal with France and the emergence of a separate European nuclear deterrent. I say that it is possible and not probable, because I doubt whether France would have admitted anybody else into the leadership of Europe. Be that as it may, my right hon. Friends in the last Parliament refused to pay this price of entry into the Common Market. I believe that they were quite right. The Government now do not have it in mind

  1381
  to pay this price, either, and I believe that they are quite right, for a variety of reasons. The most important reason of all is that a European deterrent would disturb more than anything else any possibility of a détente between the West and the Soviet Union.
  If we do not go along with France, and neither the preceding Government nor the present Government seem to wish to do this, then we face one of two alternatives. Either our diplomacy is condemned to utter immobility, as it has been since we were excluded from the Common Market, or we face bravely and boldly the only other course, and that is that we must seek to align ourselves with Western Germany. To my mind, our aim ought to be the establishment of an Atlantic, not a European, organisation into which Western Germany would be effectively integrated. This is the only way of ensuring the triumph of the moderates in Western Germany and, therefore, in the long term the only real way of reaching a détente with the Soviet Union. To my mind, it is also the only alternative road—indeed, I think, the only road—really open to us to go into Europe.
  The responsibility of fashioning an Atlantic organisation of this kind has been surrendered by the United States President to the Prime Minister. The initiative is now the Prime Minister's. To my mind, he has not yet seized it effectively, possibly for the simple reason that his own sayings and his own back benchers prevent him from being as forthcoming towards Western Germany as he would need to be. His most important aim in the visits abroad which he is now about to undertake should, in my view, be to seek much more energetically than hitherto a closer identity of interest in defence and in other matters between this country and Western Germany.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Tomney: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) has made a most intelligent speech which, like the one we heard from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), served to demonstrate the problem facing the nation as a whole, as distinct from the House, in deciding for both the present and for the next 10 years or so
  1382
  how its defence arrangements can be finally and irrevocably fixed.
  When I read the White Paper, as I did with great interest, I had the feeling that I used to have years ago when I went to the cinema where the showing was continuous and the programme came round again. I felt that this was where we came in, and this was where some of us went out a long time ago. I looked back to 1951, when there was a defence bill of £1,400 million or so, and I recalled what happened at that time, which has kept us on the boil internally in our party for 13 years and which, in no small measure, has, on occasion, probably denied us the right to office.
  In its simple objective, the essence of the White Paper is "Mr. Dulles and the trip-wire". It is nothing more or less than that. But when we read the White Paper and study the implications of what does not appear between the lines, what should be written there but is not, the full argument of it begins to unfold. Apparently, we have as a nation now arrived at a situation where we can go neither forward nor backward. This is an appalling dilemma for any nation to be in, and for us especially with our great financial problems, our Commonwealth commitments, sometimes overstated, and our desire still to be regarded as a nuclear member of the top table in a special relationship with the United States.
  Let us frankly recognise what the position of the United States is. The United States adopts global policies and strategies according to the circumstances as the United States sees them, in Cuba, Vietnam or anywhere else. Considerations of European or other interests are secondary. If the United States wanted to apply a global policy to Europe tomorrow, it would do so with or without the concurrence of Great Britain, France, Germany or N.A.T.O. I say this for very good reason. Only a country such as the United States with its great power, almost in charge of the global strategy of its allies, is able to dictate the terms on which that strategy shall proceed. This is the dilemma which we still face. To take just two organisations, N.A.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O., the United States brings with its membership the power of its armed forces and the power of its industry. Inevitably, this gives the United

  1383
  States a special position. This is why the Atlantic concept to which the right hon. Member for Hall Green referred offers the right course for Great Britain, if it can be achieved.
  It has to be recognised, after all the arguments have been propounded, that, with the ever-growing arms burden on this country, which now penalises every man, woman and child to the extent of £40 a year, a burden fixed today by the Secretary of State for Defence as a programme for several years ahead, we shall be running an escalator which we cannot control. I shall explain why in a moment.
  If we are to stay as a premier partner, as we should like to be, in the Alliance, with or without France, or with France and Western Germany, the concept of an all-embracing nuclear Atlantic Alliance is the only true one for us. It is to this that we must address ourselves, because impinging upon us is the terrible weight of the American industrial arms machine.
  Events have proved time and time again that integration of arms, deployent, strategy, staff consultations, tactical manæuvres and so on can be separate things, but, when it comes to the sale of arms to allies, this is a United States market, kept firmly and tightly within United States influence.
  This was one of the prime reasons for the rundown of Britain's defence industries, not that we could not compete but that, despite the Alliance, we were not allowed to do so. This is a continuing situation, and we had better recognise it because it means that we may, year by year, have to purchase arms from the United States which by themselves will involve an escalating cost. Therefore, in this situation, we must look to our diplomatic and foreign policies to see where we are now and where we would like to be.
  This is why I was so interested in the former Prime Minister's first reference a month ago to the possibilities of interesting ourselves more in the Far East and in Europe as distinct from N.A.T.O. This raises the question of where our responsibilities should lie. Whether for conventional or for non-conventional forces, the burden is on
  1384
  us, and, what is more, I do not believe that this country can adopt only a conventional rôle. This is not possible unless we are prepared to go alongside other non-conventional forces of a tactical nuclear kind. The idea of a so-called conventional holding force in Europe, with escalation of a conflict to nuclear war after a few weeks, is just a dream. It could never really happen, and, if it did, the thing would be over in less than 30 days.
  In this situation, who controls what and for what purpose? The United States has 58 separate and distinct items of tactical missile weapon available for conventional targets. It also has 1,000 intercontinental ballistic missiles, with an over-kill capacity which defies imagination. Probably, for all I know, the Soviet Union has the same.
  Between these two factors is Europe, with its conflicting histories, its Berlin Wall, its divided ideologies, the illusions of President de Gaulle, his false grandeur and force de frappe, and Britain's contribution under the Brussels Treaty, of 55,000 men, being maintained by the British taxpayer in a competitive world at a crippling cost. How do we slide out of that? The answer is that we cannot.
  Any suggestion of a reduction in forces or a change of policy goes before the N.A.T.O. Council for a majority vote, and even if we withdrew 20,000 or 40,000 men, where would we put them? In Carlisle, or Salisbury, or Swansea, or Nottingham? There is nowhere to house them in this country.
  Someone has to take a longer look at this situation in diplomatic and political terms and tie it in more tightly with a worldwide concept of an Atlantic community as quickly as possible. Germany's position and her concepts are worthy of study because, in every situation since the formation of the Common Market in which she has been at issue with France, the French have won. Why? One reason is that the French have not yet recognised the Oder-Neisse Line. Another factor in German thinking is that American troops are not bound to be in Germany by the Brussels Treaty. They also recognise that the Berlin Wall is a geographical factor which separates France from Britain.
  All these things lead the formation of German thought and have pushed them

  1385
  ever closer to France, despite the arguments that have arisen between them and in which French will has usually prevailed. Thus we get the situation where President de Gaulle goes for his own nuclear force and will not be diverted by any talk of A.N.F. or M.L.F. The German position in the A.N.F. would give them a voice in a minor rôle, but the idea is not sufficiently attractive for France to accept such a proposition.
  Then we come to the concept of our so-called position east of Suez. This is supposed to be a position that overrides other considerations in Europe. In considering the future, one can always tell, for obvious reasons, in this country, through the militancy of certain organisations on the left fringe, which way the Soviet Union is thinking. If the A.N.F. is set up, I can see no possibility of a settlement in Europe or a nuclear-free zone.
  At this stage all these factors should be considered and studied before we talk about the Far East. If we are considering reserving a percentage of our V-bombers for a special, so-called independent mission outside N.A.T.O., for the so-called defence of India against what may be threatened nuclear attack from China, then we should take a long, objective look at it.
  We know that the Government are retaining Polaris and the bomber force—or what is left of it—and that there is more than an offside chance that we shall be left with 50 TSR2s when the day comes. The concept of the future in the White Paper could be the end of the line for an interdependent British deterrent. Before we make such an offer to India, we would do well to pause. What have we in that part of the world, in India? If we get bogged down in nuclear forces in India. which has had a growth of population totalling 80 million in 10 years, our treasury will be drained dry. There will be no escape. One thing Asiatics do superbly well. They know how to play on the humanitarian instincts of Western intellectuals. We should make a long, objective appraisal before we commit ourselves.
  In 1951 I prophesied in this House the present position between China and Russia. A split between them on ideology can mean, if we are clever
  1386
  enough, that we can consolidate our principles either with one or both. This is what we should be thinking about. China has a population of 600 million and an ancient civilisation, with the problem, among others, of Taiwan. I have been studying the history of Taiwan. As far back as 1760 it seems to have been very firmly Chinese. What has happened since 1870 is another matter. This bone of contention between China and the United States will have to be tackled some day and the Chinese will take a dim view of our deliberately opting for a special nuclear force for the protection of the Indian sub-continent. Should we do it at this stage, before any talks, before full exposition of what the differences are?
  It is for these reasons that I find the policy in the White Paper so indistinct, not so much in what it contains but in what lies between the lines. We have here a commitment to a nuclear deterrent, either within N.A.T.O. or outside it. There are many contradictions in the White Paper and they lead to the inescapable conclusion that the policy of defence over the last 10 years has been unrealistic. Some of us have always tried to take a realistic national position and that has meant our having the courage to stand up and suffer indignity and abuse. That is why I said at the beginning of my speech that this was where we came in. We have come right round again to the full sense of national responsibility for defence in its full context.
  From this stage onwards, and if, within 10 years, this burden proves to be too heavy for the country to carry, all the functional costing and evaluation will not make any difference. In between now and then we must look at the whole concept of Atlantic affairs and Europe to decide upon a full global strategy. Great efforts should be made, at whatever cost, to bring President de Gaulle away from his position before he finally gets a bomb for his delivery system. Great effort should be made for some kind of top diplomatic contact with the Chinese because, if we get continuance of the present situation between American and Chinese mutual aggressiveness and an ideological quarrel between China and Russia and, finally, an alignment between the United States and Russia, it will take us a very long time to cure it.
  6.40 p.m.
  Brigadier Sir John Smyth: I always enjoy listening to a speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney), because he always thinks things out for himself and takes his own line and always has many interesting things to say.
  Ever since the last war, and even before, we in this country have been rightly convinced that the defensive strength of the West must be built up on the principle of collective security. I was a little surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence speak today as though he had only just thought that Britain could no longer take a line of its own. We have been convinced of that for some time.
  The fact that modern weapons take such a long time to develop and complete and that allied strategy is so complicated makes it important that we should have continuity in our planning, and continuity and confidence are all-important in any alliance. We have made great strides in N.A.T.O. and our other alliances on this principle and the result, 20 years after the war, is that global peace continues, although there are unpleasant areas of strife and tension, particularly east of Suez. This global peace has been maintained mainly, almost entirely, because of the nuclear deterrent.
  Although we have attained collective security abroad, for many years we have not achieved collective security in the House of Commons, and that is a very great pity. I made my maiden speech on the wish that defence should not be subject to party politics, as it certainly is today. We were always told by Sir Winston Churchill, when he was Leader of the Opposition, that we should try to support everything which the Labour Party put forward which was in the national interest, and to try, first, to get subjects of agreement rather than to disagree with the Labour Party all the time. One example of that is when Mr. Attlee, as he then was, decided that we should have a British atom bomb. He did not tell us anything about it until after he had made the decision, but we supported it.
  When the Conservative Party came to power in 1951, we were not handed a perfect defence set-up, far from it. Conscription was still going on six years after the war and there seemed to be no sign
  1388
  of being able to do away with it. We had had the Korean War and without calling up reserves we had not been able to send even one brigade to Korea from an Army of 400,000 men. This was the nadir of our defence arrangements. The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who often speaks in these debates, has always been frank about that. He was Minister of Defence at the time.
  We had been handed very expensive Estimates for the Labour Party scheme of rearmament. We had supported the Labour Party about them because they were obviously essential in the national interest, but we appreciated what a heavy burden they would be. Owing to the Labour Party rearmament programme, by 1952–53 we were spending 9·8 per cent. of our gross national product on defence, or, at 1964 prices, £2,200 million a year. This was a level which we could not allow to continue, and we had to prune it back.
  When the Labour Party was under the leadership of Mr. Attlee, there was a certain amount of reciprocity between the two sides of the House on defence policy, but after his departure a big divergence between the two sides began to occur, and that divergence has continued and increased. Mr. Gaitskell, a boyhood friend of mine—I knew him well—fought a gallant rearguard action about this matter with his own party. Any hon. Member who has not done so should read Mr. Gaitskell's speech on defence of 1st March, 1960. I have quoted it before and it is well worth reading. It contains his views on the nuclear deterrent.
  Since then, we have not had an agreed British defence policy. My quarrel with the Secretary of State is that in his speeches, both in opposition and in the Government, he always seems to try to divide the House rather than to unite it about defence policy. That is his fundamental error which he has continued into this White Paper.
  Of course, defence strategy must be capable of change to meet changing conditions, but major changes of defence policy and thinking not to meet changing conditions, but to satisfy party political views, are at best a weakness and at worst an absolute danger.

  1389
  It was for this reason that there was considerable anxiety among our allies when they knew it was likely that we would have a Labour Government. They thought that that might result in a big upset in Western defence planning. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft), I must congratulate the Secretary of State on having kept as closely as he has to Conservative policy. This Statement on Defence will have been eagerly awaited by our allies, our potential enemies, the House and the country and, last but not least, by our own British and Commonwealth Armed Forces.
  The morale of the Services, who do a splendid job of peace keeping for us in Europe and so many other parts of the world, largely depends on how their efforts are valued by the House and the country. I am sure that the Services were greatly heartened by the tribute paid to them by the Secretary of State when he was on this side of the House, when he spoke in the defence debate only a year ago.
  The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I think that the whole nation is deeply proud of the rôle which we have played in recent weeks in East Africa and in Cyprus and is proud of the speed and efficiency with which our services reacted to the challenge … I do not believe that there is any other Army in the world which, faced with these extremely difficult situations …"—
  He continued in that fashion and he also said:
  "All of us on both sides of the House are delighted that the Government have decided to maintain Gurka recruiting up to a level of 15,000 …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1964; Vol. 690, c. 470–4.]
  The Secretary of State subsequently visited our forces in Malaysia and paid high tributes to the splendid job which they were doing under very difficult conditions. When he came back, on 17th June last year, he said:
  "I think that the courage and ability and patience shown by the Malaysian and British troups in this situation is well-nigh incredible … One lesson which I know the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) would agree about, is the supreme value of Gurka troops in such a situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1964; Vol. 696, c. 1298.]
  I certainly did agree about that, and I complimented the right hon. Gentleman on his energy and the way that he had
  1390
  gone round and seen the troops and visited the Gurkhas and the interest which he had taken. The right hon. Gentleman also acknowledged that the defence position which he had taken over from my right hon. Friend was the best that any Defence Minister in this country had had.
  I therefore strongly condemn the Secretary of State for the very cheap and unworthy bit of party political propaganda with which he opened the Defence White Paper. That sort of thing is quite unprecedented in a document of such world importance, and I have never known it to happen before.
  As hon. Members opposite have often quoted The Times about defence, I should like to do the same. I remember that on one occasion, after Mr. Gordon Walker, speaking from the Dispatch Box on this side, had quoted that newspaper four times, I said, in replying to him:
  "He is behind 'The Times'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c. 276.]
  Certainly, The Times at that time was a great supporter of the Labour Party point of view.
  Last Wednesday, The Times, in its leading article on the Statement on Defence, said:
  "The burden of the introduction is that the present Government have inherited 'defence forces which are seriously overstretched and in some respects under-equipped'. But there is very little evidence adduced in subsequent pages to support this claim",
  as my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth said. The Times goes on:
  "On reading a document of this kind one is bound to ask what is its purpose. If it is to state a case, it does so in a most scrappy and inconsequential way. If it is to inform, it must be said that the new information of significance on other than financial aspects is vague."
  The Times ends by saying that the White Paper is wanting even in any masterful exposition of the problem and suggests that it would have been better to have no defence review at all.
  That is very severe criticism from The Times. It may be that, owing to the departure of its military correspondent, now Lord Chalfont, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, the newspaper felt that it could no longer keep up with the Joneses. However, I think that the House will agree that on two

  1391
  subjects the Labour Party has been absolutely consistent over the years. The first is that it wanted to get rid of the British nuclear deterrent in any shape or form. That was its general feeling. It wanted to offload it in some way. Secondly, it wanted to increase Britain's conventional forces in N.A.T.O.
  In the debate on the Army and Air Force, 23rd November, 1962, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), speaking from the Dispatch Box for the Labour Party, in opposition, said that four divisions in the B.A.O.R. were not enough and that they must be increased. In the debate on the Army Estimates, he said, speaking for the Labour Party at the Dispatch Box:
  "As I have said, I would put the N.A.T.O. priority without question first, and I would put it certainly not at 51,000, 52,000 nor at 55,000, but at … 80,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c. 622.]
  The following year, the hon. and learned Member, again speaking for the Labour Party from the Dispatch Box, repeated that statement—that the Labour Party, if it came to power, would increase N.A.T.O. by a further 25,000 men. The Leader of the Liberal Party, whose speech I followed in that debate, said that he would go even higher. Certainly, he was competing with the Labour Party in the number of extra men that he would put into N.A.T.O.
  On every occasion I have said that a large-scale conventional war in Europe was out of the question—I have said this, I think, in four defence debates running—and that it was the nuclear deterrent which would make it so. The then Minister of Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth, said in last year's debate on Defence:
  "A large-scale coventional war is happily. unlikely … because there is every probability that large-scale conventional war would at a fairly early stage escalate into nuclear war".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1964; Vol. 690, c. 443.]
  Therefore, it was nothing new when the Secretary of State said exactly the same thing, as though he had suddenly thought of it all by himself.
  We are glad that the Labour Party has at last seen the light in these matters, and paragraphs 9 and 18 of the White Paper make this absolutely clear. I must quote paragraph 18 because I think it
  1392
  all-important that the House should realise what it means. It says:
  "In recent years the United States has developed an overhelming nuclear strike force which is committed to the direct support of Western Europe in case of war. Its purpose is to deter aggression. In the unlikely event that it should fail"—
  that is, I suppose, to deter aggression—
  "its use would cause such destruction that it is impossible to conceive of a land campaign in Europe lasting for many days. It is, therefore, pointless to tie up resources against the risk of a prolonged war in Europe following the nuclear exchange."
  That is fairly forthright. Again, we can congratulate the Secretary of State on coming round more to our point of view.
  I turn to the Labour Party's policy on the British contribution to the deterrent. It was really against having a deterrent at all, whether interdependent or independent. I remember that Mr. Gordon Walker, who used to speak as "Shadow" Foreign Secretary or "Shadow" Secretary of State for Defence, said in a speech outside the House, which I noted down, on 16th May, 1963, that a Labour Government
  "would not throw away the nuclear weapons we possess but they should be allowed to run down and not be replaced".
  On Polaris submarines, the Labour Party stated, in its election manifesto:
  "The Nassau Agreement to buy Polaris know-how and Polaris missiles from the U.S.A. will add nothing to the deterrent strength of the Western Alliance and it will mean utter dependence on the U.S.A. for their supplies."
  It made clear that it was not going to do it, and that was only during the election. But now it proposes to do just the opposite of what it said. It wants to reduce our conventional forces in N.A.T.O. and keep the four Polaris submarines now under construction, and these with the V-bombers with the exception of those required for commitments outside N.A.T.O. will be consigned to the proposed Atlantic Nuclear Force, and will constitute, in the words of the White Paper:
  "a massive British contribution to the Alliance".
  "Massive" is a very powerful word. There is no question about the Government running down the nuclear weapons. So Britain is to remain a great nuclear Power after all and is also to have an independent deterrent of her own. Again, I congratulate the Secretary of State for

  1393
  Defence on having done his best to follow the policy of the Conservative Government.
  Our massive contribution towards the Atlantic Nuclear Force, as the Prime Minister told us originally, is to be for ever, or for "as long as we both shall live". But nothing in this wicked world is really for ever, not even diamonds, and if the independent part of our deterrent does not prove sufficient for the task that it has east of Suez, I am certain that we shall be able to reinforce it either from the A.N.F. or from N.A.T.O.
  With regard to the all-important area east of Suez, we are saddled there with a commitment in defence of Malaysia which all parties in the House agree that we must continue to honour. The Secretary of State should, however, turn his mind to the possibility of the local inhabitants, the Malays and the Chinese, doing much more than they are doing to defend their own country. That is absolutely right, because this Malaysian situation may go on for years. Possibly, the United Nations peace-keeping force could use Malaysia as a first training ground.
  Our Gurkhas are doing what everyone would acknowledge to be a wonderful job there, but many of us, on both sides of the House, consider that they should be given a more permanent place in our defence organisation. They are merely shown in the White Paper as an adjunct. In answer to a Written Question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), on Monday of last week, the Deputy Secretary of State said that the Gurkhas will remain at their present strength only as long as our present commitments in support of Malaysia continues substantially unchanged. In other words, if the Gurkhas do their task well, they will fight themselves out of a job.
  This is very distressing to the Gurkha brigade, as I know very well, and it is very unhelpful to recruiting machinery in Nepal. Why not raise the ceiling of our British Army forces from 180,000 to 195,000 to include 15,000 Gurkhas? The Gurkhas would then feel that they were really part of Britatin's forces, it would be a just reward for all that the Gurkhas have done for us and it would ensure our getting the best recruits from Nepal and
  1394
  the pick of the British officers from Sandhurst.
  I suggested to the Deputy Secretary of State that he should visit Nepal during his Eastern tour, but I quite understand that time did not allow. I think, however, that a Minister should visit Nepal when opportunity permits. He might have a look at the new road which the Chinese have forced through from Lhasa to Khatmandu, the capital of Nepal, about which we hear very little in the House of Commons. However, our great British Ambassador, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, will be visiting Nepal in 10 days' time and he intends to see a number of our Gurkha pensioners, which will send up the morale of the Gurkhas and their recruiting sky high. The continuing effort made by the Chinese to infiltrate into Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan are all part of the grand design to establish a position from which to hold a permanent threat over the Indian sub-Continent.
  In that connection, I make an urgent request to the Government. In view of the dangerous Communist threat, it is sheer lunacy that India and Pakistan should still be at loggerheads over Kashmir. A settlement of this problem is, perhaps, the most vital thing that could be done in Asia today. In the present situation, both India and Pakistan are tending to waste their strength and ruin their economies by glowering at one another over the cease-fire line in this lovely country of Kashmir, which I know so well. It could surely become a guaranteed independent State. It is incapable of harming anybody. If the British Government could help to bring this about, they would have greatly strengthened the chances of peace in this part of the world.
  In conclusion, I again congratulate the Secretary of State on having retained so much of the main tenet of the Conservative Government's defence policy, despite having to eat so many of his words and those of his colleagues. The right hon. Gentleman is, however, dedicated to the problem, as I know, and I realise the difficulties that he has had to face. They are difficulties in his own party more than anything else. I only venture to remind the right hon. Gentleman that defence is a long-term business.

  1395
  Ministers of Defence come and go, some more quickly than others, and it is the duty of each of them to maintain Britain's contribution to the peace of the world at the highest possible level, remembering always that it is only too easy to destroy the defence machinery but that it is a long and arduous business to build it up again.
  7.6 p.m.
  Mr. K. Zilliacus: I agree with the right hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) that there is a great measure of similarity between the defence policy of the Government and the defence policy of the Opposition, and that this has been achieved by the Government eating a great many of their words spoken before the election.
  The debate between the two Front Benches has been conducted on what I might call the "Annie get your gun" principle, "Anything you can do I can do better". I shall strike a somewhat discordant note in this harmony, because in my view—I say it with sadness—the Defence White Paper is not so much a policy, more a way of death for the Labour Party and for everything for which it stands and, eventually, for humanity, including the people of this country.
  This defence policy does not make sense in terms of the needs of the people, nor of the needs of our economy, nor is it compatible with our foreign policy, although we have declared that our foreign policy should be the master and defence should be the servant. It is not even compatible with what the Prime Minister told the House on 16th December, when he said that
  "we need to take a fresh look at the world around us, question the basic assumptions on which we have been operating for so long, decide what are the problems and challenges of the second half of the 1960s and the 1970s, formulate fresh policies when needed and start to re-deploy our resources so that we can meet them."
  On the same occasion, the Prime Minister further recalled the warning given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Secretary of State and Minister of Defence for the Army on 14th December that however successful we might be in eliminating waste and muddle—that
  1396
  is, in achieving cost effectiveness and value for money—defence costs would nevertheless continue to rise unless there were changes of policy and reduction of commitments. After referring to this warning, the Prime Minister rubbed it in in the following terms on 16th December:
  "There is built in to our defence system an unavoidable rate of increase—in the absence of changes of policy—which will mean, year by year, a crippling increase in the call on money and on resources. … Assuming the continuance of existing contracts and commitments, and assuming no change in policy"—
  I revert to the previous paragraph—
  "there is an inexorable law that in terms of military expenditure the rise in costs is rising far faster than any conceivable increase in the gross national product."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1964; Vol. 704, c. 418–20.]
  So far from cutting defence commitments, the Defence White Paper has reaffirmed all the existing commitments—N.A.T.O. CENTO and S.E.A.T.O.—and has added two new ones, a nuclear confrontation with China and an ominous and ill-defined world rôle. On this basis it will prove impossible to achieve even the very modest aim set out in the defence White Paper of reducing defence expenditure in the next few years to roughly the level in real terms of the present figure.
  I should like to know what that means. Does it mean that if prices rise the defence budget in terms of money will continue to rise, although it will be stabilised at the present figure in terms of real value and present purchasing power? In any case, even if this aim were achieved, it would be useless, because unless we can cut the defence budget radically, by something like one-third or even one-half, before the next General Election, we shall fail in what we are trying to do at home and once more lose power, as the last Labour Government did, by trying to combine a Labour home policy with a Tory defence and foreign policy. Then it took four years for rising defence costs to catch up with and crack down on what we were trying to do at home, and encompass our defeat. This time the danger is in front of our eyes.
  I come to the Polaris question. It is quite true, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says, that the Government gave

  1397
  the electorate, and most of us who fought the election in good faith on this issue, the impression that they intended to scrap the Polaris missiles. I am not a lawyer, and one cannot really scan every word and phrase of every statement to find the quirk which lets them out somehow. I do not accept the argument about the point of no return—that it will cost more to scrap the nearly completed Polaris submarines than to go ahead with them. I remind the House that at the 1922 Washington Naval Disarmament Conference between the United States, Britain and Japan a number of battleships were scrapped which were practically completed. It is not just a matter of the capital cost of producing these things, but the cost of their upkeep afterwards, and what it implies in terms of commitment to a nuclear policy. We should have scrapped them. I still think we should scrap them.
  Then, I do not know why we want to provide N.A.T.O. with Polaris missiles at all, in view of the fact that the present Minister of Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was very emphatic on this subject when speaking in the House when he was, if I may put it this way, the mere shadow of his present self. He was, in fact, Shadow Defence Minister—for anybody who does not catch the point. He said this on 20th July, 1960:
  "It is absolutely impossible to reconcile a Polaris missile strategy for N.A.T.O. with the declared aims of N.A.T.O. strategy … it completely rules out the whole of N.A.T.O.s military purpose, because it makes total war absolutely inevitable from the word 'go' … The plain fact is that the proposal for putting Polaris in Europe has no military justification whatever … Much worse than that"—
  added my right hon. Friend, to give Polaris missiles to N.A.T.O.—
  "would mean a tremendous increase in political tension. One thing I have never been able to understand about Western military policy is the assumption that the West can always do something to strengthen its military position without the Soviet doing something to counterbalance that. It is as certain as night follows day that if N.A.T.O. distributes these missiles under national control, or under collective control, all over Western Europe, the Soviet Union will respond by taking similar steps in Eastern Europe ….—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1960; Vol. 627, c. 608.]
  The Soviet Government—indeed, the whole Warsaw Alliance—has already served notice that that is precisely what
  1398
  they will do if we go ahead with the policy of the Atlantic Nuclear Force. They will presumably also contribute to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons by setting up an East European or continental nuclear force in which the participants would be East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia. That would be as valid a way of stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons as going ahead with the Atlantic Nuclear Force. The thing is all the more inexplicable in that the Prime Minister, before leaving for Washington on 23rd November, told the House:
  "The purpose of collective strength in defence is to make fruitful negotiations possible for the easement of East-West tension. … Therefore, in all the measures that we shall be proposing in Washington for strengthening the effectiveness of our collective defences it is paramount that all we do shall not only not make disarmament measures more difficult, but we must so far as possible actively contribute in our defence proposals to making those measures easier to achieve."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1964; Vol. 702, c. 937.]
  The Government retreated from Washington bearing a banner with a strange device: A.N.F. When the news was published first the Polish and then the Soviet Governments' reactions were that they both gave warnings that A.N.F. would put a stop to any attempt to diminish tension, and would make it impossible to get anywhere with either a treaty for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, or disarmament, or any other major issue. The whole Warsaw Alliance chimed in and said the same thing.
  I asked the Prime Minister, in view of the condition he had posed, namely, that our measures for strengthening defence must contribute to the easement of East-West tension and to fruitful negotiations, and the obvious fact that the A.N.F. is not consistent with this avowed purpose, to drop the whole proposal. His answer was to remind me that he had said on numerous occasions that one purpose of our defence policy was to further non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
  No doubt that is our intention. I do not doubt the Government's good intentions in any of this. I know very well they have tried manfully to cut down defence expenditure, that they say with modest pride that they will spend £55 million less than the Opposition would

  1399
  have done if they had been in. That is quite possible. It does not soothe me very much, but I believe it. But, frankly, these are the kind of good intentions which are the paving stones on the primrose path to the eternal bonfire. This will not do. It is not good enough. It will not work.
  Having said all that, I want to add that I fully agree with my right hon. Friends that the Opposition would do even worse. I still believe it is vitally important to keep our Government in power, because I believe that there is hope of their learning from the error of their ways when they are up against economic necessity and political opposition. That is why, on the one hand, I signed the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) to this Motion. When I inquired about it at the Table Office I was told that between 30 and 40 of my colleagues had already signed it. I think that probably nearly 50 will have done so by the end of this debate tomorrow. Because, on the one hand, we want to support our Government, we intend to vote for them, however much we dislike their policies, in order to keep them in power. That is the choice of the lesser evil. We believe that the return of the other side would be the ultimate disaster.
  Therefore, we shall do our distasteful duty. At the same time we are going to do all we can in the country from now on to generate a politically effective demand for a British lead for disarmament and peace, because we believe that that is what we were elected to do, and we are going to do it with all our power. We are not lying down under this. We are not accepting this.
  Now I come to the question of West German access to nuclear weapons. Here I am sorry to say that the Government's policy amounts to nothing less than a breach of faith with the electorate. I know that this gives joy to the Opposition, and I am sorry to have to say it for that reason, but facts are facts. We had the Prime Minister's statement on 3rd July, 1963, repeating what he said on 31st January, 1963, when he said:
  "We are completely, utterly and unequivocably opposed, now and in all circumstances, to any suggestion that Germany, West Germany or East Germany, directly or
  1400
  indirectly, should have a finger on the nuclear trigger or any responsibility, direct or indirect, for deciding that nuclear weapons are to be used."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1963; Vol. 670, c. 1246.]
  It was on the second occasion when the Prime Minister said that this was the policy of the party, and so it was. On 17th December, 1964, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, explaining the A.N.F. project, used the following phrase:
  "We offer her"—
  that is West Germany—
  "participation in the ownership, management and control of a new strategic N.A.T.O. nuclear force on terms of absolute equality …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1964; Vol. 704, c. 603.]
  I am not a lawyer. I am not an acrobat either. I simply cannot reconcile those two statements. They are completely contradictory, and I believe in keeping faith with those who elected us, both in foreign affairs and home affairs.
  I agreed with the Prime Minister's warning on 3rd July, 1963, that the Soviet Union would regard any participation, in any capacity, of Germany in any form of international nuclear force, as a step to a Germany equipped with nuclear weapons of her own. He said that this could easily mean the end of any hope of relaxing tension in Europe, or reaching agreement on any major issue. I do not see why we should proceed in the teeth of that dire warning.
  I turn again to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence on 20th July, 1960. I have already referred to what he said at the time about the Polaris missile strategy. He went on to say:
  "The real danger in Europe"—
  and there are echoes of this in the defence White Paper, which says it rather more briefly but takes the same line—
  "and we all know it, is not the danger of a large scale deliberate Soviet attack on the West but of a local conflict developing, perhaps out of a spontaneous rising of discontented people living in Eastern Europe, as happened in Hungary, in Poland and in Berlin, perhaps out of miscalculation. In other words, the danger of a conflict arising is essentially in a situation to which deterrence is irrelevant …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1960; Vol. 627, c. 609–10.]
  My right hon. Friend elaborated that on 27th February, 1961, when he said that there was no substantial danger of a

  1401
  deliberate Soviet attack. In my considered view there never has been any such danger. The whole thing has been nonsense from the word "go". I have always said so, and I am glad that people are beginning to realise that the Soviet Government have never believed in spreading Communism to the rest of the world by force of arms. They believe that it will come through internal social and economic causes, stimulated by the example of the Soviet Union.
  Mr. George Jeger: Would my hon. Friend extend that to the assistance and encouragement which the Soviet Government gave to the Hungarian uprising in 1956, and to those in East Berlin who did not want Communism?
  Mr. Zilliacus: The Hungarians who revolted did so against the Communist régime, which called in the Soviet Government who were their allies, just as the South Vietnam puppet Government have called in the Americans. I was against what the Russians did, and I am against what the Americans are doing in Vietnam, but the two things do not argue that the Soviet Government are trying to spread Communism to the rest of the world. Both in Hungary and in East Berlin they were moved by balance of power and national interest considerations, aid not by ideological considerations. That means that we can deal with this by a negotiated settlement, including disengagement and the withdrawal of forces. That is the way out of the situation, and not by piling up nuclear arms.
  I return to what my right hon. Friend said on what I call the second occasion. He said:
  "The only real danger of a war in Europe is a small, local conflict arising in a situation in which the whole spectrum of deterrence would be irrelevant, arising perhaps just across the Iron Curtain or in East Berlin. No military posture by the West could deter such an incident breaking out in the first place. … It is a danger to which the whole concept of deterrence is irrelevant. It is, in fact, the only real danger, in my view, which the West now faces in Europe."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1961; Vol. 635, c. 229–30.]
  The argument as exponded by my right hon. Friend at the time, and as mentioned in the White Paper, is that we should deal with such situations by policies of armed intervention through small, mobile conventional forces, backed in the last analysis by nuclear power. That is
  1402
  a recipe for world war on the instalment plan, because if we think that we are entitled to do that in such situations, the other side may take the same view. It also happens to be a violation of the United Nations Charter. We do not have a licence under the Charter for armed intervention in the internal affairs of a country which has an uprising that we do not like.
  The whole situation seems to be one which cries out for political arrangements, through the United Nations, with the Soviet Union, to work out methods for jointly dealing with disturbances to the peace and dealing with the differences out of which such disturbances arise. We should try to apply the obligations of the Charter to such situations instead of preparing to use a steam hammer to crack a nut.
  Then we come to the question of Germany itself. On 16th December the Prime Minister described the situation in Germany as impossible and said that we were spending between £55 million and £60 million a year net on the upkeep of the B.A.O.R. The idea apparently is to try to alleviate that situation by competing with the Americans in getting the Germans to buy arms and munitions from this country. The Americans have a great superiority over us. They can use methods which are beyond our reach, and which should not be used anyway, to beat us in this competition, as they have been doing. I do not think that there is much hope there, apart from the fact that the whole idea of competing to try to sell arms and munitions to bolster up the territorial demands of the present German Government is enough to make our soldiers who fell in the last war turn in their graves.
  If we want to cut defence costs—and we should—and if we want to put an end to the situation which the Prime Minister has characterised as impossible, we should point out to the German Government, that what they want most is unification, and they can get it only by peaceful means, through a policy of disengagement, the policy for which the Government have long stood, or at least for which this party stood before it became the Government. I think that they still stand for it, more or less. The only possible way of negotiating the unification of Germany with the Soviet Union is within the framework

  1403
  of disengagement. Such a policy will enable us to bring the B.A.O.R. home because there will be no need for it to stay there; indeed it cannot stay there when Germany is out of the rival alliances.
  We should tell the Germans that if they refuse this basis of settlement, which is the only possible one for a peaceful settlement, and continue a policy of intransigence and refuse to recognise their frontiers, we will declare their policy provocative as we have every right to do under N.A.T.O., where collective defence obligations operate only in case of unprovoked aggression. We should tell the Germans that if they persist in this kind of policy we will declare that they have made these obligations a dead letter. We shall tell them that their policy is provocative, and so we are bringing our forces home.
  In the Middle East we are spending £125 million a year, although according to Labour Party policy we should rely on commercial arrangements and not force or the threat of force, to obtain oil from the Middle East. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), in introducing the Estimates Committee Report on overseas military expenditure, pointed out that other countries are getting a great deal more oil from the East than we are simply by commercial arrangements. Therefore, we had better look to winding up our forces out there as well. I do not see what purpose they are serving.
  I do not accept that the purpose is stability, because that means propping up regimes which are so corrupt and dictatorial that they cannot rely even upon their own police or army. Let nature take its course. We should not prop them up.
  Commander Courtney: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to withdraw our forces from Germany, can he say why he fought the last election on a manifesto which specifically said.
  "Our stress will be on the strengthening of our conventional regular forces so that we can contribute our share to N.A.T.O. defence and also fulfil our peace-keeping commitments to the Commonwealth and the United Nations."
  Mr. Zilliacus: I fought the election by saying that whereas I agreed with my party's home policy I believed that foreign policy should take priority over
  1404
  defence. I said that I disagreed with my party on the commitment to keep forces on the Rhine. I am saying now what I said throughout the election. I made it clear that I thought this was the wrong line, and that I hoped to convert my party and the Government to my way of thinking in due course, under the spur of sheer economic necessity.
  We should wind up the Aden and Cyprus bases, because the local populations are against us and those bases serve no useful purpose. We should give up the idea of using force, or the threat of force, to obtain oil and adopt the principle which Mr. Aneurin Bevan once laid down and which represents the view of the overwhelming majority of the party, that it is not Britain's business to fight Communism or put down revolutions in other people's countries.
  Sir Frederic Bennett: Will the hon. Member extend the reasoning that he has put forward to the question of giving up our base in Gibraltar and leaving it to Spain?
  Mr. Zilliacus: Gibraltar happens to be a British Crown Colony. It is British territory, under British sovereignty. It is in a rather different position. There is no doubt about our legal right to be there, but there is a very grave doubt in my mind whether we are not violating the Charter of the United Nations by arrogating to ourselves the right of armed intervention in the internal affairs of other countries in order to put down revolutions in those countries. That is an illicit policy.
  Sir F. Bennett: Aden is a Crown Colony.
  Mr. Zilliacus: I am suggesting that we should give that up on the ground of expediency. There is no point in our staying there.
  The example has been referred to on several occasions of the quite admirable incident when four newly-born African Governments called in British forces to help them restore order. But we should not build our whole policy on the expectation that situations of this sort will recur, because they correspond to an early stage in the development of African independence, and African nationalism has since developed. In any case there

  1405
  was so much recrimination afterwards about the use of white troops for this purpose that there is not the least chance of our being called in again to do such a job.
  I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West said in the debate on 19th January. It really makes no sense to spend over £100 million a year—or, if we include the Far Eastern Royal Navy operating from Singapore, about £225 million—to protect British assets in Malaysia which are worth £150 million as a total capital sum, particularly since at any moment the Malaysian Government, if so disposed, could nationalise them and take them over. Here again we must rely on commercial and political arrangements.
  I have said before, and I say again, that I support, as an emergency measure the help that we are giving Malaysia to resist the aggressive actions of Indonesia. But we should put enormous emphasis on seeking a political settlement, perhaps on the lines of reviving the idea of Maphilindo, but with an international guarantee, at a conference in which China and the Soviet Union, as well as the United States, France and ourselves, took part. We must not get ourselves into the position of starting a nuclear confrontation when China is at least five or six years away from being a nuclear Power. In my opinion it is more like ten years. We must not assume that this is inevitable. We must use the intervening period to try to come to terms with China—to bring her into international circulation, to give her her place in the Security Council, and bring her into conferences for settlements on the lines of the neutralisation of South-East Asia and Malaysia. Political action is what matters there.
  The other way is the road to the precipice, leading to more and more military expenditure and to no solution. It is a tragic mistake to believe that we can abate the danger to peace and the consequent potential strain on our military resources from the American war in Vietnam, by trying to exert an influence for peace in Washington while supporting the American war in Vietnam. We are making the worst of both worlds. In a dispatch from Washington in last Sunday's Observer I note that our efforts are not at all appreciated, and that
  1406
  President Johnson, according to the dispatch
  "is far from grateful to the kind friends, Mr. Wilson among them, who have come forward with offers to help him negotiate an end to the war in Vietnam."
  Washington officials
  "appreciate, that Mr. Wilson faces the danger of rebellion from his Left Wing back benchers on Vietnam, and they simply discounted his talk of 'further action' which could lead to 'an eventual settlement' as so much sand deftly tossed in the eyes of the Left."'
  I have indicated that I believe that the Government's policy is mistaken in this respect, and that the penalty will be that we will lose so much ground in the eyes of other countries—already the Russians are approaching de Gaulle and discussing Far Eastern and European affairs with him—that we will have no power to arrest the steady worsening of East-West relations, brought about by what the Americans are doing. We should throw our weight on the side of the forces of sanity in the United States who are fighting this policy, and not only publicly dissociate ourselves from it, and join with France and the Soviet Union in calling for a conference, but also warn the Americans that if they go on like this they can no longer count on us in respect of N.A.T.O., C.E.N.T.O., or S.E.A.T.O. We should tell them that they are wrecking the whole Alliance system.
  We must get tough and assert ourselves on the issue of peace. Our real world rôle is to be the leaders in peacemaking and winding up the cold war, rejecting the wrong, unreal and dangerous assumptions on which it is based.
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. John Peel: I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) on his honesty in admitting that he proposes to be lobby-fodder in the Division tomorrow, despite his passionately-held views on the subject of defence. He will not expect me to sympathise with him in respect of those views.
  I found myself agreeing with much of what the Secretary of State for Defence said. It made me feel that it was all the more of a pity that the White Paper contained Part I, which is tendentious and partisan. I have no doubt that the Government had a reason for this

  1407
  but I must confess that it seems a little strange when one remembers that the Prime Minister has appeared to want to bring some bipartisanship into defence matters by offering defence talks to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and others. He has not only said it once; he has repeated it a number of times in answer to Questions by his hon. Friends behind him. Therefore, in view of this extremely political approach to defence, as embodied in Part I of the White Paper, perhaps the Prime Minister himself—who, I understand, will be intervening in this debate—or one of his right hon. or hon. Friends, will explain exactly what he means by suggesting defence talks with my right hon. Friend.
  Part I is strange in another respect. The strong criticism which it contains of the Government's inheritance accords extremely ill with the words of the Secretary of State for Defence soon after he took office, when he said that he took over the best weapon any Defence Minister in this country has yet had. That hardly coincides with some of the remarks in the first part of the White Paper. This criticism has been entirely nullified by the actions taken by our defence forces over the last few years. They have discharged worldwide commitments admirably and with great efficiency, ranging from Malaysia through Africa and the Mediterranean to British Guiana. Nobody can pretend that they have not helped considerably to maintain the peace.
  I want to speak this evening principally about the strength and coherence of the N.A.T.O. Alliance, because I think that it is facing a crisis in its affairs. This is due, in considerable measure, to the problem of the control of the nuclear deterrent. I can quite well understand the view—though I do not agree with it—that one should throw the nuclear deterrent away completely. What I find passes comprehension is the attitude that one should keep it but give up all control over it except the veto. This seems to me to give Great Britain the worst of all worlds. We pay the piper, but we do not call the tune. We heard a great deal from the present Government, when they were in opposition, about the cost of the nuclear deterrent
  1408
  and about how much more could be done for our defences if we discarded it, but they are now proposing a scheme which will save nothing but will take away from us the ultimate control of this ultimate weapon.
  By proposing a scheme which applies a veto to all our allies, they render the deterrent almost incredible. This is implicit in the Government's half-baked plan for what they call the Atlantic Nuclear Force. It is much more likely to divide N.A.T.O. than to unify it. The only good thing I can find to say about it is that I imagine that it finds very little favour with our allies and that discussions about it are likely to continue in the capitals of N.A.T.O. for a very long time. While these discussions are going on, Britain will, presumably, retain her own deterrent and her control over it. This is an interesting position—I presume that this is the position of the Government—especially when one recalls the Prime Minister's slighting references, when in opposition, to the "so-called British so-called independent so-called deterrent". In view of the speed with which he is now handing our defences over to America, presumably he can extend that sentence and say that it is now a case of the "so-called British so-called Royal Air Force". This, of course, is a deplorable situation.
  I have no doubt that the Government put this scheme forward for two reasons. One was that the Prime Minister had to get off the difficult political hook in his own party, and the other was that they wanted, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) said, to ditch the M.L.F. But, in my opinion, there was no hurry to do this, and I doubt if there was any need to do it. The Americans put forward the multilateral force proposal because, I think, they felt that Germany would, in due course, ask for a greater share in the control of the deterrent. The Germans agreed to it, not because they wanted to get their fingers on the mechanism, but because they felt that it would help to bind America more closely to Europe. I do not believe that there was any need for that. The Americans have told us repeatedly that as long as their allies in Europe want them to stay there and help in the defence of Western Europe, they are very happy to remain.

  1409
  There is certainly very little enthusiasm elsewhere in the Alliance for the M.L.F. idea. The French, of course, dislike it very much indeed. This proposal therefore threatened the whole cohesion of N.A.T.O. For that reason, the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians' Conference debated this contentious issue last December. When the Americans and the Germans had listened to all the arguments which the speakers put forward, it was agreed, by a very large majority, that there was no hurry to come to a conclusion over the multilateral force, and that the respective Governments should be asked to discuss it and to investigate it a great deal further before any decision was taken.
  Into this already somewhat complicated position the Government have thrown an even more complicated and undesirable suggestion in the form of the Atlantic Nuclear Force. We already have a N.A.T.O. nuclear force. This is something which we should try to develop, because this gives to our non-nuclear allies a great say in the targeting, planning and control of the Western nuclear deterrent. The Nuclear Committee of N.A.T.O. is under a Belgian officer who is the deputy of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe. There are representatives of the non-nuclear allies on the Committee, and there are representatives of the N.A.T.O. countries at Strategic Air Command at Omaha. This gives all our N.A.T.O. allies a considerable say in the control of the nuclear deterrent. It seems to me that we ought to try to develop further co-operation in this direction in order to strengthen N.A.T.O., which is so vital for the defence of the West.
  The difficulty is that it does not matter what scheme is proposed for the nuclear deterrent, we still come up against the political difficulty, which is at the bottom of it all. It seems to me that unless and until we can get much closer political co-operation between the allies, we cannot make much advance in spreading control of the nuclear deterrent. All we can do is to leave the utlimate say, the ultimate control, where it now lies. Frankly, I do not see a chance of getting much closer political co-operation in the near future, but I think that some efforts should be made to see whether we can develop closer co-operation with our allies in regard to the nuclear deterrent.
  1410
  It might be a good thing if we had bilateral talks with the Americans, the French and the Germans, before going to N.A.T.O. at all, to see whether there is any possibility of improving co-operation over the control of the nuclear deterrent in N.A.T.O. and not outside. I am quite convinced that the Atlantic Nuclear Force idea is far more likely to split N.A.T.O., to divide rather than to unify it.
  There is one other thing which I should be grateful if the Minister of Defence for the Army would clarify more fully than does the White Paper. When we were in Government we were often chided, sometimes in most extravagant terms, for the fact that we had not got our agreed 55,000 troops in Germany. That promise, that we would build it up to 55,000, was repeated, I think by the Minister of Defence for the Army soon after taking office. I read in paragraphs 18, 19 and 21 of the White Paper suggestions that lead me to think that the Government may well be seeking from our allies a revision of this figure and this target. It is made clear—I will not weary the House by reading out the paragraphs—that the position in Europe needs revision; that our allies should appreciate that we are carrying a very heavy defence burden across the world, much of which is in their interests, and that we should get more assistance from them.
  I should like to know whether we are going to seek that assistance by asking them to agree that we should not go to the figure of 55,000; whether we shall ask them to allow us to reduce below what we already have in Europe; or whether it is proposed to ask for assistance to help us with our defence arrangements east of Suez and what shape or form that help may take. Or are the Government proposing that some assistance should be given in both respects?
  These are things about which I think we should be told something. From the point of view of the country it would be a very good thing if we could get more bipartisanship in this House on the question of defence, but frankly I do not consider that paragraph 1 of the White Paper helps in the very least in that respect.
  7.53 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: Much has been made of the importance of the cost of weapons and of the whole of our defence policy. When I hear so many people talk about the necessity to reduce these costs, my natural optimism tends to remain somewhat subdued. Page 11 of the Statement on Defence comments a great deal about the need for cost control and discusses the question of functional costing, value analysis, and cost-effectiveness. It strikes me that the amount of jargon may not necessarily be proportional to the amount of progress.
  Be that as it may, the most important part I feel, although I am convinced of the necessity for more refined methods of cost control, is that these, deployed in certain ways, could be of value in understanding the purpose for which the job is intended. I should be quite happy to see rather more modest ends pursued if they could be pursued effectively. In fact, as we know, there is no simple method of costing in the way in which an industrial organisation desires to cost.
  Reading the Ninth Report from the Estimates Committee we find that the real information we want in order to assess the way in which the money is going is not available. Accounts on defence may have been superbly designed to ensure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not get his fingers in the till very often, and may have been successful in achieving that objective, but for the rather more refined objectives which we require they are not so successful. As in accounts in industry everywhere, much wider information is required on which to make important decisions, and necessary information on which to come to a decision is not available on the massive scale on which we need it.
  This would be, or should be, thought of as too elementary even to need stating. A manufacturing firm making toffee should be able to know how much it costs to produce each package of toffee. The main element in assessing the cost is the apportionment of the burden and the allocation of overheads. Throughout the Report of Sub-Committee D of the Estimates Committee there is no attempt at an apportionment of the burden or to allocate the overheads. To talk about refined controls in the face of such an archaic system is like discussing the pro-
  1412
  vision of a computer for a person who does his accounts on the back of an envelope.
  Before we think of these refined methods we must start with simple costs, to which little approach has been made. I believe that the bases overseas are costing more than any of the highest estimates which have been given and, what is worse, no one can disprove what I am saying. Looking at paragraph 241 in the Ninth Report from the Estimates Committee we can see clearly that the idea of overheads is not understood at all. A witness who appeared before the Committee said:
  "… the extra cost of having them"—
  that is, the troops—
  "in Hong Kong rather than keeping them somewhere else, is, I think only about £3 million."
  He goes to to say:
  "On second thoughts, about £4 to £5 million, I think, might be the figure."
  That is based on a number of estimates. In reply, the Chairman says:
  "We think we have some previous figures on that, showing that the expenditure which falls on the British taxpayer for Hong Kong is much greater than the £3 million that has been mentioned."
  In reality, we have not the faintest idea of what these bases are costing us.
  Some of the arguments are based on the fact that we have to have troops somewhere, so we may as well have them in Hong Kong, Singapore, and elsewhere. They do not have to be somewhere, they could be disbanded. These troops are valuable to us and the fact that no accurate estimate is possible means that decisions affecting the future of this country are based on inadequate evidence of this kind.
  It is not just a question of troops and their cost. We also have to consider the support bases. If these far-distant bases could be run down, the need for expenditure on support bases would diminish, and these support bases are carrying part of the overheads. There are the support forces which are necessary to maintain the far-distant bases and if the far-distant bases are diminished, the support forces could also be diminished. They could be reduced as well as the support bases. The overheads borne by the support forces additional to the overheads borne

  1413
  by the far-distant bases could be diminished additionally.
  There is the question of other weapons being made or being held in reserve. The overheads borne by these might also be apportioned. We have the Reserves in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State mentioned the difficulty of taking these men to the far-distant bases and the maximum amount of separation from their families which could be endured. We have all the cost of maintaining these reserves—and part of the cost of these reserves is necessarily part of the overheads—but if we did not have to take that unpopular action of separation we could reduce the amount of recruitment. There are other overheads very near to home, the overheads in Whitehall of defence staff, and so on. Then we have the special manufacturing of certain items of equipment, along with other forms of expenditure, particularly for the area concerned.
  This is not all. Beside all these overheads of which there is no attempt whatever to apportion them to the cost of the far-distant bases, we also have the ancillary costs, for we all know that the further away a base is the more it costs to keep. This cost is partly due to inefficiency, for there is a natural inefficiency which is extremely difficult to overcome.
  Hon. Members are well aware of the difficulties which industrial organisations have when they are separated from the factories which the head office controls. Inefficiency due to distance is something very real in the industrial world and it has a great deal to do with the difficulties involved in the relocation of industry. The further away parts of industry are from each other the greater the inefficiency; and this inefficiency in the field of defence must also be considered in terms of the vast distances between bases.
  I believe that the true cost of these bases is far higher than even the highest estimates which have been given. However high or wide the stated estimates may be—from £100 million to £225 million per base—I still believe that they cost more to keep. Figures have been adduced for our base in Hong Kong, and I suggest that the same applies there.
  One of the greatest expenses in defence—our far-distant bases—has been con-
  1414
  sidered with the least knowledge of the true costs involved. I agree that the allocation of overheads is not an easy matter to decide. It is not easy in industry, defence or anywhere else to try to divide the pay of generals and apportion their costs, to try to divide the reserve units and their costs, the research and development costs and so on and try to apportion them over the different bases. It is not an easy thing to do.
  However, this kind of statistical work is done in industry day by day and the bigger the industry the more developed are its systems of dividing its costs. We cannot afford to stop short in using these methods for what is the biggest industry of them all. While we must all welcome the new tools of functional control, we must remember, too, that the simplest form of real control has yet to be inaugurated. It is the obtaining of true costs.
  In connection with the use of our forces in the Far East, it is interesting to read, on page 7 of the Statement:
  "… if our friends turn to us for help we must be ready to give it where we can, so that they may achieve security and the chance to flourish in peace".
  As a piece of optimistic altruism, that is difficult to improve on, but does it mean all our friends? I hope that we have a great number of friends in these areas overseas, the areas which are bounded by the sub-continent of India and the east coast of Africa down to Australia.
  Are we, in those areas, to go to the assistance of those concerned, and, if so, how can we define these friends? What is our real position there? I submit that our position is not policeman of the East. We are not the universal "bobby" of the twentieth century. This has long since ceased to be our rôle. The extent of the nostalgic whiff of folie de grandeur is still present and, of course, we all believe in the cause of world peace. We hope that if our rôle is of such supreme value we shall be begged and implored by other countries, particularly in the area east of Suez, to continue our rôle. Despite the anachronism and the large cost involved we should do so and, based on a consideration of that sort, we should be prepared to continue this rôle.
  If this were to help the cause of peace, and if it were accepted by all these countries, then—if there were such a demand—we should yield to it, despite

  1415
  our balance of payments difficulties and our changed rôle. However, if those countries believe this—and there is little sign that they do—one would imagine that they would be prepared to help us materially in that respect. There is neither sign of clamour nor prospect of any material assistance, other than from Australia and New Zealand, who have personal interests in the area.
  I look forward to the present Government facing the realities of the situation. It is easy to try to dispose of world problems and take a delight in acting on them, but nobody in this area at present—certainly nobody of independent status—either thinks that we can, or are able to dispose of these problems. Our resources are limited and we should not be profligate in an out-dated effort to influence in this area. If we think that we can hang on for the present, hoping that the situation will improve, we should at the same time remember that the curve on the graph of rising expenditure almost as vertical as a brick wall is against us.
  This progress is almost as natural a law as any physical law, so certain is it in its consequences. Why escalation should continue should be well known. We have, first, such matters as inflation, which, despite what we say here and despite the pious words uttered from time to time, is in operation throughout the world. No one can hope to do more than mitigate its effects and diminish its extent.
  Another cause of this escalation is the United States-Russian arms race. New weapons of vast expense are being produced regularly, making ours obsolete when they are still on the design board. The enormous sums which we spend really only keep us little less than one technical generation behind. When we come to the larger weapons, the difficulties are even greater because before these larger weapons—of ships, aircraft and so on—are completed, they are obsolete. Indeed, we are producing obsolescence every time we lay down one of these new weapons systems because halfway through their production the admirals and air marshals come along and insist that something be changed, something of which they were not previously aware, as a result of which the change must be incorporated in the system.
  1416
  These are massively expensive changes. If this were not enough, we also have the errors in costing, and these errors are adding cumulatively to the irrevocable escalation of costs, an escalation which goes well beyond the highest estimates that have been mentioned.
  The time when we could speed to the rescue of countries 7,000 miles away has nearly gone. Clearly, we are not able to abolish our commitments overnight, and our word is obviously still of value. However, there is an inexorable trend and we must face the economic position and organise a phased programme of reduction. Most important, we must say "Absolutely no" to any further commitments.
  There has been talk about India today and hon. Members who, like myself, consider our links with India to be most important regard the greatest triumph of the Commonwealth to be the birth of the greatest democracy of which we should be particularly proud. Nevertheless, even in such a case as this we cannot be expected to provide a nuclear umbrella. I am not thinking of the military argument alone, but particularly about the costs involved. What if there is proliferation, despite all this? This is the main argument for the defence of India with nuclear weapons. If there is proliferation—and this is the crux of the argument—we will have found ourselves saddled with yet a further commitment, and the escalation in terms of cost will have gone even higher than at present.
  There is a defence for India. There could be negotiations to persuade the United States to come into this. If the fine point is made that India does not wish to be so closely aligned, I, like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), would agree that the time has long gone when we can be quite so fastidious in this world.
  I, like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, believe that defence must be the servant of foreign policy, but I believe that both defence and foreign policy must be the servants of the economic situation and the economics of the matter must be supreme. The days when we could dream our dreams of being mistress of the seas and conducting affairs on the other side of the

  1417
  earth have long gone. We cannot any more act as an arbiter among nations.
  If the Labour Government are remembered for anything, I hope that they will be remembered for the greater realism they have shown, and it is this realism that I expect the Government to provide.
  8.11 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Ridsdale: The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has spoken about making savings in defence expenditure. I believe that real savings in defence expenditure can be made only if it is possible to get our allies to share some of the defence burden which at present we shoulder alone. However much it may be desirable to have cost accounting and to go through the books of the Services, only by persuading our allies in that way to help us with the commitments and not by pinching and squeezing the Services, shall we bring about real savings in defence expenditure.
  The first few paragraphs of the Defence White Paper are so full of Left-wing politics that I was beginning to believe that, if the document was written by the Prime Minister at all, it must have been written when he was wearing his Downing Street wig and certainly not the wig of his Chiefs of Staff. It has so much the air of the amateur about it rather than that of the professional that it brings me to advise that, if the Secretary of State wishes to make an immediate saving in defence comparable to the saving that he suggested this afternoon in regard to R.A.F. ceremonial dress, he should sack the Paymaster-General and his Department.
  One of the easiest acts for a politician to perform is to call for cuts in defence expenditure in time of peace. It is one which is bound to be attractive, especially in a democracy, and especially, too, when there are so many immediate demands on the public purse—for more schools, more hospitals, more roads and for many of the items which from our own experience in our constituencies we all know are so urgently needed. It was his reaction to cuts in defence spending which made Sir Winston Churchill such a lone figure in the 1930s and for someone to write about our preparedness when the Dutch swept up the Medway:
  1418
  "If war was won by feasting,
  Or victory by song,
  Or safety found in sleeping sound,
  How England would be strong!"
  It is for these reasons that I am most suspicious of the opening words of the Defence White Paper, in which, as the Amendment says, there is an
  "absence of any clear account of Her Majesty's Government's proposals for maintaining the strength of the Armed Forces at a level consistent with the rôles undertaken."
  They echo, if still a bit faintly, the call made by the Labour Party in the 1930s, with such fatal consequences to our country and the world. Indeed, after hearing the words of the backwoodsman of the Labour Party this afternoon, I must say that they echo very similarly some of the words which were spoken from the Labour Party benches in the 1930s. Their leaders who called for cuts in defence spending then said after the last war and during it that they would never make the same mistake again.
  What applied to the Army in those war days and before applies equally to our soldiers and sailors, and especially to our airmen, today. The cuts of the P1154 and the HS681 and the threat to the TSR2, and to the whole air industry, not to mention the field of advanced technology, are becoming just as menacing to me as the action of the Labour Government in 1929 when they stopped work on the Singapore naval base.
  The White Paper, in my view, all too easily and complacently discounts the Communist military threat which faces us in both Europe and Asia. Do intelligence sources tell us that there is no danger at all today? Is this the inference we can draw from the complacent attitude of the Government? Will the Secretary of State for Defence tell us the kind of order of battle which is poised against us in Asia and, indeed, in Europe? What are the number of submarines? What are the number of planes, missiles and military divisions? Why is a reasonable estimate of these not given in the White Paper?
  Bearing in mind what the answers to these questions are likely to be, surely it would be very dangerous to start pulling our troops out of Germany. Might it not be the very act to change Russia's calculation about the usefulness of returning to a policy of strength in Western

  1419
  Europe? Indeed, the position of Berlin is still most vulnerable. If we begin pulling our troops out of the Continent, what hopes have we got of getting our European allies to share the defence burden which we are carrying virtually alone in the Indian Ocean?
  Of course we all want to work for disarmament, and to cut our defence commitments, expensive as they are in foreign exchange. But surely that must be controlled and matched by what other Powers are doing, indeed with what our allies are prepared to do as well, either economically or militarily, to help us share this heavy commitment. We are in a position to step up the pressure now, but is it not dangerous and, indeed, misleading to assume, as the White Paper does, that if we had continued with the policies of the Conservative Government we would have been steadily raising the percentage of our national income devoted to defence at a time when Russia and the United States were reducing theirs? Indeed, it is rather like trying to match one's economies in a time of necessity with those of a Gulbenkian.
  I answered such a charge in an Adjournment debate almost a year ago. I thought then that they were just the Left-wing views of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). I am surprised to find now that they have become the views of the Government in the opening paragraph of the Defence White Paper.
  The assumptions on which the White Paper are based are most dangerous and misleading. Of course our forces have been stretched. Of course our equipment is not all it might be. It never will be, to satisfy those who are concerned with meeting military requirements.
  If we criticise on this score, who in the last few years, indeed in the last decade, has been saying that we should be spending more on our defence? Has it been the Minister of Technology? Has it been the Secretary of State for the Colonies? Has it been the Minister of Overseas Development? All, indeed, were prominent members of the C.N.D. Surely the pleas from those now on the Government benches were exactly the opposite.
  1420
  My opinion, for what it is worth, is that with our present commitments it could be said that we should have been spending up to 8 per cent. of the G.N.P. on our defence requirements, but clearly this is an enormous burden for a country like ours with our balance of payments position. I say this to underline the fact that, with our present commitments, our forces are cut to the bone and there are not many real economies that can be made without cutting commitments. Of course political capital can be made, as indeed it was last year, over the admiral's house in Aden, over Service accommodation at Gibraltar, over R.A.F. ceremonial dress, although I thought that that was a particularly cheap way of trying to get some political capital, and over other such items, but I do not believe that it is possible to save really big sums in defence expenditure, unless we cut our commitments.
  If we are to try to do this—and I believe that we should—let us be frank with our allies and, indeed, with West Germany too. Let them know the economic burden that we are shouldering in maintaining our forces overseas. But in the first place, let us work through the defensive organisations, N.A.T.O. in Europe and S.E.A.T.O. in the Far East. As we have Germany playing her part in N.A.T.O., surely we must see Japan playing a far greater part in the Far East and in South-East Asia in helping with the free world's defence. It means altering certain post-war treaties, but surely we have been too slow in taking an initiative like this in the West. I am sure that such action would be just as much in America's interest as our own.
  I certainly welcome the Government's backing of the difficult American position in Vietnam, which occupies such an important key strategic position in South-East Asia, but surely we cannot expect a sharing of some of our lone world interests unless we help our friends when in need? Surely we must see that the kind of co-operation that we have in N.A.T.O. spreads east of Suez? Indeed, this open flank of N.A.T.O is under attack all the time. It is high time that the free world co-ordinated its efforts far more than is being done at present both in the Middle and Far East. It is not in Europe's interest that our position

  1421
  is as vulnerable as it is in the Middle East. Europe and N.A.T.O. are courting danger by not facing the reality of this problem, which is theirs just as much as it is our own. Certainly Western Germany does not do a service by cutting her defences at a time like this.
  The A.N.F. proposals show at least that the Government accept the nuclear deterrent. Indeed, what an advance they seem to have made in their views since the General Election. They speak now of a massive British contribution in the nuclear field to the Alliance, and I welcome this conversion, but as it is now accepted, surely it is high time they stopped the nonsense they have been talking these last few years about the money that we have been spending on our own defence in the last 13 years having been wasted.
  Can anything else be done to save defence expenditure? Surely reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence means nothing if we are prepared to integrate the medical, housing and education branches of the Services, and yet do nothing about air co-ordination. For some time we have faced the mounting costs of air defence, especially in this age of advanced technology. Yet we have always veered away from such a solution. Is there not already too much diversification of air power between the Services? Can we really afford a carrier programme on top of the mounting costs of modern fighters, tactical strike reconnaissance planes and a modern air transport capability as well?
  Concentration of forces is a vital principle of war. My criticism of defence policy in these last few years has been of our failure to concentrate the use of air power. I believe it has been the mounting costs of our carrier programme which have delayed vital decisions being made early enough on either the TSR2, the P1154 or the HS681.
  To operate one carrier in the Far East, the support of two or more are needed. Destroyer and helicopter cover are vital. All this adds to the cost. The fear of submarine attack limits flexibility, as was shown by the failure of one of our carriers to sail through the Sunda Straits in Indonesia recently.
  Commander Courtney: I hope my hon. Friend will correct that last statement. I
  1422
  understand that the non-passage of the Sunda Straits by carrier and supporting forces was due to political reasons on the instructions of the Foreign Office alone.
  Mr. Ridsdale: I am glad to have my hon. and gallant Friend's explanation from the Navy point of view.
  Indeed it is the threat from our strategic bombers that enables our helicopters to fly unmolested in Borneo, and not necessarily the cover given by our aircraft carriers. I fear that defence thought and planning have been too long and too much in the hands of those who think in terms of surface sea power.
  I do not like the recent cancellation of the P1154 and the HS681 and the building of another aircraft carrier, because it limits the flexibility of air power east of Suez, especially at a time when the threat to our free world comes more and more from a militant land-based Power. To meet this threat, which might erupt anywhere from Africa, through the Middle East to India and South-East Asia, we need speed and flexibility. Sea power through a carrier force cannot give us that. Indeed, it is highly vulnerable in the land-locked waters of South-East Asia. That is why the speed and the short take-off and landing capability of the HS681 appealed against the C130, and the flexibility of the P1154 appealed against the Phantom which can operate only from fixed runways and, according to the White Paper, has a "high" capacity both as a fighter and as a ground strike aircraft. Do I take this to mean high in height capacity as a ground strike aircraft? Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain that passage of the Defence White Paper.
  I do not believe that we shall ever face up to the cost of quality in modern aircraft and missiles until we rationalise air power and concentrate its direction in a thoroughly integrated and powerful air staff. The solution that we have been given by the Labour Government for air power is a second-best. With history as our guide, we should be prepared to accept nothing but the best in quality, especially as we can never command the most in quantity. That, indeed, has been the secret of our military power through the ages. But in planning, another stage must come and, indeed,

  1423
  very soon. If we concentrate the resources of our air power, I am sure that with variable geometry and laminar flow we can add to the range and speed of our transport and achieve further flexibility in the use of air power.
  I hope also that if we rationalise as I have suggested we shall be able to concentrate not only on sophisticated aircraft but also on more space research and on a communication satellite programme. We must give this vital programme more momentum and much-needed investment.
  I conclude with three main threads of advice to the Government. The first is not to underestimate the threat poised by the Communist Powers. Secondly, the Government should try by all means to cut our commitments abroad but to do that by getting our allies to play a greater part than they are now doing. Let the Government take as much initiative as they can on this account. Thirdly, the Government should realise that it is in their hands, by concentrating on air power based on an efficient air industry, to make great strides forward in securing value for money from the Services. Above all, let the Labour Government in these days of the Welfare State remember those lines of Kipling's:
  "If war was won by feasting,
  Or victory by song,
  Or safety found in sleeping sound,
  How England would be strong!"
  The Prime Minister might pass those words on to his colleagues in Germany and France, because the danger is not over. The threat to us and the dangers we face worldwide are continental Europe's dangers, just as much as ours.
  8.29 p.m.
  Mr. George Jeger: The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) gave the Government some useful advice, but he also referred to the pre-war history of arms and rearmament. He was good enough to refer to the record of Conservative Governments before the war and to Sir Winston Churchill, but I wonder why he did not refer to and quote what Sir Winston Churchill said about the armaments record of the Conservative Government before the war.
  Shall I remedy that omission? Sir Winston said:
  1424
  "… when I think of the immense combinations and resources which have been neglected or squandered, I cannot believe that a parallel exists in the whole course of history. So far as this country is concerned the responsibility must rest with those who have the undisputed control of our political affairs. … They left us in the hour of trial without adequate national defence or effective international security."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th October. 1938; Vol. 339, c. 336–7.]
  The Conservative Party has not changed. The opening paragraph of the White Paper puts the blame fairly and squarely upon the late Conservative Administration for the failures to get value for money and to supply our Forces with the arms and equipment they need.
  The White Paper is realistic. It gives a new look to armaments and to our responsibilities. The fact is that always under a Conservative Government there are shortcomings and deficiencies, there is muddle and there is waste in our defence services. We have had this always in history. Unfortunately, up to now a Labour Government have not taken power immediately after a Conservative Administration. We took power after the war and consequently we were not able to criticise effectively, because we did not have the facts of what had been happening before the war. But Sir Winston Churchill did it for us. He alone before the war, through his knowledge of the facts, was able to condemn the Conservative Government of those days.
  We are now in a position to examine the books and the records of the previous Administration and we can see, as we have always suspected, how the Tories are always in defence matters bedevilled by the old-boy network. They are always planning for the last war or the war before that, and they are always overstocking in some directions and under-developing and equipping in other directions.
  It is a commonplace that when high-ranking officers in the Services retire they are offered positions of responsibility in firms which are usually contractors to the Services. We know very well that they keep up their social obligations and activities. They maintain their contacts, and those contacts are very useful for business purposes. Is it any wonder that some of the equipment ordered on the basis of the old-boy network is not up to date, that it is obsolescent before it is required, is sometimes obsolete even

  1425
  before it is delivered, and has to be subjected to a number of modifications before it has left the factory or workshop and that those modifications continually cost more and more money?
  The favourite word at the moment is "escalation". Costs escalate and so we find under the late Administration the abandonment of various projects and arms, and the cost of those which come into fruition is very much more than was ever dreamed of at the time when the project was first conceived. We are now having a new look at expenditure. My right hon. Friend has appointed the Deputy Secretary of State for Defence to see that we get value for money and that waste and unnecessary extravagance are cut out. This means that over a period of time, and it must take time, there will be an immense avoidance of waste, muddle and inefficiency.
  Apart from that, the White Paper makes certain matters quite clear. It sets out for all to see that we have now accepted our full obligations to our allies and to the Commonwealth and that we shall maintain our capacity for providing military assistance wherever it is necessary in many parts of the world. It sets out that we now accept that the nuclear deterrent works. It has worked. It has maintained the peace. We accept that it has done that, and how glad we are that it has.
  The White Paper sets out that we accept our responsibilities to N.A.T.O. and that we shall do our best to strengthen it. We accept that we have nuclear bombers and Polaris and that we shall maintain them. We accept our responsibilities outside as well as inside Europe. We accept that we shall maintain our bases throughout the world wherever they are established now. We further accept responsibility for providing facilities for Germans training in Britain.
  These things are to a certain extent revolutionary in the thinking of the Labour Party. I welcome them, and I am quite sure that they will be welcomed by the mass of the people of this country. They show that there are in the Government no hidebound prejudices. They show that, when face to face with realities in Britain and the world, the Government can make a decision which is consistent with the welfare of Britain and its peace and
  1426
  security. They show—let us be frank about it—that there have been a number of conversions inside the Government. [Interruption.] Let us not deny it, but welcome it. I welcome it.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) is not here, because he is, by self-confession, one of the small band of malcontents who are not satisfied with the approach to reality inside the Government. But my hon. Friend is usually out of step with us. He usually leaves us between elections and returns just in time for them. His views are rather confused and distorted, and we acknowledge this; he seems to be unable to face reality. I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that, if possible, he should find a place on the Front Bench for my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton. It might assist his education.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I put it to my hon. Friend that it may well be that many hon. Members on this side feel that, perhaps, my hon. Friend himself is not entirely facing realities, and I think it a little unfortunate that he discusses the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton when he is not here to express his opinion about the remarks which my hon. Friend has made.
  Mr. Jeger: My hon. Friend the Member for Gorton is quite capable of looking after himself, and at great length, if necessary. When my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has a little more experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton in the House, he will know how the land lies in that direction.
  I can only speak as a member of the Labour Party supporting my Government and supporting their White Paper and policy on defence. I was elected in support of the Labour Party and its defence policy, and I do not detract from a single word in my election address or from anything which was contained in the Labour Party manifesto. The present White Paper is in step with the Labour Party election manifesto. Anyone who disagrees with it is disagreeing with that manifesto.
  During my election campaign I made my views clear. The only questions I

  1427
  received in various parts of my widespread constituency were devoted to getting an assurance from me that under no circumstances would a Labour Government leave Britain and its allies and the West undefended and that in no circumstances would we send soldiers out to fight ill-equipped with weapons inferior to those possessed by the enemy. I gave a pledge to that effect. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary, in the White Paper, is honouring that pledge on my behalf and I can go to my constituency with a clear conscience, saying that the Government are supporting that policy.
  There is one weakness in the White Paper. Not sufficient is said about our responsibilities towards our widespread Commonwealth. I should like to see a Commonwealth defence conference at which we could go, candidly and perhaps in secret, into the questions of Commonwealth defence. We know that there is tension between India and Pakistan and it must cause us concern that these two great countries, for whose existence we are responsible, should not be seeing eye to eye, and, indeed, should be viewing each other with suspicion.
  The Indian Government came to us for arms and assistance because of the threat from China, and we gladly gave our help. The sequel was that Pakistan wanted to know why we were arming India when Pakistan was afraid of Indian aggression. Surely we could bring these two great nations together and get them to settle their differences peacefully under our auspices—and what would be better qualified to do that than a Commonwealth conference, bringing into play the great potentialities of the Commonwealth?
  We cannot take on all the responsibility for keeping the peace east of Suez. I doubt whether S.E.A.T.O. is strong enough to undertake the responsibilities placed upon it. A Commonwealth defence plan worked out so that we offered, and let it be known that we were offering, all round mutual support for all sections of the Commonwealth would contribute a great deal towards lessening of tension and the deterrence of any aggression.
  There are enormous potentialities in the Commonwealth in that part of the
  1428
  world, and the defence of the area should be a Commonwealth matter and not for us alone. The White Paper acknowledges the shift of the danger spots from Europe to that area and if we attach more importance to it and concentrate more on that part of the world we shall be pursuing a very useful policy for peace. The White Paper has made a very good beginning. We look forward to other White Papers being published as the result of the investigations of the waste and muddle of the past and the concentration of our efforts upon our rôle in world peace.
  8.44 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Hamilton: I was a little sorry that the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) saw fit to cast a slur on senior Service officers employed, on retirement, by industrialists. Industrialists are very often most fortunate to acquire the services of these officers, whose retirement pay is, in any case, not all that high. Surely when a man leaves the forces after long service he should be allowed to take such a job if it is offered. Apart from that, I found myself in warm agreement with much of what the hon. Gentleman said. I am delighted that there have been so many conversions during the debate to Conservative thinking.
  I am aware of the traditions of the House and I am aware that an hon. Member cannot make a maiden speech twice. Although I am not strictly a maiden today, I claim to be something very close to it. Maidenhood once forfeited cannot be restored, and I fell from grace some years ago—it was rather late in the evening, in a defence debate just such as this. The House is ever tolerant and I am sure that if I wander a little for a moment from defence itself, I shall be forgiven.
  I represent the Salisbury division of Wiltshire. My predecessor was not known to all hon. Members, but to most. He was a friend to all of us. He was much beloved in all parts of the House. He was a big man, not only in stature, and we on this side of the House elected him and re-elected him chairman of our '22 Committee for nine successive years. We did this because we liked him and because we trusted him. I have not been surprised in recent weeks to find in the

  1429
  towns and villages of Wiltshire that he and his wife are equally beloved, the towns and villages represented by him for more than 22 years and represented by his father before him. He has now taken his seat in another place, but he remains essentially a House of Commons man, and we shall miss him greatly.
  Salisbury is deceptive. The cathedral spire is the loftiest in England and hon. Members who know the city and its surrounding countryside will agree that it is without parallel. Yet at the same time and alongside these things the constituency is very proud of the contribution which it makes to the nation's defences. Within its boundaries are the Headquarters of Southern Command, the military centres of Larkhill and Bulford, the experimental station at Porton and the aircraft testing centre at Boscombe Down. I was very glad that the Minister of Defence for the Royal Air Force was at Boscombe Down only a week ago.
  It would not be in order if I were to spend any time discussing the by-election, but we had many distinguished visitors during those brisk weeks. The deputy Prime Minister came down to explain to us about the nation's economy and the Minister of Agriculture came down to explain to us about farming. But my constituents are curiously independent and, although they appreciated these explanations, they decided to remain Conservative.
  Four times during the campaign I saw the TSR2 flying overhead from Boscombe Down. It was flying overhead with a dark plume of smoke behind it and a little satellite aircraft circling round it and photographing it on its way, the only type of aircraft capable of survival in enemy air space in the 1970s. I searched through this Statement on Defence and could find only one reference to this great project. There is plenty in it about married quarters in Gibraltar and primary schools in Germany, but I could find only one sentence of welcome in this White Paper—and a very qualified welcome it was.
  "Meanwhile"—
  it reads—
  "work on the TSR2 is being continued."
  I am concerned with the defence aspect and with the wellbeing of my constituents whose livelihood is closely interwoven with the future of this great project. It is not merely that they are threatened with
  1430
  redundancy. It is not merely the uncertainty. These things we accept in these swiftly changing times. It goes deeper than that. These men are patient and highly qualified. They are dedicated to their work, confident of their skills and confident of their achievement. They believe that through long years of effort they have created something which is unique. They have faith in it and they look to the Government for recognition and encouragement.
  I have not been their Member long, but I should be failing them if their voice was not heard in this debate. My concern is no narrow constituency point. It is the same as that which was expressed for this project by hon. Members on both sides on 9th February, including my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser). Pleas were made for this great project. I will not press the matter further tonight. I am content to add my voice with urgency to theirs.
  I have been away from this place for a few months. When I returned and read this Statement on Defence I had to rub my eyes. I wondered whether during my absence there had been a second change of Government. There is the acceptance that Britain's survival depends on the strength and unity of N.A.T.O.; the recognition of our crucial commitments east of Suez; the realisation that equipping our forces poses what are called "daunting problems"; the awareness that time and cost control of a project involves what are described in the White Paper as some of the hardest problems which have to be faced. This is language which I have never heard before from the Labour benches.
  Only a few short months ago—I do not think it unfair to say this—the unending song of the Labour Party was "What about Ferranti? What about Blue Streak?" Yet today these military projects constitute "daunting problems". This is very different music. The gramophone record has been turned over and responsibility is playing a new tune.
  I searched in vain in this Statement on Defence for traces of Labour Party defence policy, and I could not find them. They had all gone into the waste basket—

  1431
  sunk without trace. We had all those exciting seaside conferences, singing the "Red Flag", all those dramatic resolutions about Polaris, all those tense debates about the deterrent, all that happy heart-searching in the sunshine at Scarborough.
  Mr. Ernest Popplewell: What a lot of nonsense.
  Mr. Hamilton: They were just exercises; they were irrelevant, they were academic. After 13 years, the Labour Party has now scraped back with a majority of three or four seats and overnight it has become respectable, emasculated and unrecognisable.
  I was amused earlier in the debate this afternoon to learn that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—I am sorry that he is not now present—was finding it so painful to discover that all Governments are Tory Governments. This Statement on the Defence Estimates is the most conventional stuff that one could ask for.
  I disagree here with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth), who said that he had never seen such an opening to a White Paper in his life. I should have said that this opening was older than time. The opening is as much of a convention as an opening of chess. Somebody has got down the file, turned up the procedure and said, "Ah, yes. Change of Government. That means that the first section must be headed 'The legacy'. If there are shortcomings, let us be quite clear that they are not of our making."
  What amuses me is that the Labour Party has concentrated all its energy into Part I. The Government have wrestled with only 10 pages in the White Paper. The rest, the remaining 50 pages, has been wisely left to the highly competent civil servants behind them. The result is a delightful contrast. After all, we begin with the shortcomings, the parlous state of our defences, and yet Part II is a success story from beginning to end.
  We read about the Strategic Reserve, which is poised for instant action. We read about the achievements against the Radfan tribesmen and of the success against the infiltrating Indonesians. We
  1432
  read of the immediate response by British troops to trouble in Kenya and that within hours of the President's call for assistance in Tanganyika, our forces were there. We read of the highly efficient operations in Uganda and in British Guiana and of the swift help given to Hong Kong after a typhoon and to Ceylon after a cyclone.
  These are actions of which all of us, on both sides, can be very proud. They stem directly from the successful defence policy of the Conservative Government. There are legacies and there are legacies, and I believe that the country is grateful that the Labour Party have inherited sufficient defence capacity to tide them over their brief months of office.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. John Hay: I do not think that even the most friendly of their supporters would claim that the Government have had a good day today. With the solitary exception of the speech of the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger), who was not entirely uncritical, all the speeches to which we have listened from the other side of the House have condemned the White Paper and the policy of the present Government. This must—I realise it—be a grave disappointment to the Secretary of State. We have seen him, year in and year out, at this Box on this side of the House, working hard to get to his present position, and, of course, we congratulate him on reaching his high office; but it must be a disappointment to him that his first White Paper has met with such a poor response from some of his own friends.
  We have once more the interesting spectacle of the Labour Party split wide open on defence. Let Ministers realise that it is not our fault. They asked for this. They produced the manifesto which promised all sorts of things to their Left wing. They were the ones who made the speeches at the election promising that they would renegotiate the Nassau Agreement and, in terms, would give up the Polaris missile. And now they have found that some of the hungry sheep below the Gangway are looking up rather surprised that not only are they not fed but must get a kick in the pants as well. They must not be altogether surprised at the result.

  1433
  Now we on this side of the House are, of course, obliged to attack the White Paper, and we have moved an Amendment to the Motion and we intend to vote upon it, principally because of its opening paragraph. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) made clear in his speech this afternoon, the opening paragraph is purely party political. It contains an attack upon the policies of the previous Administration, an attack which, I think, is unprecedented in a Government White Paper. Indeed, the mildest language which I personally can find to describe it is that the allegations which it contains are not only reckless but are untruthful. I say reckless because if any regard at all is being paid by the Government to the morale of the forces—and they admit elsewhere in the White Paper that manpower is a problem—then, surely, it was unwise to proclaim in terms that they believe the forces to be seriously overstretched and dangerously under-equipped. There may, of course, be some overstretching, and we realise that some of the equipment may not be perfect, but, basically, we know that the forces are adequate to the tasks placed upon them and that the equipment which they have is satisfactory.
  Indeed, not only does one just look at the remainder of the White Paper to prove the truth of that statement, but the Secretary of State for Defence himself has admitted, in his speech of 23rd November last, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth, the previous Secretary of State, handed over to him as he put it,
  "the best weapon that any Defence Minister in this country has yet had".—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 23rd November, 1964; Vol. 702, c. 1026.]
  The right hon. Gentleman was talking about the defence forces of this country. Perhaps he would look again at what he said.
  Mr. Healey: It was on a quite different thing.
  Mr. Hay: Whatever the argument about that, the simplest proof, of course, is that even if £20,000 million may have been spent since 1952 on defence, even though that be so, peace has been maintained and the security of our country has been preserved. Moreover, our responsibilities to our friends and our
  1434
  allies have been discharged, and they can continue to be.
  I suspect that we are here in the presence of the making of another myth, like the one about our economic and financial position when the Government came into office. They are going to say that they have inherited an awful mess and muddle, but their own White Paper proves that the reverse is true. What they have inherited is a highly efficient machine, well-trained and equipped forces, and sensible and economical plans for the future. Our defence record is one of which we can be, and are, extremely proud, as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will come more and more to understand as time goes on.
  I must just point out one piece of what I can only describe as sharp practice in paragraph 1 of the White Paper. There is a reference to the estimates of expenditure for 1963–64 and for 1964–65. It is said that for the current year the estimates provide for £1,998—I take it that to be a misprint and that it should be £1,998 million—and it goes on to say:
  "The plans for 1965–66 which we inherited would have made necessary estimates of £2,176 million …"
  I am sure that the Ministers opposite know now, or at least have been advised, that the process of estimating in the Defence Department proceeds according to a well-established formula. What the Government got when they came into office were the draft estimates for the various parts of the Ministry of Defence.
  The White Paper talks about "plans" which the Government have inherited. I protest about that, because what the Government have done is to take the original draft estimates, which are always subject to intensive cutting and scrutiny, and claim that they are the estimates which we would have presented had we remained in office. They are not. The right hon. Gentleman knows, and his experience should have shown him, that from October to this time of the year this process of cutting and eventually of settling the estimates with the Treasury continues, and in this case that has resulted in a substantial reduction. I repeat that what the Government have done is sharp practice.
  Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman calls it sharp practice. If he says that if he

  1435
  had stayed in office he would have made cuts, what would he have cut? Would he have cut the £20 million which we have saved on aircraft and submarines? Would he have cut the larger sum which we have saved on nuclear weapons? Would he have cut the amount we have saved on ceremonial dress? If the hon. Gentleman expects us to believe what he tells us, let him tell us what he would cut.
  Mr. Hay: That goes to prove the point that I am making. The right hon. Gentleman knows that had we remained in office we would have pruned the estimates in accordance with our own programmes. The Government have now made a number of decisions. We were told this afternoon that a saving of £55·5 million had been made in various fields, but we were not told the figures. The right hon. Gentleman just mentioned a figure of £20 million. This is the first figure which we have been given, except for the derisory point about ceremonial dress. This is not the way in which the Government should approach Parliament.
  I do not want to take too long on this, but in the next sentence there is a reference to the White Paper on Public Expenditure, published by the previous Government in December, 1963. It says that that White Paper
  "envisaged an annual increase in defence expenditure of only 3½ per cent. …"
  I have looked at the White Paper on Public Expenditure. I find that there is only one reference to defence, and that is in a table of figures in Part II. There is no reference to a 3½ per cent. increase. If one takes the figures in there and works out the sum, one gets an average increase of 3½ per cent., but the point is that we always knew that in the first two or three years of the period covered by the White Paper the increase would be much more than 3½ per cent. When one talks about an average, some years may be higher and some may be lower.
  Mr. Healey: Absolutely the contrary.
  Mr. Hay: The right hon. Gentleman says "Absolutely the contrary". I am sorry, but I disagree with him. Again, this is not the way in which the Government should approach Parliament.
  1436
  There has not been much talk today—perhaps we shall have more tomorrow—about why defence costs increase. Many of the criticisms of our record contained in paragraph 1 of the White Paper are themselves answered in the remainder of the document. For example, paragraph 6 refers to the way in which the costs of weapons increase. Similar references are made in paragraphs 32, 33 and 143. I do not propose to take up time by quoting them, but they provide the answer—if an answer is really needed—to the question why the proportion of the national income now spent on defence has had to rise year by year.
  We all know that the costs of these highly sophisticated weapons are extremely difficult to forecast when we begin the process of research and development. Inevitably programmes slip. Inevitably the requirements change as new knowledge becomes available. We need not imagine that this country is alone in this. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Goole is not here. He was somewhat critical. I would remind him and the House that other countries have exactly the same trouble. The United States has had long experience of this kind. Skybolt—one of the great projects of the past—had to be cancelled simply because the requirements had changed and the development schedule slipped. The TFX itself—which the Government are thinking about—is a weapon which was proposed to come into service some time ago. That, too, is slipping.
  That brings me to the problem of cost control and the reorganisation of the Defence Department. Paragraphs 32–47 contain a factual account of the new machinery which my right hon. Friend set up in the Ministry of Defence before he left it. I would remind the Government that we set up that machinery. Anyone reading the White Paper might imagine that all this had been done in the last two or three months, but we did it. By all means let us make use of United States experience, which is very great in these matters, but I warn the Secretary of State, and especially the Minister for the Army, that neither should expect too much from this machine.
  There are two things which all the computers which can be put to work will not give—the first being plain common sense, and the second the long

  1437
  and detailed experience of the professional soldiers, sailors and airmen, who form the nucleus of the defence machine. Their knowledge cannot easily be fed into a computer. I hope that the Secretary of State will take account of the salutary warnings given to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on this point.
  I repeat that the reorganisation of the Defence Departments was carried out by my right hon. Friend. We were very glad to read the progress report contained in the White Paper, but, as my right hon. Friend said this afternoon, the next move to the functional approach will have to be made soon. The question is when and how it will be made, and not whether. I hope that the Minister for the Army will say something about this. We were extremely interested in the mention made in paragraph 46 of the review which is to take place of the reorganisation, under the hon. Member's direction, with the help of a Committee, as I understand it, How does he envisage his task, and propose to go about it?
  I turn to some of the other major matters which have been canvassed. Basic strategic concepts are mentioned in the White Paper. Paragraph 19 quite rightly says, in connection with our rôle east of Suez, that the British contribution to peace and stability in this area is paramount. I note that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) rather disagreed with this point. It is one to which my hon. Friends and I attach the greatest importance. It underlines, of course, the importance of the bases, particularly those of Aden and Singapore. I would remind the Government that this is an extremely large area. The whole of the Indian Ocean basin covers many thousands of square miles. I wonder whether, having regard to what they say in the White Paper about the paramount importance of our rôle in that area, the Government now accept the need for a seaborne strategy, with emphasis on amphibious forces? With all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), who was a little critical on this point—he and I may disagree about it, but it is my opinion which I give—we cannot hope to discharge the many response-
  1438
  bilities which we already have in that area, unless we are prepared to accept a seaborne strategy and all the things which go with it.
  The hub around which an amphibious force has to be built is the aircraft carrier. This is quite clear in the present time. I should like to refer to paragraph 60 of the White Paper, which I think—this is perhaps not deliberate but accidental—is a little misleading. It says:
  "Our largest forces outside Europe are in the Far East, where we have a combined commitment to S.E.A.T.O. and to Malaysia. The deployment of aircraft carriers and Commando ships is flexible as between the Middle East and Far East and we expect to maintain a total of three in the area East of Suez."
  At a first, quick reading of that sentence, one might think that the Government were committing themselves to the maintenance of three carriers east of Suez. In fact—and I ask for confirmation—they do not intend that, at this stage at any rate.
  I must therefore put to them the problem. We must assume that there will be, for almost all the time—as far as it can be done in accordance with the refitting schedules and so on—two carriers east of Suez. That was what we always tried to do. We tried to maintain them. We found it a little difficult, but this is the essential thing to aim at, two carriers east of Suez. I do not think that even that will be enough.
  Mr. Healey: I should just like to point out a fact of which the hon. Member must be well aware. It is that the last Government decided that they could only afford to maintain one east of Suez normally and only ordered one replacement carrier. I should be grateful to know at this stage whether the party then in power has changed its view on this since it has been in opposition.
  Mr. Hay: I am sorry. The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. We sought to maintain two east of Suez, but we admitted that, from time to time, it might not be possible to do that.
  Mr. Healey: Not all the time, then.
  Mr. Hay: But most of the time.
  Mr. Dalyell: Does the hon. Member reject entirely the view put forward by his right hon. Friend the Member for

  1439
  Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) that there should be an overall Atlantic force commitment in this area?
  Mr. Hay: Not necessarily. I always find the views of my right hon. Friend stimulating, as I think do most hon. Members. I was not altogether clear about what he meant on that and I should like to study what he said in HANSARD before I give a reasoned reply.
  I should like to know whether we can be told before the debate ends tomorrow night what progress is being made with the new carrier. I had hoped for a statement in the White Paper about the progress of this carrier. And have the Government yet come to any decision as to whether a further new carrier may be ordered? I do not think that we can anticipate that our responsibilities in this area east of Suez will become fewer. In fact, I think that they might well increase. We may have additional responsibilities placed upon us. It is not impossible that the United States may ask for our help in the difficult situation in Vietnam. It is also possible that, at any moment, we may be called upon to fulfil a dormant obligation in the Middle East—our obligations to the Gulf States, for example.
  I understand that the Government, quite properly, would wish to review the whole of this picture, but I think it is very unlikely that they will find any answer to the situation east of Suez which is cheaper than, and as effective as, that which we sought to follow during our period of office.
  I now turn to the question of Europe. As my right hon. Friend said this afternoon, paragraphs 17 and 18 of the White Paper are extremely important, but one regrets the somewhat scanty treatment which this very important subject is given. I can understand why it is given that treatment. Clearly Ministers are in the process of trying to make up their minds about what they are going to do with B.A.O.R. They say that the strategic concept requires revision and that is a statement which I think would get some loud "Hear, hears" not only in this country but certainly throughout N.A.T.O.
  They having stated that publicly, I must ask what machinery for revision do
  1440
  they propose? We should very much like to be told if they have any ideas. I must ask this further question, do they intend to propose to our allies in N.A.T.O. a reduction of the force levels in B.A.O.R.? If so, presumably it has to be done by agreement. Then I must put this further question: what is to happen about what is said in the White Paper about the need in Europe for a revised strategic concept, if the other members do not agree? As hon. Members on this side of the House have said during the debate, the trouble with this White Paper is that it leaves so many questions unanswered. I do not altogether blame the Government for that, but I think we are entitled to have some answers to some of these questions.
  I turn to another area of strategy, that is, the nuclear question. I note the recent decision made to reduce the Polaris fleet from the five boats that were planned to four. This decision—I speak for myself—I regard as unwarranted. Why did we originally—
  Mr. Healey: Why?
  Mr. Hay: I speak personally; I think that phrase will be understood by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Why did we go for the five-boat fleet? The reason, as I am sure the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy will confirm, is that if we have a five-boat fleet we can be certain of always having two boats on station. That, of course, goes right to the root of the problem of credibility of the deterrent. There is also—this was in our minds even at that stage—the possibility—I put it no higher—that it might be necessary to deploy Polaris in other parts of the world than the Atlantic. Now the fifth boat has been cancelled and I regret the decision. My reasons are these. I think the Government are going to find a very heavy bill for compensation. That is something which will have, presumably, to be presented in a Supplementary Estimate before long. Secondly, within a very short time now there will be no going back from this decision, even if they want to, and there might be circumstances in which they would want to. Once the United States production lines for the equipment, for the missiles and for the guidance equipment have closed they cannot be reopened.

  1441
  The Government say in the White Paper that the four Polaris boats and half of the V-bomber force are an adequate subscription to the proposed A.N.F. That may be so, I do not know. It might be so if A.N.F. comes into being. If their proposal succeeds and A.N.F. is set up, that might be a sufficient subscription from Britain. I must ask the Secretary of State—I put this to him deliberately because I should like him to deal with it tomorrow—what he proposes to advise his colleagues to do about the Polaris fleet if, in fact, A.N.F. is stillborn. Suppose the allies will have nothing to do with A.N.F. and we are left with a four-boat fleet, which will have the disadvantage I mentioned a few moments ago, what would they do then? Would they scrap it or keep it? We should certainly like to know the answer to this question, and I think that some hon. Members opposite below the Gangway would also like to know the answer.
  I must not be too unkind to them about this. We welcome their repentance on this issue and acceptance of the plain facts of international life.
  I marvel at the good luck they have had so far. I could have imagined that the publication of the White Paper would have been the signal for the masses of C.N.D. to haunt Whitehall and Trafalgar Square, sitting down in their thousands for what they might regard as a betrayal of the promises made to them. However, Easter is coming and we may see something of that sort yet.
  I turn to the question of the A.N.F. I noted that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton was against it. He put some of the points succinctly. I have never understood the case for the A.N.F., although I appreciate that it might have been a useful piece of equipment with which to destroy the M.L.F. project. It is often said that the reason why some kind of multilateral force or Atlantic nuclear force is necessary is because of German pressure for a share in the control of the nuclear deterrent.
  I have a number of friends in Germany and have visited the country many times. I was there quite recently. I have never been able to detect from anyone in German politics an insistent demand that they should have a share in the nuclear deterrent. If there really
  1442
  is such a demand, I must ask whether the House agrees that the Government's present proposals—so far as they have been made known to us in speeches and in the White Paper—will really satisfy that demand. The proposals are certainly very obscure. We have a slightly better idea of the detail from paragraph 15 of the White Paper, but again many questions are begged. There is reference to
  "… some kind of mixed-manned and jointly armed element or elements in which the existing non-nuclear powers could take part."
  Does that mean non-nuclear forces and, if so, what happens to the German desire for a share in the control of the Western nuclear deterrent if that is all they are going to get? There is a reference to any force which France may decide to subscribe, but will France subscribe and, if she does not decide to do so, how will the Government try to tie in the proposed A.N.F., if it is created without France, with the structure of N.A.T.O.?
  It is stated elsewhere that there will be proposals made for the political control and military command of this force. The Government have made these proposals already. The House of Commons should be told what these proposals are because we cannot reach a judgment on this matter until we know. I gather that the Prime Minister is off in a few days to Germany, and I suppose that these things will be discussed. We should be told, before he goes, whether the Government envisage that the A.N.F. will be set up outside or inside N.A.T.O. If it is to be set up outside N.A.T.O., what becomes of all the brave words in the White Paper about the utility of the A.N.F. in strengthening the Western Alliance?
  I will not dwell on the issue of the veto but simply say that it is apparent from the words used in the White Paper that the Government are envisaging an A.N.F. to which our nuclear forces would be committed for the duration of the Alliance and that any country which chose to have that right of veto, being a member of the A.N.F., would be able to prevent our forces being withdrawn should our supreme national interests require them to be.
  Speaking personally, I say again that this is an unwise statement for the Government to have made at this stage. It is very unlikely that my hon. and

  1443
  right hon. Friends could ever accept such a commitment, should the A.N.F. come into being. The truth really is that the A.N.F., if it is ever born, will be a useless and divisive apparatus which will contribute nothing whatever to the strengthening of N.A.T.O. and the resolution of its problems. It is a patently transparent political device to keep the left wing of the Labour Party quiet. The only danger that I envisage in the A.N.F. is that, by some chance, the Government may come to believe in it themselves.
  In conclusion, 99 per cent. of the White Paper is good stuff, I believe. Most of it refers back to the past, when we were responsible, and it is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) said, a success story. It is a little obscure in places, but we do not mind that. But we object very vehemently to the untrue and unworthy allegations made in paragraph 1. Let nobody imagine that, because we vote against the Government tomorrow, we are against the broad outlines of the policies and the programmes that they are following, with the exception of the A.N.F., but what we are not prepared to do is to vote tomorrow night to endorse a lie.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Deputy Secretary of State and Minister of Defence for the Army (Mr. Frederick Mulley): The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) made, as always, a very competent and interesting speech, but I thought that he was rather happier in the middle of his speech, when he was making constructive, well argued, comments, than when he was following what clearly is the line of the Tory Party—an attempt, as it sees it, to divide the Labour Party, as the hon. Gentleman put it, down the middle.
  The hon. Gentleman rather gave the game away by saying that he was disappointed that there had not been all the demonstration that the Tories thought would come. I am sorry to have to disappoint right hon. and hon. Members opposite, but, as will be shown tomorrow night in the Division, the Labour Party is, in this House and in the country, united behind my right hon. Friend in his task.
  I do not know why the hon. Gentleman thought that the first paragraph of
  1444
  the White Paper would upset the morale of the Armed Forces. In the last Government he had responsibilities for the Royal Navy. Surely he knew that the men knew that ships were in moth balls because there were not men to man them. One can develop this theme further over the field. I thought that it was particularly apposite that the hon. Gentleman compared what he called the myth about defence with the myth about the economic situation. If to inherit an annual deficit of £700 million to £800 million on the balance of payments is not a legacy, I do not know what is. The hon. Gentleman's comparison was perhaps rather more apt than he thought.
  The hon. Gentleman was charitable enough to say that he thought that perhaps we should not be blamed for not dealing with all the questions in the White Paper. He probably had in mind, as one of the Ministers responsible, that last year the first Secretary of State for Defence came to the House with a White Paper which was a single sheet of paper.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: The best one ever published.
  Mr. Mulley: It ill becomes hon. Gentlemen to complain about lack of information in my right hon. Friend's White Paper, in view of the documents which were produced in the past and which are on the record for all to see.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the White Paper which the House is asked to approve tomorrow night is the first engagement in a long campaign to get our defence policy, our forces and our organisation right. To those who may be disappointed that we have not been able to go further today I would say, not by way of apology but as factual explanation, that a much longer time than four months is needed.
  Already, much has been done. In N.A.T.O. we have taken a new initiative with the A.N.F. and my right hon. Friend has proposed a constructive approach for a realistic appraisal of N.A.T.O. strategy in the changed circumstances of today, as compared with 10 years ago. Urgent decisions to provide new aircraft in the time scale required and at a lower cost have been taken. Discussions have already begun with France to develop jointly some of the next generation of aircraft needed.

  1445
  Defence studies are well advanced covering the whole field of policy. The Ministry of Defence is working closely with my noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, who is responsible for disarmament, to produce proposals for arms control and disarmament, the safest and most certain way of increasing our security and lowering the cost of our defence budget. But we are very conscious of how much remains to be done and that it cannot all be done quickly.
  The basic facts of defence, as the right hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) said, is that it takes up to 10 years to design and produce a major item of equipment and over two years to train a soldier sailor or airman for the sophisticated tasks demanded of him in the Armed Forces of today. In every direction there are mounting costs as the sophistication of weapons increases, and in many cases it is clear that the enormous cost of research and development cannot be sustained by the orders that we can place for our comparatively small requirements. Emphasis on joint projects and export of our equipment, to balance items which we must buy abroad, must replace the complacent attitude that we can leisurely produce all that our forces are likely to require. Control of costs and a closer examination of new requirements demand, and are being given, a high priority. I was glad to see that the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) welcomed the establishment of the new defence operational analysis establishment at Byfleet. Functional costings which provide a broad picture of the relative total costs of forces and weapons systems are well advanced and give us a most useful planning tool. I appreciated the thoughtful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who warned us that it was not too easy to get all the information we wanted. It is because of the shortcomings, as a planning tool, of the estimates in the traditional form that the outgoing Government began, and we have greatly developed, this system of functional costing.
  In another direction we are endeavouring to get better value for money by applying the techniques of value analysis or value engineering to the production of weapons and equipment. The Royal Navy
  1446
  pioneered these techniques within the Ministry. Our object is to achieve not only cost reductions in manufacture, but cost prevention in planning and use as well.
  I submit that great as the problems are, we have already made a good beginning, which is in marked contrast to the legacy we inherited from right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It would seem that they are excessively upset by the first paragraphs of the White Paper which deal briefly and, I believe, moderately with the magnitude of the problems which my right hon. Friend found when he took up his office last October. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Monmouth himself referred in an unguarded moment this afternoon to the large and grim problems that he left behind. I assure the House that these paragraphs could be greatly expanded, but I want to deal now with the positive aspects of the steps we are taking to deal with the situation rather than dwell on the deplorable legacy we were bequeathed.
  The most eloquent testimony we have, perhaps, is the fact that the right hon. Member for Monmouth has been summarily removed from the defence field. We heard his swansong this afternoon. I imagine that this is because the Leader of the Opposition is learning the facts of the defence muddle over which he presided and which, clearly, he could not have known when he was Prime Minister.
  Mr. James Ramsden: Referring to the first paragraphs of the White Paper, could the right hon. Gentleman say when he found himself in a position with no battalion in reserve to send overseas if the need arose?
  Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman should understand about not imposing excessive separation on families. This situation has already occurred.
  Mr. Ramsden: When?
  Mr. Healey: During the past month.
  Mr. Mulley: In many ways the swan-song of the right hon. Member for Monmouth can perhaps be described as the most entertaining confessional that the House is likely to be privileged to witness because, in a sentence, what he was saying to my right hon. Friend was, "Please do not make all the mistakes that I

  1447
  made". That would be a fair summary of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. We have all enjoyed his histrionic talents over the years and I could not resist the thought that if, as seems not unlikely, he is in future rejected by the electors of Monmouth, and he were to take one of his own White Papers, particularly last year's one-sheet White Paper, and do the kind of turn which he was doing on our White Paper, that show would run for many years on the halls.
  The right hon. Gentleman very properly asked a number of questions. In the defence debate last year I asked a lot, too, speaking just before the right hon. Gentleman when he wound up the debate, but he did not answer a single one of them. He indulged in his usual pantomime performance. I intend to try to answer some of his questions tonight.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked what was the cost of the logistic support for the United Nations peace-keeping force. He said, "When I was in the Ministry we had a procedure. Surely this proposal would have been costed." This shows the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the workings of the Ministry very quickly, because it is quite impossible to arrive at a figure of cost for this commitment. Quite simply, the troops and the aircraft are already there and, therefore, no additional cost is incurred until the moment comes when these resources are called upon by the United Nations.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to say that the Foreign Secretary's statement meant that everything was exactly as it was before?
  Mr. Mulley: Of course it does not. That is why my right hon. Friend made the statement.
  It is of immense value to the United Nations that in its planning it can call upon the logistic support which we have stated to be available. The right hon. Gentleman never made a statement to the United Nations on what the Conservative Government were prepared to do. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition when he was Foreign Secretary did not play a very constructive rôle in the United Nations.
  Mr. Thorneycroft Mr. Thorneycroft rose—
  Mr. Mulley: I will give way when I have finished my point.
  I want to make the further point that if, not only because we believe in the United Nations but for other reasons, we can enable it to play a greater peacekeeping rôle it will also save our manpower in that we will not have to deal with a situation from our own resources alone.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that we have made great contributions on the logistic side to the United Nations in Cyprus and other places, but is he really saying that all that the Foreign Secretary said amounted to nothing by way of extra logistic support or in cost, but was merely a repetition of a situation which everybody knew?
  Mr. Mulley: I am sorry that I am not carrying the right hon. Gentleman with me. Clearly, he never got down to the question of costing while he was Secretary of State. Obviously, the forces are there and the equipment is there and it is only possible to cost it when it is actually used. The logistic situation in Cyprus can be costed because it has been used. The effect of the Foreign Secretary's statement was to assure the United Nations that it could get on with its planning and avoid the sort of Cyprus situation in which we had to hold the fort alone for so long.
  The right hon. Gentleman put his second question when he complained about the lack of information and asked whether it was proposed to purchase more helicopters. This question was put to him last year in the defence debate by his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), and the then Secretary of State for Defence said—I think that it was a characteristic reply—
  "I am not giving either the cost or the numbers, because such information has never been given in the House of Commons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1964; Vol. 690, c. 453.]
  Perhaps, if he can get over his euphoria this afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman might recall who the Secretary of State for Defence was at this time last year. I can tell him, however, that we have gone much further than he ever did. If he looks at paragraph 154 of

  1449
  the White Paper he will see that we give the numbers of helicopters in service now. Incidentally, my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have devoted a great number of hours to increasing, or trying to increase, the serviceability of the helicopters which the right hon. Gentleman bequeathed to us. By increasing their serviceability one produces the same effect as by increasing their number.
  Also, when he complains about lack of information, the right hon. Gentleman should recall that from his speech last year the House learned for the first time of the decision to purchase the Bell helicopter and the Phantom aircraft. Nowhere in any of the documents issued was there a mention of these important policy points.
  Throughout the period of the Conservative Government, defence was treated as a separate issue, divorced from foreign policy on the one hand, and the national economy, on the other. There was an incoherent process of decision-making based on last-minute responses to events. There was no real attempt to match political commitments to military resources, still less to relate the resources made available for defence to the economic circumstances of the nation. Circumstances are always changing. We should welcome change, but we must anticipate it in our defence policies and plan to cope with it instead of shuffling after events as right hon. Gentlemen opposite did for so long.
  My right hon. Friend said that I would make some reference to the changes which we consider necessary—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with us on this at least—in organisation. The right hon. Gentleman said that he bequeathed us a good instrument. I do not wish to detract from his achievement, with the full support of the then Opposition, in bringing the three Services together under one roof in the new Ministry of Defence. We wish that it could have been achieved earlier. It seems that the right hon. Gentleman, however, spent himself in his efforts and, from 1st April last, contented himself with clutching his one battle honour while other great issues, aircraft policy, the seaborne M.L.F., and escalating costs just drifted out of his control. As the right hon. Gentleman said that the A.N.F. had got one battle honour, at least it is to be equated with the right
  1450
  hon. Gentleman in that respect, but with the difference that the A.N.F. is still going on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is it."] The proposal for the A.N.F. is still going on.
  I think that we understand fully what was occupying the right hon. Gentleman. He was, as he put it, writing full instructions for his successors. If he had bothered to ask his private secretary, he would have been told that, unhappily, a new Government are not entitled to look at the papers of the outgoing Administration. We should like very much to see those papers, not because we think that we would get any guidance or information from them, but because we would find them extremely revealing.
  The instrument that the right hon. Gentleman left us was a blunt one and we need to sharpen it if it is to play its full rôle in achieving our agreed objectives of producing the most efficient fighting forces at the lowest cost. In any case, the organisation, so soon after the major upheaval last year, cannot stand still. There is no question whatever of abolishing the separate Services or of merging them into one, but how can they work together most efficiently and economically?
  The right hon. Gentleman made a fuss of the statement in the White Paper that "The question is not whether further changes take place, but what changes, in what direction, and at what pace." Nevertheless, that statement represents the situation. I thought that in his attitude to the question of the reorganisation the right hon. Gentleman had a little phobia about the strength of the individual Services and the Chiefs of Staff.
  It was perhaps rather unfair of him, in defending himself against the accusations of paragraph 1, to say that we were running down the men in the Services. In earlier speeches he has tried to get behind the skirts of the Chiefs of Staff. What he must understand, and what is absolutely clear in paragraph 1, is that our criticisms are of him and his right hon. Friends and he must be big enough to stand up and defend himself without bringing the Armed Forces, high or low, into the conflict.
  I am very conscious of the responsibilities that I carry in the re-examination of the whole structure of defence

  1451
  organisation. There are two main aspects to this. First, there is the organisation of commands, which in time must necessarily react on the structure of the Ministry of Defence. Secondly, there is the rationalisation of common services between the three separate arms. These questions are interlinked.
  We need an organisation which can respond flexibly and swiftly to circumstances in which the three Services are required to act together, but it is most important that we divest ourselves of any preconceived ideas. It is wholly wrong to approach this with a theoretical solution in front of one, as I rather thought the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Henley did.
  We are not interested in change for the sake of change. We want the right kind of change which will give us more efficiency at lower cost. We are anxious not to fall into the trap of reorganising Whitehall without regard to the people who are doing the fighting. That is why it is proposed to start the new examination in the Far East—I am sure that he will agree with us there—and in the Middle East commands.
  We want to examine the problems from the sharp end, to examine the unified commands, and I am sure that this will also provide material for the examination of the headquarters organisation. The study will be undertaken by a team answerable to me and it is bound to take some time. We hope then to go on to the Home Commands and B.A.O.R.
  Mr. Hay: Is it intended that when this review has been completed some statement will be made to the House, so that we shall know what the results are?
  Mr. Mulley: We shall be making statements when changes arising from these studies are contemplated. I will not go through the list of rationalisation studies and the steps already taken, but we are in process, also, of trying to reorganise what I suppose is one of the largest undertakings in the world—the 800,000 people, Service and civilian, who comprise the three Services. I think that
  1452
  the magnitude of our task will be understood when I say that there are about 2 million items of stores in the inventories of the three Services, and, to make matters more complicated, they usually have different descriptions in the different Services.
  A team has visited the United States to examine their difficulties in this respect, and it is quite clear from the American experience, although it is different from ours, that the progress of standardisation and the progress of economy can be achieved only by giving priority to a common supply language. In the United States this took six years and the employment of many thousands of people, but a common supply language had to be achieved before they could proceed fully to rationalise the administration and logistics of their Services. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about carriers?"] My right hon. Friend has already said that he will deal with questions about carriers tomorrow.
  The Committee under Field Marshal Sir Gerald Templer is to determine the most efficient and economic organisation for the control and employment of air power in support of defence policy. This will deal not only with the operational, but the logistics side. It is also intended, as far as is applicable, to bring in outside people with industrial experience in the manifold problems which we are facing in this reorganisation. Incidentally, speaking of external advice, two strong sub-committees of the Select Committee on Estimates are dealing with these matters. We welcome their inquiries and look forward to their recommendations.
  I conclude by commending the White Paper to the House. It is clearly not and cannot be a blueprint of our defence policy, but, as several hon. Members have said, it is a good beginning, the first steps towards a policy which will provide us with security at a price the nation can afford.
  Debate adjourned.—[Mr. McCann.]
  Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

  WHITE FISH SUBSIDY
  9.58 p.m.
  Mr. J. A. Stodart: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) (Amendment) Scheme 1965 (S.I., 1965, No. 84), dated 21st January, 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th January, be annulled.
  The first comment I should like to make—
  Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) in error. I see that only one name appears on the Motion and only the hon. Member whose name appears can move it.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I hope that hon. Members opposite will not crow too soon.
  I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) (Amendment) Scheme 1965 (S.I., 1965, No. 84), dated 21st January, 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st February, be annulled.
  Mr. Stodart: Despite that false start, I should still like, as my first remark, to say this. Although the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) has answered Questions on fishing since October, I believe that this is the first occasion on which he will have taken part in a debate from the Government Front Bench. I should like to tender to him the congratulations and good wishes of many of my constituents, of whom he is one, on the honour which has befallen him. I hope that his voyage will be not too uncomfortable, but not over-long.
  The special rates of grant which we are discussing form part of the £2½ million which are to be spent over 10 years up to 1972, and they, in turn, are an integral part of the whole system of fishing subsidies, which include the tapering basic rates and also the grants and loans. Therefore, when this Scheme comes before the House, it provides a good chance for asking the Minister for a progress report on the advance of the industry towards the viability which we all hope awaits it.
  The special rates were designed to meet what have been described as particular
  1454
  short-term difficulties. The expenditure in any year is limited to £350,000. The 1962 Statutory Instrument, I think, was made for the whole year, as is usual in cases of this kind. But in the summer of 1963 the British Trawler Federation asked that these supplementary grants should be adjusted every six months so as to provide the maximum impact where it was most needed. So it has been ever since.
  I think that I am right in saying—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that in the six months from August, 1963, to January, 1964, these supplementary grants ran at £160,000. Between February and July, 1964—that is the subsequent six months—they ran at £170,000, making £330,000 for that year. I also think I am right in saying that that figure of £330,000 was a little up on the previous year. From August, 1964, until January this year—that is, the six months period which has just passed—the sum of supplementary grants amounted to only £25,000, which was based on the profit and loss account, as it were, of the industry between October, 1963, and March, 1964.
  The first question which I should like to ask the Minister is, how much do the grants listed in the Scheme come to? I presume that, whatever the figure is, it is based on the fortunes of the industry during the summer and possibly the latter half of 1964. It appears from the Scheme as if this series will be even lower than the £25,000 of the last six months.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: The hon. Member is giving a great deal of ancient history about the fishing industry, but he has not indicated the relevance of that history to his objection to the Scheme. Will he come to the point and tell us what his objection is?
  Mr. Stodart: It is not a bad policy to spend a little time painting the background, because this is not a short-term policy. It is all part of a policy that operates until 1972. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and learned Member will allow me merely to sketch in the background into which the Scheme fits.
  Secondly, if I am right in saying that the amount for the present six months is to be less than the £25,000 of the previous

  1455
  six months, I should like to know from the Minister whether what is saved this year can be banked up and held in advance for the next year. I suspect that it can, but I should like the Minister to confirm this.
  I have no desire to be pessimistic. I hope profoundly that the results which the fishing fleets enjoyed in 1964 were not a flash in the pan. Everyone who knows anything about the fishing industry knows, however, that these bright spots happen and that one can then so easily descend into a trough. It may, therefore, well be that if we can bank up what has been saved this year, it will come in useful in the future.
  There is no more hazardous work than that which is done by the fishing fleets. It is a matter of great regret and sorrow to us all that during the last 12 months lives have been lost among these gallant men who have gone out to do this hazardous and dangerous work.
  It is interesting to note the decline which has occurred in the distribution of these special subsidies. Only a year ago, there were 14 categories which enjoyed a special subsidy and these were based upon 11 different ports or harbours. Last summer, when we last debated the matter, the 14 categories had fallen to five, based upon seven harbours. The present Scheme gives these special grants to only three categories, based upon five harbours.
  There are one or two interesting features of the various classes in the Scheme. The first is that oil-fired vessels, no matter what is their port, have dropped right out of the list. A year ago there were seven classes of these, which benefited up to a maximum amount of £10 a day, and they came from six different ports.
  Secondly, when one studies the Scheme, there are obviously considerable difficulties in the class which deals with the 120–130 ft. boats or motor fishing vessels from Milford Haven. A year ago this class received £8 10s. a day. Six months ago the special grant dropped to £8. Tonight the Scheme before us tells us that the grant has gone up to £10.
  The third figure which I think is worth comment is that the 100 ft. to 110 ft.
  1456
  class of vessels berthed at Fleetwood and North Shields are still in the list whereas for most other ports that size of vessel has dropped out altogether. The Fleetwood boats get the same grant as they did in July of last year, whereas at North Shields the grant for these vessels has risen from £3 10s. to £4 10s. and I wonder if the Minister is able to tell us what problems are facing these boats and these ports which have made them rather distinctive from the others in that they have obviously fared worse.
  Without a doubt this marked decline in the special subsidies reflects the better results which the white fish fleet as a whole has had and which nearly all sectors of it have had, and in a year, let us remember, when troubles were by no means absent and when extensions of the limits, for example at the Faroes, loomed very large indeed. For these better results I think we have got to be grateful on at least two counts. First we must be grateful to Nature, for, by that mysterious way in which she moves, and nine times out of ten declining to reveal her secrets to us, more fish than were ever expected have been around. Secondly, we must be thankful for the enterprise and the hard work of the fishermen who went out to catch fish in different grounds and on many occasions from those to which they had been accustomed.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me when I say that, though there has been a decline, quite clearly, in the need for special grants, and this must, I think, mean that there must have been improved results, the improvement, let us say from zero, or possibly an improvement even from a minus position, does not mean that all is well in the fishing industry. I am quite certain that the hon. Gentleman, with his experience particularly with the fortunes of the Scottish fishing fleet in recent years, will agree with me in that observation. Therefore, I wonder if he would give us a little information about what is happening to cause the decline in these special subsidies.
  My information is that in 1962 the white fish catch by the home fleet amounted to just under 700,000 tons and produced £46 million in value. In 1963 the total catch was just over 700,000 tons

  1457
  and produced £48 million. Could the Minister tell us what the catch, both in weight and value, has been in 1964? I think I am right in saying—I do not have the up-to-date figures which I am sure are available to the hon. Gentleman—that there were improved values in the first part of the year, but perhaps he can tell us how the year ended, and how it turned out generally.
  In 1962, the white fish catch of the home fleet formed 86½ per cent. of the total amount of white fish landed in this country. In 1963 the home percentage rose by 1 per cent., to 87½ per cent. In 1964 we experienced the extension of the limits of the Faroes with all the difficulties which followed, particularly for the fleet based on Aberdeen. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us what percentage of the whole the British fleet cost in 1964. One would expect it to show a further increase.
  These subsidies form only one part of the whole structure of support which the fishing industry enjoys, and I am sure that hon. Members will forgive me if, as a Scottish Member, with a Scottish harbour in my constituency, I ask the hon. Member whether he can tell us something about the results which have accrued to the trawler fleet based on Granton and Aberdeen, and also how they stand now that we have regard to such things as the burden which they have carried on mortgage rates, and so forth.
  I could not conclude without mentioning the name of Mr. Roy Matthews. I do not think that in his inquiry into the white fish industry he can have avoided taking notice of the special subsidies and in the last debate on this subject on 15th July, 1964, both the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend, who is now the Minister of Agriculture, were anxious to have Mr. Matthews' report published. Does the Minister feel able to rid himself of his anxiety by allowing this report to see the light of day?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): Which one?
  Mr. Stodart: Mr. Matthews' report on the white fish industry.
  Mr. Hoy: Mr. Matthews has presented two reports. Is the hon. Gentleman talking about the report presented to our predecessors?
  Mr. Stodart: I am talking about the one which, last July, the hon. Gentleman was anxious to see published. At any rate, can he tell us whether any positive action is being taken on that report and the various recommendations contained in it? In particular, has any progress been made in the scheme for either the minimum or reserve price system on white fish?
  One of the great features of the fishing debates in the past has been the lack of political controversy. Every hon. Member, no matter where he sits, is anxious for the well-being and the prosperity of an industry which is manned by very fine people indeed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity tonight to give us some good news about the advance of the fishing industry towards viability and profitability.
  10.20 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: The normal method of subsidising the fishing fleet has been through the basic subsidy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has pointed out, this basic subsidy is increased for certain types of vessel by the special subsidy that we are now considering. In recent years the special subsidy has been altered every six months. I have made a table of the alterations that have taken place in the last three years. They all show a decreasing trend.
  The basic subsidy has dropped from £13, 17s. 6d., in 1964, to £12 15s. 0d. in respect of distant water oil burners operating from Hull and Grimsby. In 1964 these vessels also received a special subsidy under an order similar to that which we are debating. They now receive nothing. Subsidies for distant water vessels have, therefore, decreased every six months. I make no complaint about it. It is a good thing. It shows that the fleet can support itself and that the object of the subsidies is being achieved.
  The smaller motor vessels, of between 135 ft. and 140 ft. operating from the same ports used also to receive a special subsidy, but that subsidy has now been ended. We are left with the three major types of vessels affected by the Scheme. In respect of the 120 ft. vessel operating from North Shields, the subsidy has been reduced from £7 to £2. There has been a strange variation in respect of the 100 ft. boat operating from Milford Haven—

  1459
  already mentioned by my hon. Friend. I hope that the hon. Member will comment on it. In January, 1964, the special subsidy was £3 10s. It then suddenly leapt to £8. Now it is down to £2. This is a rather unusual variation, out of the normal trend for this or indeed any other type of vessel operating out of the smaller port. Lastly, in respect of 90 ft. motor vessels operating from Brixham, the normal trend is followed, in that the subsidy has fallen from £4 to £2. Generally speaking, therefore, the trend both in respect of basic and special subsidies, is gradually downwards.
  When we last debated these matters, in July of last year, I pointed out that under Conservative Governments £40 million had been given to re-equip the fishing fleet by various forms of subsidy, and I said last year that it was a good thing that, by agreement with the industry, we were able to reduce the general subsidy by 15 per cent. Having spoken of this 15 per cent. I went on to say that I was not clear whether the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) who had spoken before me thought that this general trend of reduction—15 per cent. in the last year—was a good thing or not. I said:
  "Every hon. Member who has spoken so far has accepted that this reduction in subsidies is justified."
  The hon. Member for Leith then intervened and said:
  "I had better put the hon. Member right. I made it quite clear that I did not agree."
  He referred to the speech of the then hon. Member for Banff, who had said that to talk about phasing out was nonsense. The hon. Member for Leith commented:
  "That is what I think about it, too."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1964; Vol. 698. c. 1329.]
  Now we see that he and the Government are adopting the same policy of phasing down these subsidy schemes. We hope that the re-equipment, replacement and modernising of the industry will be such that phasing out can be completed within the given period, namely by 1972. This would be in accordance with the wishes of O.E.C.D., whose Fisheries Committee made a strong report on the whole question of fishery subsidies last summer, and particularly castigated Britain and Norway in this respect. Perhaps I could just add, in passing, that, if we could get a
  1460
  reasonable agreement with the Faroese, we might be able to further reduce the subsidies. After all, subsidies are basically needed not only to modernise a fleet but in some way to compensate for the loss of traditional fishing grounds and traditional rights, particularly off Iceland and the Faroes.
  May I make another point which has not been dealt with so far. The Minister will recall that in the last Report of the White Fish Authority, dated March last year, the loans and interest on loans due to the White Fish Authority which had not been repaid amounted to £1½ million. There was a moratorium on these repayments, starting in 1962 to run for two years. I believe that it expired in September, last year. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman could say what has happened about the moratorium. This is relevant because we are discussing subsidies designed to cause the fleet to operate efficiently, and probably many of the owners of these ships are in debt to the White Fish Authority. I should like to know what is to happen to these debts—whether or not they will have to be repaid immediately. We all agree on both sides of the House that these subsidies are necessary and justified. They are producing a more efficient fleet and that fleet is capable of catching many more fish.
  I am sure that we are all extremely worried about over-fishing. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Fisheries Minister in Norway was talking only the other day about the extinction of the Arctic cod. As we often extend these fisheries debates beyond the actual subject of the subsidies, perhaps he might have a few words to give us about the Government's views on the whole problem of over-fishing, which is a vital one.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Charles Loughlin): That would be out of order.
  Mr. Wall: Finally, to return to the point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West, what is happening about the discussions which the Chairman of the White Fish Authority has had with the Government? We all know that he submitted a report some time ago, and when the Parliamentary Secretary was sitting on this side of the House he helped me to try to get the Government Front Bench to divulge what

  1461
  was said in those recommendations. There has now been another series of recommendations made to the hon. Gentleman opposite, and I should like to hear his views on those recommendations. After all, they affect matters of vital importance to this industry, quality control, statutory minimum price schemes, guarantee payments for fish not sold and improvements on the distributive side. These are matters of great importance to the industry.
  It has been traditional for your predecessors, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to allow this debate to go wider than the actual subject of the Scheme. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will find time to answer some of these questions, because they are of great interest to the industry. He will remember that we are unlikely to have another fisheries debate until June or July this year, and these matters arouse a great deal of public interest.
  10.29 p.m.
  Mr. J. M. L. Prior: When I look at the Front Bench opposite and I hear the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin)—the Parlia-liamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health—making remarks about my hon. Friend being out of order, I remember his behaviour in the last Parliament and I wonder how he dares to open his mouth.
  I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) on what he has said. He made a first-class speech and dealt admirably with most of the points in this Scheme. He has not left a great deal for any of us to say, but I should like to join with him, first of all, in saying how must we regret the losses which have occurred in the last two months amongst our fishermen at sea. I join particularly in the regret expressed at the loss of the "Blue Crusader", as I remember the loss of the "Boston Pioneer" from my own port of Lowestoft. In the last two months, we have lost 30 fishermen at sea in one way or another, either through the loss of the ship or through the loss of men washed overboard. I know that all hon. Members will join with me in paying tribute to the wonderful work done by our fishermen and express sorrow to the next of kin of the men who lost their lives.
  1462
  We are, while discussing many aspects of the fishing industry tonight, also discussing the price of fish, which can sometimes be a great deal higher than the actual £ s. d. it costs. Hon. Members with knowledge of this subject will know what I mean. The Scheme is remarkable not so much for what it contains but for the number of ports not mentioned in it. When one considers the plight of Aberdeen two years ago and thinks of it now, the fact that Aberdeen is not in the Scheme speaks volumes for the improvement which has taken place in the fishing industry there.
  I am equally delighted that the port which I represent, Lowestoft, is also not in the Scheme. The fishing industry in 1964 had the best year for a good many years. Long may that state of affairs continue. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) pointed out, nothing is more chancy than fishing. In a year or so the industry may need extra help. In view of what the Minister said in the past, when in opposition, I trust that any calls for supplementary help from the industry in future will not fall on stony ground.
  Is it possible for the supplementary provisions to be carried forward from year to year? As has been pointed out, this year we are not spending a great deal of money out of the supplementary fund, although more may be needed in future. Is it possible, therefore, to carry this unused money forward?
  The Schedule, which gives the rates of grant, reveals that most of the ports requiring supplementary payments are the small ones at which the marketing facilities for fish are not as good as at the larger ports. I recall that some time ago a three-man team carried out a marketing study, the aim being to improve the marketing facilities at fishing ports. Has that study been completed and, if so, what action is to be taken? This is an important matter because the Schedule shows clearly that the ports requiring assistance are those at which the marketing facilities need improving.
  It is also interesting to note that the larger vessels, fishing in the near and middle waters, do not appear to be making a great deal of money. The

  1463
  under 90-footers from Aberdeen, Lowestoft and Grimsby seem to be doing reasonably well, while once they get over, say, 100 feet—the 120 to 130-footers from the smaller ports—they do not do particularly well. I suppose that this has something to do with the fact that it costs a great deal more to run the larger vessels and that they are not making so much money from the fishing they are doing.
  I should like to know how the 90-footers are doing in the other ports; at South Shields, for example. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) is not in her place. She would undoubtedly have a lot to say about the activities in her part of the country. Is the Minister satisfied with the position at that port, and has South Shields got over its difficulties in the same way as other ports have tackled theirs?
  I think that the real success of the past year has been an increase in the price of fish, which has been brought about by a number of factors, not least by the increase in the price of meat which has raised the level of prices all round. We on this side of the House may take credit for having done this—
  Mr. William Hamling: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May we be told what is the relevance of the price of meat to this Scheme?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): I do not think it has any relevance, but I think the hon. Gentleman was dealing with the price of fish in relation to these subsidies. He must confine himself to the desirability or not of continuing the subsidies.
  Mr. Prior: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for your protection. It comes ill from an hon. Member who represents one of the Woolwich constituencies to intervene in a very ill-informed manner in a fishing debate. No doubt, if I am out of order, you will not hesitate to tell me so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. So far I think I have related what I have to say to the Scheme which is before us.
  I was saying that the increase in the price of meat in the last year has helped the price of fish to rise, which in its
  1464
  turn reduced the need for a supplementary susbsidy such as we are discussing this evening. I went on to say that I thought that this side of the House could take considerable credit for having the courage to allow prices of food to rise a little so as to give our fishermen and agriculturists a chance to obtain a larger share of the market.
  These supplementary funds that we are discussing are small, and no one would be more pleased than I if they could be done away with altogether. This is a good sign for the fishing industry and one that we welcome. I am glad to think that the improvement relates to a period under a Conservative Government and we hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who has spoken up well for the fishing industry in the past, will do the same in future as he did when in opposition. If he does so, he will have our support. If he does not, he knows what to expect.
  10.37 p.m.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, happily, represents a Scottish constituency and, therefore, we are particularly glad to see him taking an interest in fishing, which I know he has always done. I am sure he will not be surprised if I ask why Aberdeen is not included in the supplementary estimate. I know the main reason for this; it is because the figures to date on which the supplementary estimate is based are generally and, indeed, rather surprisingly good. However, we realise that this is a supplementary estimate for only a short period, and I should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to give me two sets of figures.
  First, I should like to know what are the total catching figures to date of the fishing fleet operating from the Port of Aberdeen. Secondly, what is the position concerning the debts still owed to the White Fish Authority by several companies or owners, and what is the position of the moratorium? As I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will be the first to appreciate, the fact that it is not necessary during this short period to give a supplementary subsidy to this northern port does not mean that it does not conceal a financial situation which is far from satisfactory. My hon. Friend

  1465
  the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Price) made the same point concerning his port.
  I should like to join with him and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) in the tributes paid to all the fishermen who lost their lives during the period which has elapsed since we last debated the fishing industry, and I would refer particularly to the "Boston Pioneer" from Lowestoft and the "Blue Crusader" from the Port of Aberdeen, which was lost with a crew of 13. The "Blue Crusader" was a modern ship. It was believed that if she was held up to the wind nothing could sink her, nevertheless in a force-10 gale she disappeared with all hands. This is a reminder that this industry is not only, like agriculture, dependent upon the vagaries of the weather but is the most dangerous and difficult of occupations.
  It is for this reason that I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who has taken a personal interest in these debates in the past, whether now that he has the responsibility of office he is still of the opinion which he expressed in opposition. He then doubted whether phasing out the subsidies over 10 years was correct. This is very important in relation to the supplementary estimates. The hon. Gentleman has often expressed the view that it is a mistake to expect an industry such as this to be viable in such a period. Has he changed his mind?
  It is true for Aberdeen. Despite the loss of the Faroes fishing ground, the introduction of new methods of catching, great experience in finding new ground, and achievements in conservation have resulted in good results to date, but these mask a situation which is far from healthy. I should like to know whether the supplementary estimates allow the hon. Gentleman to build up a bank to carry over to the next period when returns might not be so good. Secondly, does the hon. Gentleman feel it necessary now, in the light of information available to him, to consider whether the 10-year period is still a viable proposition?
  Lastly, and with respect to my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), I cannot help feeling that the fishing industry has certain divergencies of interest
  1466
  among those who fish north and south of the Border. It is for that reason that I am glad to see a Scottish Member in the position of Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I hope that he will remember that Aberdeen is the prime port of Scotland.
  10.43 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Mills: In my constituency we have the fine fishing port of Bideford. Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in agreement with the new idea of group marketing that is taking place at Brixham, and not only group marketing but group purchasing?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Group marketing does not come within the terms of this Scheme.
  Mr. Mills: If I may be allowed to continue a little longer, you will see, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, where it comes in. I am asking for a subsidy or some help in connection with group marketing.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. All we are discussing is whether or not these particular subsidies should be continued.
  Mr. Mills: I see that the port of Brixham is mentioned in the schedule, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, so I turn now to its affairs. I wonder whether the Minister is aware of what is going on in Brixham. I hope that he will encourage this port not only with the subsidies provided for under the Scheme but in its marketing and various other activities now going on. I feel that what Brixham is now doing could well be a pattern for the future of our ports in the South-West. I should like the Minister to go into this and see whether he approves of what is now going on there. I hope to see it extended because it is high time that there was a great revival of fishing in the West Country, and this could well be a way of achieving it, apart from the method of subsidy covered by the Scheme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will answer my question and do as I ask in encouraging fishing in the South-West.
  10.45 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): First, I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of sympathy which have come from the benches opposite with regard

  1467
  to those who have been lost at sea. This is always a tragedy in the fishing industry. It is one of the hazards which fishermen run, and, unfortunately, these things happen too often. We are very sorry for the loss of life, and we should like the relatives of those who have gone to know how much we feel it in the House.
  I thank the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) for his congratulations to me. I congratulate him on making his first appearance at the Dispatch Box on that side in a fishing debate. The only difference in the congratulations is that I hope that his stay on the opposite benches will be a long one. I shall look forward to discussing fishing with him on many occasions.
  The Order setting out the Scheme is a short one. I have never objected to widening the purpose of a debate, but this debate managed to range rather wide on this fairly narrow Scheme. Hon. Members will recall that we had a rather wider debate when the more general Order came up last July. However, I shall try to reply, within the bounds of order, to the points which have been raised.
  This Order is the latest in a series which have been made regularly since the passing of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1962. The Act itself provides for basic rates of subsidy for all vessels and for special supplementary subsidies for particular classes of vessels which need extra help because of special circumstances. The basic subsidies are dealt with annually, and those at present in operation will come up for review in the summer; but we have found it more convenient to deal with the supplementary subsidies at six-monthly intervals, although, I remind the House, the Scottish section of the fleet would rather it had been done annually. The present Scheme, therefore, deals only with the supplementary subsidies payable in the period 1st February to 31st July, 1965. This is what we are discussing.
  When the House last debated the fishing subsidies in July, on the Motion of the former Minister, it was pointed out that fishing results had been better than for the previous period, and, for that reason, the need for special subsidy was reduced.
  1468
  I am delighted to be able to say tonight that the improvement has continued over the past six months and that these subsidies can again be reduced. The hon. Gentleman asked what they were likely to cost, and I can now tell him.
  We estimate that the new rates specified in the Scheme will cost approximately £10,000 in the six months. For the previous six months, they were £25,000, as the hon. Gentleman said. So a total of £35,000 for special subsidies will have been spent in the course of 12 months. This is to be compared with the maximum permitted under the Act of £350,000 for any one year. The actual expenditure in 1963–64 was at the rate of £321,000. This is a measure of the difference and, of course, a measure of the improvement that has taken place in the industry because if it had had a bad year these subsidies would have been very much greater.
  The rates provided for in the Order have been agreed after consultation with the representatives of the industry. They take account of the results of the vessels concerned in the six months up to September, 1964. As the House will see, they cover only six classes of vessel in England and Wales, at Milford Haven, Fleetwood, North Shields and Brixham, which have been encountering special difficulties.
  Fortunately, there were again no classes of vessels in Scotland in sufficient need to justify any special payments. We cannot very well claim credit for having got into this position and then ask why we did not get extra subsidies. It is because the economy has been very good that no extra supplementary has been required and this should be a matter of great satisfaction to every hon. Member.
  One of the objects of the special subsidies was to help those sections of the industry, which may encounter special difficulties, in maintaining progress towards the target of being able to stand on their own feet by 1972. This was laid down a considerable time ago and I expressed some doubt then as to whether the objective might be achieved. It might achieve such a position in the meantime, but who knew what the position would be in 1972. Who could have forecast a dramatic fall in the special supple-mentaries? If I am still in this House then, I shall be saying pretty much what I have said all along—that we have

  1469
  responsibilities to this industry as we have responsibilities to others.
  I was a little surprised by the attitude of hon. Members opposite. I suggested at the time that, though they would opt for wiping out all the subsidies, letting them decline year by year, for the fishing industry, they would not be prepared to take that view of other industries with which many of them are closely associated.
  Mr. Prior: Through the Sea Fishing Act, this was done entirely by agreement with the industry. It agreed to these reductions in subsidy. The Government did not try to impose them.
  Mr. Hoy: I remind that hon. Gentleman that I made that point at the time. I do not dispute it now. The industry agreed. At the time Sir William Duthie, then the hon. Member for Banff, and I said that it might be wrong, but I am not seeking to say that it did not agree.
  Since the subsidies were first introduced, the aim has been, with the agreement of representatives of the industry, to discourage some of the older and obsolete vessels from continuing to fish beyond their economic capacity. As a result, there are now no coal burners left in the fleet and only a few oil burners outside the distant water fleet. That is why these changes have taken place.
  The special subsidies for the period to 31st January last covered a few oil burners fishing from Hull and Grimsby. These payments have now been discontinued and no oil burners are provided for in the present Scheme. I think that it is unlikely that we shall agree to a special subsidy for any such vessels in future. The whole effort was to modernise the fishing fleet and take vessels regarded as obsolete out of the industry. I think that aim has the wholehearted support of all hon. Members.
  The Government are glad to note the improved financial position of the industry over the past year. We realise that fishing is an industry of ups and down, but the continued modernisation of the fleet and the increasing number of freezer trawlers which are now in operation or being built mean that it is keeping well in the van of technical progress. Since the present Government took office we have been reviewing, with
  1470
  the White Fish Authority, a number of proposals for assisting the industry towards viability. These are under consideration and it would not be possible for me to say anything about them tonight, even if it would be in order to do so. These supplementary subsidies are only a very small part of the total help available for the fishing industry, although it is extremely important to the sections of the industry that have had special difficulties.
  With regard to last year's catch, both the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West and the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) asked what were the fortunes of the trawlers from Granton and Aberdeen. In 1964, the trawlers from both Aberdeen and Granton had improved results. Their catch was greater than in 1963, as was its value. Taking the two together, the catch went up from 1·64 million cwt. to 1·88 million cwt. and the value from £5·67 million to £6·43 million. The average proceeds per day at sea rose from £158 to £183. As we do not yet have the complete figures for the whole of Britain, I cannot give further details.
  In reply to the question about savings, everybody knows that this special supplementary grant was laid down when the Act was first introduced. The total amount for supplementation was £2½ million. The maximum to be taken in any one year was £350,000 and whatever is left in the fund after withdrawals is there to meet the needs of the future.
  I was asked why certain boats were singled out. There have been poor markets at North Shields, which has also had other particular difficulties, and some of the boats that were built there have not proved suitable for that market. Changes are being made, but that is why those boats are being helped. For Fleet-wood there has been a change of ground. Because of this, fishing has not been as good as it was before and, therefore, the supplementation is available to help out. Vessels from Brixham and Milford Haven are included in the Scheme because fishing from those ports has not been as good as from other places.
  I do not want to be out of order in replying to the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), who dealt with co-operatives. Perhaps he would like to

  1471
  tell me more about them later. I cannot deal with the question at this stage because it is not included in the Scheme.
  The reason why the rates have varied from port to port is quite simple. The supplement depends upon the losses which may be incurred by any part of the fishing fleet anywhere in the country. Obviously, where the need is greatest, these special supplements are available to meet the difficulty. That is why there are variations between one port and another.
  As to the moratorium, although it does not come within the Scheme, the position has improved considerably. With the improvement in the industry, some firms, who were grateful for the moratorium, have been able to resume payments to meet their commitments. I am certain that this gives pleasure not only to the White Fish Authority, but to the people who are now able to make the repayments.
  Mr. Wall: Can the hon. Gentleman say, therefore, whether the moratorium is being extended beyond September this year?
  Mr. Hoy: It has not been extended, because the same situation does not arise. It was following the appalling conditions in which the fishing industry found itself two years ago that the moratorium was introduced to meet the situation then prevailing. The situation has, however, improved completely and for that reason the moratorium is not required.
  Now, a quick word about the proposals. Two sets of proposals were put forward by Mr. Matthews from the White Fish Authority. One set of proposals was under discussion for a considerable time. The previous Administration sent it back so that the considered views of all those concerned could be obtained. A year then passed before we got the proposals, and in July last year the White Fish Authority was asked to reconsider them. At the turn of this year we got the new proposals and we shall certainly examine them, and, indeed, are examining them. I do not want to go into the proposals, but they were put in such a way that one could not publish them.
  I am surprised at the hon. Member raising the matter, because at that time his right hon. Friend said to me that,
  1472
  if I would only take Mr. Matthews out to dinner, I might be able to get the information from him. I will not ask the hon. Gentleman to do the same. All I will say is that when we are able to give any information at all we shall certainly give it. We are discussing the matter with Mr. Matthews and with all concerned.
  I think that I have explained the Scheme and answered all the questions, and in view of the explanation I hope that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), who formally moved the Motion, will now be prepared to withdraw it.
  Sir Martin Redmayne: I do not want to embark upon these stormy waters for more than a moment, but I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his courtesy and for the fullness of his reply. There seemed to be a certain amount of objection on the Government benches that my hon. Friend should have put down the Prayer, but there are so many subjects which do not have full opportunity for debate in the House that the Opposition have to take every opportunity that presents itself. We on this side of the House never had any intention of dividing on the matter and, as I say, we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the very full reply which he has given us.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  AGRICULTURE (POISONOUS SUBSTANCES)
  11.2 p.m.
  Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) (Amendment) Regulations 1965 (S.I., 1965, No. 76), dated 19th January 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th January, be annulled.
  I will, if I may, go quickly through some of the main points of substance on these Regulations which, as the House knows, amend the Regulations made under the 1952 Act and the 1963 and 1964 Regulations. These refer particularly as far as granulated applications are concerned.

  1473
  The point which has always worried me is that here in the House we are making Regulations and laying down quite specifically that safety precautions must be taken by people dealing with dangerous substances on farms and in greenhouses throughout the country, but yet I have never been satisfied that the enforcement of these Regulations has been adequate.
  Only when someone gets hurt or is poisoned by mishandling any of these substances does the matter come to light, and then only if adequate precautions have not been enforced and proper protective clothing has not been worn is action taken. But this is only after the accident has happened and after someone has been hurt. I have never been satisfied that enough supervisory work is carried out or that sufficient supervision takes place on the farm or that the hon. Gentleman's inspectors are doing enough by way of educating the agricultural industry in general and the farmers in particular about the dangers of some of these substances.
  In Regulation 3(2,a) we see that the word "dinoseb" is used, and in sub-paragraph (b) we find the word "dich-lorvos." I have looked through every kind of scientific dictionary and I have asked the Library to undertake extensive explorations for me, and my hon. Friends have done the same, but no definition of these words can be found. I am well aware that these words have been used in previous Regulations, but I think that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary should explain exactly what they are. "Dinoseb" is obviously the same as DNOC, and I think that is defined, but when we use words like these in Regulations we should have interpretations of them inserted in the Regulations.
  Regulation 3(2,c) talks of soil-application. In the main Regulations of 1963, soil-application is described as an application in liquid form which goes down to the roots in the soil. The hon. Gentleman will know which Regulation it is—I think that it is 4 or 5—but it says that anyone driving a tractor and using this soil-application apparatus is excluded from wearing protective clothing even though the Schedule to those Regulations says that the tractor driver has to be wearing protective clothing if the soil-application machine is tractor-mounted,
  1474
  or if the driver is alone in operating the tractor and the soil appliance.
  Nevertheless, if he is driving the tractor and the soil appliance is pulled behind it he does not wear protective clothing and is specifically excluded from doing so. I would have thought that that Regulation was now outmoded, and that the driver should be entitled—or forced, if the hon. Gentleman likes—to wear these clothes.
  I come to paragraph (3), where occurs the word "granule", used in the expression "granule placement". Once again, there is no definition of this, and yet this is, after all, an amending Regulation. There ought to be a definition of this. I looked up various scientific dictionaries, and there are several interpretations. I shall not weary the House by reading them, but I think it only right and proper that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary should look at this and consider whether any interpretation might be entered, as it should, into the Regulations as to precisely what is meant by "granule".
  Paragraph (4) brings us to mackintoshes, overalls, and so on. It seems to me that the only difference here, where we are amending the Schedule to the previous Regulations, is that a mackintosh must have all the external pockets covered. This is a change of definition, and I am fascinated to know from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary why this should be so, particularly when we are dealing with "granulated" products—substances in "granular form".
  I think that there is a mistake in the next paragraph, describing overalls. I followed the original, 1963, Regulations, and the wording here closely follows that of the former Regulations. There is here this passage:
  "covering all clothing other than headgear, footwear and gloves".
  It was formerly "rubber gloves". It ought, I think, to be "rubber gloves" here. Only they would be adequate for the purpose. I think "rubber" should be inserted here, and I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree, and if he does perhaps he would have the amendment made.
  There is a misprint in the first item in column 1 of Schedule 1. It says:
  "Except where items 2 or 3 hereof apply or where the specified substance",

  1475
  and then there is a misprint. I am sure that the Minister of State for Scotland will remember the days when he was on this side of the House. He will remember the tremendous furore and fuss that he used to make over a thing like this. I merely draw the attention of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to it, knowing that having done so he will take the necessary action to see that in future printings this does not recur.
  I have one further point to make about Schedule 1. I am referring now to Item 2. When it says that special clothing must be worn when DNOC is being used, I suppose that this means when using a product with more than 5 per cent. of DNOC. I ask that because Regulation 3 provides that if 5 per cent. or less DNOC is in a product it is not necessary to wear protective clothing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to confirm that this item in Schedule 1 does not cancel the provisions of Regulation 3 (2,a).
  The rest of the Schedule is extremely complicated, and very comprehensive. As the House knows, it takes the place of Schedule 1 of the 1963 Regulations. As far as I can see, it follows closely what was provided in that Schedule, and adds that certain protective clothing must be worn when granules are being applied to the soil. I am sure that these Regulations will be of use to the industry. There are several points which I have not made, but no doubt they will be made by my hon. Friends if they have an opportunity to take part in the debate. We would like to see protective clothing worn on many occasions which are not mentioned in the Bill, but, on the whole, these Regulations will be an advantage to the people in the industry.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider the points that I have raised and make the small Amendments which are necessary because of mistakes and omissions. It is a pity that these Regulations have come forward in such an incomplete way, but I suppose we can expect this kind of thing to happen now and again under a new Administration.
  11.8 p.m.
  Mr. John Farr: Coming immediately after a discussion on the sea fish industry, this discussion may perhaps appear a trifle mundane, but these Regulations are of great importance, and,
  1476
  in their way, concern the safety of all those in horticulture and agriculture who have to use many poisonous substances in their daily lives.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) referred to the complexity of these Regulations, and I should like to remind the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that they are most difficult for an operator to follow. If I may perhaps explain that, I would point out that the original Regulations of 1963, of which no doubt the hon. Gentleman has a copy, were amended by the Regulations of 1964, which had complicated additions in them, and today we are discussing a further Amendment of the 1963 Regulations by this Statutory Instrument No. 76 of 1965.
  I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that perhaps this matter is getting a bit out of hand. These Regulations are most difficult to follow, and I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell the House whether there is a comprehensive list of instructions with which operators have to comply, and which is readily available to them. I would like an assurance that they do not have to thumb through a complicated selection of documents of the type we have to discuss tonight.
  In general, like other hon. Members I welcome the Statutory Instrument and see the necessity for its introduction, but I should like to know if the hon. Member is satisfied that it is complete. I refer to Schedule 2 of the original Regulations, namely, the Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) Regulations 1963. As he will be aware, that Schedule is split into four parts. In 1964 Statutory Instrument No. 663 added dichlorvos and vamidothion, and tonight, on the back page of the present Regulations, we are adding demeton-S-methyl. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me why a chemical which, in recent months, has been proved not only extremely toxic to many farm animals but relatively dangerous to human beings—trichlorphon—is not included in this list?
  Mr. Speaker: We are in difficulties about this. An hon. Member can remain in order in advancing as a reason for not supporting these Regulations the absence of something, but to suggest that the Regulations should be amended

  1477
  by the addition of something else is out of order.
  Mr. Farr: I respect your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I was referring to this chemical because it has been mentioned in the House on more than one occasion recently, and I thought that it should have been included in the list, perhaps in place of many others which are included.
  Mr. Speaker: I follow the hon. Member's difficulties, but we have no power to amend these Regulations. We have either to adopt them or not to adopt them. Therefore, we get into difficulties if we suggest that they should be amended. We become out of order.
  Mr. Farr: I thank you for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker.
  In that case I will conclude by asking the hon. Member whether he is satisfied that the voluntary notification scheme for chemicals, which I understand has been applied to all the chemicals in these Regulations, has worked efficiently. Since it was first introduced there have been many additions in this vast field, and in recent years, time after time we have come across occasions when it has been proved that there might have been a certain amount of unwanted elasticity in the testing and application of these chemicals.
  I therefore ask the hon. Member whether he thinks that it might be time to scrap the voluntary notification scheme and make it a compulsory one. Further, can he let me know what information the Ministry relies upon before deciding whether or not to include a chemical for such approval?
  11.20 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): As both hon. Members have said, these are very complicated Regulations. I would not like to say that I understand them all. Certainly, I do not understand the complicated names of the chemicals.
  I have before me a considerable number of notes on the subject with which we are dealing tonight. Before dealing with the specific points raised in the debate, I would put the present Regulations in their context by saying something of the use which has been
  1478
  made of the powers granted under the Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) Act, 1952, to protect workers against the risk of poisoning by chemical sprays and other substances. As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) will be aware, the Regulations were consolidated in 1963. They prescribed precautions, including the wearing of protective clothing, required for each of four groups of chemicals, which are specified according to their toxicity and manner of use, as the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) mentioned.
  The chemicals in the first group are the most dangerous to workers, because they are not only potentially poisonous, but highly volatile. Therefore, apart from other necessary precautions, a respirator must be worn for all operations. The second group is composed of less volatile chemicals, for which the wearing of a respirator is not required when working in the open. The third group consists of relatively far less toxic chemicals, for which fewer precautions are required.
  The final group contains the organo-mercury compounds, which, in their normal method of use, involve little or no hazard when used in the open, so protective clothing has only to be worn in greenhouses, where there is an inhalation risk. The Regulations also set out detailed requirements about personal hygiene, washing of clothes, the keeping of records, and the notifications of sickness.
  Hon. Members will remember that we had an amending Regulation last year—it has been mentioned—which added some chemicals to the list of those prescribed. The system which we use to ensure adequate protection for workers must inevitably involve some amending regulations. As the hon. Member for Harborough said, we may add something new almost every year. Under the Pesticides (Safety Precautions) Scheme, the Manufacturers' Association has agreed that their members shall notify departments of each new chemical for use in agriculture before they market it, and each proposal for a new use of an existing chemical.
  The Advisory Committee on Pesticides and Other Toxic Chemicals advises my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for

  1479
  Scotland on these matters. That answers the last point of the hon. Member for Harborough. That is the body which advises the Minister on all these chemicals, when they are brought out or changed. If it considers that there is a risk to the user, it recommends that the chemical be included in the Poisonous Substances Regulations.
  I should like to look at the Regulations which we are considering tonight, which do five things. First, we have greatly improved the definition of "spraying" contained in the 1963 Regulations, to make clear exactly what we mean by spraying, whether before or after the crop is sown. Secondly, the Regulations have shortened the time—after treatment with mevinphos—during which hops may not be handled without rubber gloves. This used to be four days; it is now 24 hours. This change has been made on the advice of the Committee which I have just mentioned, and brings the provision for mevinphos into line with the provisions in the 1963 Regulations for a similar chemical of comparable toxicity.
  Thirdly, they add demeton-s-methyl, an organophosphorous compound, to the third group of chemicals. The Advisory Committee considered this chemical to be reasonably safe to use with proper precautions. Workers must wear protective clothing when spraying this chemical from an aerosol dispenser in a greenhouse, and also when mixing and diluting it. Fourthly, the Regulations exempt certain products containing an existing Group III chemical—dichlorvos—from the provisions of the consolidated Regulations. These products are aerosols containing not more than 0·4 per cent. of dichlorvos, and resin strips impregnated with not more than 20 per cent. of dichlorvos.
  The difference between these two percentages may seem extarordinarily high, but the point is that, in the way they behave, these products are considered safe to use if they are within these percentages. From the advice which we have received from the Advisory Committee, we are satisfied that there is no need to require workers to wear protective clothing when handling these products in a greenhouse.
  1480
  Fifth, and perhaps most important, the Regulations deal with the protection required when the chemicals are applied in granular form. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North asked me how we define a granule. I cannot answer that question. It is like the old story: we cannot define an elephant, but we know it when we see it. There is plenty of granular fertiliser; I suppose that it would be granular if it is not dust or liquid. The production of chemicals in this form is a thing which we want to encourage, since they are much safer to handle than dusts or liquids. They do not need so much protective clothing, and it is clearly in the interests of everyone to make the requirements of the Regulations less onerous if this can be done with safety. The matter has been looked into in great detail by the Advisory Committee, and the Amendments in these Regulations are the result of their advice.
  I should tell the House that at present no No. I group chemicals—that is, those chemicals requiring the most stringent precautions—are marketed in granular form, and no relaxation of the protective clothing requirements for this group have been made. The 1963 Regulations require workers using group II chemicals in spray form to wear an overall, hood, rubber gloves, rubber boots, and either a face shield or a dust mask. The Advisory Committee and Government departments concerned are satisfied that when these chemicals are used in granular form, only rubber gloves and an overall or mackintosh are necessary.
  However, they consider that all external pockets of the worker's overall or mackintosh should be covered to prevent the risk of granules becoming accidentally lodged in them and thereby slowly releasing the chemical. The worker will also be required to wear gloves with long cuffs so that he can wear the sleeves of his overall over them.
  Relaxations have been made where a worker is required to open a container containing a group II or group III chemical in granular form. For instance, it is not necessary for the worker to wear a face shield as it is when the chemical is in liquid form and when it might consequently splash into the face. We are issuing a supplement to our existing explanatory leaflet which explains the new requirements, and I am sure that these

  1481
  relaxations will encourage manufacturers to make up more of their products in this form and that this will make an important contribution to the safety and comfort of agricultural workers.
  We have fully consulted all the interests concerned, and, in particular, the farmers' and workers' organisations and I am glad to say that they are in entire agreement with the Regulations. I think that I can say with confidence that the Regulations are another small step towards added safety for agricultural workers and, also, towards securing the use of pesticides in the safest possible form.
  I would like to reply, briefly, to the points raised by the hon. Members for Cornwall, North and for Harborough. We have 40 inspectors and 300 field officers and, while it is often said that that is not sufficient number to cover the whole country, it should be remembered that we also put out a lot of propaganda in leaflet and other form on this subject. Allowing for the fact that we should like more, we feel that we have done a great deal.
  So far as dinoseb and DNOC are concerned, the hon. Member will see that these are adequately described on page 11 of Statutory Instrument 845 of 1963, in names which I cannot claim to be able to pronounce; names which can best be described as being as lengthy as those on some Welsh railway stations. If the hon. Gentleman will study that Instrument, I think that he will be satisfied.
  On the question of the tractor driver being excluded, I think that the answer is that it could be assumed that he would be far enough away for the liquid forms not to worry him. So far as the definition of "granule" is concerned, I have no doubt that the Oxford English Dictionary would give that; and I think that I have answered the question about rubber gloves.
  I think that I have mentioned, at least, all the points which have been raised tonight. The hon. Member for Harborough seemed to think that things were getting out of hand, but we have gone into this whole subject very carefully and I would again ask the House not to approve this Prayer.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: How will the hon. Gentleman make these changes about the rubber gloves, and so on? Also, a definition of "granules" is needed. How are the changes to be made, in view of the fact that we cannot amend these Regulations?
  Mr. Mackie: I will take advice on the sort of amendments suggested by the hon. Gentleman, but any other amendments would be a different matter.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: There seems to be no other way of amending the Regulations, other than by asking the hon. Gentleman to withdraw them altogether.
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 100 (Statutory Instrumens, &c. (procedure)).
  Question negatived.

  EGG PRODUCING UNITS
  11.30 p.m.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]
  Mr. Henry Clark: We are working the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food rather hard tonight. It may be some consolation to him to know that I will at least speak in language which both he and I can understand.
  I wish tonight to raise a subject which is causing wide concern in my constituency and to farmers throughout the country. I have been trying to raise it for two months on the Adjournment and only this week have I had the luck to find Parliamentary time to do so.
  Farmers fear that big business is about to steal a large part of their livelihood. The steady increase in the size of flocks of laying hens—particularly the appearance of many flocks of 30,000, 40,000 and 50,000 birds—has led farmers to believe that egg production will soon cease to be a farming operation and will become a highly capitalised commercial enterprise.
  The trend in recent years is clear. In 1957, only 13 per cent, of laying hens were in flocks of over 1,000. Today, the figure is 50 per cent. Even clearer

  1483
  is the fact that in 1957 only 1½ per cent, of laying hens were in flocks of over 5,000. By 1960, the figure was 4 per cent, and by 1964, only four years later, it had gone up to 16 per cent.; and the trend continues in an upward direction.
  Added to these figures are the rumours—indeed, the detailed plans—that Mr. Eastwood is going in for factory hen keeping on a gigantic scale. In a recent report produced by the N.F.U. it is stated that Mr. Eastwood plans to build up a factory of 12 million birds over the next seven years. He plans to produce 16 per cent, or more of the total egg consumption of the country. If Mr. Eastwood goes in for 12 million birds we can be fairly certain that, sooner or later, someone else will have 15 million. Certainly a number of flocks of a million birds will follow.
  Northern Ireland, and my constituency in particular, is a land of small farmers. They must be efficient and they have found over the years that to make a decent living out of 30 acres they must farm their farmyards just as intensively as their land. Pigs and hens represent a very big part of their income. Now that the prospect is that their egg sales will be taken from them—or at the very least that the production of eggs will become unprofitable—they are extremely worried.
  In 1964, farmers in Northern Ireland produced 85 million dozen eggs, worth about £8 million. It would be a major disaster for the countryside of Northern Ireland if those earnings were taken from these farmers. The Minister will probably point out that of the —8 million, possibly only —2 million actually represented earnings for the farmers, but the farmers of Northern Ireland cannot afford to lose even —1 million of income.
  It is not my case to defend the farmyard flocks of hens, which, by tradition, have provided farm housewives with pin money. I am not attacking, certainly not tonight, intensive methods of egg production. I wish to defend the small farmer and his right to produce eggs in the most efficient manner possible. In recent years thousands of small farmers have found that a laying unit of 500 or 1,000, or even possibly 5,000, hens fits very well into their pattern of mixed production. If a man spends two hours
  1484
  morning and evening looking after his dairy herd, or a period in the day looking after his beef cattle, he finds that the spare hours can be very well filled in looking after a medium-sized laying unit either in cages or in deep litter.
  A hen on a small farm produces an egg from exactly the same number of grains of corn as it does in a factory farm in an industrial town. Food is at least 65 per cent, of the cost of production. A really big unit can produce some economies in collection, packing and delivery of eggs, and I do not think that any of us would doubt that the mega-hen capitalist can strike rather hard bargains with the producers of pullets, the miller and the man who makes the equipment; but these bargains merely pass profits from the milling and manufacturing organisations to the man who is producing the eggs.
  What we must remember is that if egg production becomes a factory operation, thousands of small farmers will be under-employed, and under-employment is probably the biggest sickness in small farming. Very often there is no alternative employment for a man in this position. We cannot afford to waste the labour of the men and women who are now doing this job. Equally—and perhaps this is the most important argument of all—if the farmers lose this income, the Government are bound by the 1947 and 1957 Acts and by many other obligations to see that the income is replaced in some other way.
  The time has come for the Government to take some real action to back the farmer in maintaining his position in egg production. If no action is taken, or even if the decision is postponed, there can be little doubt that egg production will pass out of the hands of the farmer and become another industrial enterprise.
  I understand that in the last few weeks the National Farmers' Unions and the Egg Marketing Board have put forward proposals to the Minister. The unions suggested differential prices for different sizes of laying units. The Marketing Board has suggested transferable production quotas for each producer. I have no doubt about advocating to the Minister transferable quotas. For the last 10 if not 20 years, economists on both sides of the Atlantic have been advocating transferable quotas as the only logical

  1485
  solution to over-production on the land. They appeal to me, because if they are transferable they do not establish any rigid or inflexible system of egg production. If there are real economies in large-scale production of eggs, the capitalist can afford to buy out the small farmer. But at least the farmer will get some recompense for his loss of income.
  On the subject of quotas, if we are going on to them, as I think we should, there should also be non-transferable regional quotas so that no one area can have its total egg production stolen away from it. It would be a sad day if the tycoon in Nottingham stole the whole of Ulster's egg production.
  There are, however, several other reasons for a quota system. The Egg Marketing Board is struggling now with the question of over-production, and struggling remarkably effectively to keep up the national consumption, but it has found from experience that a 2½ per cent, fluctuation up or down in production produces a 10 per cent. fluctuation up or down in price.
  We will not get stable prices and efficient production unless there is central control over the global production of eggs in this country. We, and even hon. Members opposite, have got accustomed to the idea of standard quantities for milk, bacon and sugar beet. I believe that standard quantity in egg production is the next logical step in this chain of control of production of farm produce.
  This is not the place to discuss administrative details or exactly how a quota system would work. If I suggested details the Ministry would spend a great deal of time thinking of its own even more complicated details. The one person that a transferable quotas system penalises is the inefficient producer. It makes allowance for a new producer to buy his way in and for the successful man to increase his flock by purchasing the quotas of inefficient men around him.
  I am not the enemy of the commercial large-scale unit. Mr. Eastwood and people like him very possibly can produce eggs marginally cheaper than can be done on the farm. Mr. Eastwood has said, I believe, that he can produce and sell eggs to the housewife for 1s. 9d. a dozen. That may be true, but the real question is: will he and people like him sell eggs at 1s. 9d. to the housewife and
  1486
  will he be content with 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the market? The same profit motives which put the large capitalist into egg production will make him sell eggs not at the cheapest price, but at the optimum price, to give him the largest possible profit.
  I have mentioned already the inelasticity of the demand for eggs. If a really large operator controlled 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. of production he could play the market up and down to give him the largest profit and not necessarily to provide the lowest price for the housewife. I have suggested that the differences in production between the egg factory and the small farm are marginal. That may not be exactly true today, but it certainly would be true if the small farmer took every opportunity—and opportunities are available—to combine together and secure the advantages of bulk purchase which the big operator has.
  There are co-operative organisations of a large size already in the country. Yorkshire and Cumberland are famous for them. If the Minister establishes a system of quotas, which I firmly believe he must do quickly, he must also give every encouragement to farmers to form cooperative associations for bulk buying. I admit that there is not a great deal that the Minister can do to encourage small farmers to get together. They are not the best people at doing that, but cooperation would be an essential part of the system which I advocate.
  I put one final argument for some sort of control. There is already adequate machinery, labour and skills to produce all the eggs we want. Is it sound policy, particularly when tied up with some of the things which the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and others have been saying, to allow that huge amount of equipment to become derelict? Is it sound policy to dispense with the existing labour force and to increase the demand for labour close to large industrial centres, when probably the labour on the farms cannot be employed elsewhere? They should not be left twiddling their thumbs, or hanging about the cattle markets un-productively, or mending fences that do not need mending at all.
  All this is for a marginal saving in cost of production of eggs and, quite

  1487
  frankly, a rather doubtful reduction in the price to the housewife. All this, too must undoubtedly cause an acceleration in the drift from the land. We accept that the drift must go on but taking eggs out of farming will make it just that much quicker and increase the unhappiness and difficulty it causes.
  One might talk economics till the cows come home. The Minister must make his decision on social and humane grounds, or to be honest, on political grounds. He has been offered a sound scheme which could carry out what I want—to maintain the income of people actually on the land. He should accept a system of quotas.
  I believe in the old statement, made so often on political platforms and elsewhere—that the farmers are the backbone of the country. What we really mean is that the farming profession produces the more admirable qualities in men—independence, self-reliance, industry and half a dozen others. I doubt whether an egg operative who clocks in at 9.30 a.m. on Monday in an egg factory in the Midlands, clocks out again at 4.30 on Friday and collects his wages, could honestly be described as the backbone of the country.
  Perhaps we can sum it up in this way: do the Government really want the country to get all its eggs from one basket or, at the most, a dozen baskets?
  11.46 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) for raising this matter and I am sure that he is grateful for the opportunity to do so. He has assured us that he had to wait two months for it and he has strayed a little from his own part of the country.
  I thought that the hon. Member was quite right to do so, because the questions raised by him are of great interest to all concerned with the United Kingdom egg-producing industry. They have been the subject of a great deal of discussion and speculation for reasons which he enumerated. I can assure the House that the Government have given, and will continue to give, the issues in-
  1488
  volved the very careful attention they deserve.
  The hon. Member referred to the very significant reduction which has occurred in the number of small poultry keepers over recent years and the increasing concentration of the industry in the hands of people with very large flocks. The figures we have certainly bear out the fact that there has been such a tendency and that it has been going on fairly steadily ever since the end of rationing. I will illustrate the position with a few figures.
  Only a few years ago, in 1957, almost three-quarters of the laying birds were in flocks of less than 500 birds and less than one-seventh in flocks of more than 1,000. By 1964, less than 40 per cent. of the national flock were in the under-500 group while almost half were in the over-1,000 group.
  To put it another way, about half of the egg-laying flock is now in the hands of about 5 per cent. of producers while, at the other end of the scale, over 90 per cent. of the 260,000 agricultural holdings with hens have fewer than 500 laying hens. What has brought about this very substantial change in the structure of the industry?
  In the first place, it is part of a general tendency amongst farmers, mainly in the interest of greater efficiency, to concentrate on fewer enterprises, a tendency which has affected farms of all sizes and has reduced the number of individual enterprises for most types of livestock and not just eggs. In addition, in egg production, there have been the very great changes which have occurred in technology, genetics and disease control over recent years. These developments have radically affected the economics of the industry, and this, in turn, has accelerated the tendency towards concentration within it.
  The evidence on costs of production indicates that both capital and operating costs decrease as the size of the poultry unit increases because, for instance, it becomes possible to mechanise to a larger extent and unit costs for housing the birds tend to fall, as the hon. Gentleman said. A large producer can also, by virtue of the size of his purchases, secure much more favourable terms from suppliers of feeding stuffs and other requisites, and when selling can even get a better price from the packing station because he can

  1489
  offer regular supplies in large quantities. Thus, as developments in the other directions which I mentioned—mechanisation of feeding, for example—have facilitated the establishment of larger units, this has been occurring to an increasing extent.
  The major factor determining the profitability or otherwise of egg production is, of course, the number of eggs produced per bird. Developments in genetics have led to a dramatic increase in the overall number of eggs, with figures for England and Wales rising from an average of 157 in 1952–53 to more like 205 in 1964–65. In consequence, there has emerged something of a tendency for production to exceed demand, with the result that egg prices have been forced down relative to costs. This has decided many producers, particularly the smaller ones, to cease egg production. On the other hand, it has led others to increase their flock sizes in order to maintain the level of their income from eggs; and yet others, mainly the larger producers, have continued to increase the size of their flocks because they have still found it profitable to do so.
  While it is true that the rapid growth of the large egg-producing units has created problems of adjustment, these larger units have, it must be said, pioneered spectacular technological advances. In this respect, they surely represent the very type of modernisation urgently needed in the economy in general; and I must add that, although the expansion of egg production has recently outpaced the normal growth in demand and led to considerably lower market prices, it has also enabled the housewife—and she is not unimportant in this matter—for a number of months to buy eggs at bargain prices. Consumption has responded to this, showing an increase from 242 eggs per head per year in 1960, when over 96 per cent, were home produced, to 256 per head in 1964, when over 98 per cent, of eggs were home produced. These are rather significant figures.
  Having described how the present situation has come about, I turn to the question of how this leaves the many tens of thousands of smaller producers who are still in the industry. I assure the House that the Government are fully aware of the changing economic circum-
  1490
  stances of the small poultry keeper. We continually keep in mind, as our predecessors did, I think, the interests of small farmers. One of the objects of the advisory services, the production grants and, in particular, the Small Farmer Scheme, is to stimulate and assist the improvement of their management and husbandry.
  I think that this is admitted on both sides of the House; and at this time of year these grants to farmers are, of course, carefully considered, in consultation with the Farmers' Unions, as part of the Annual Price Review. Hon Members will not expect me to say more on that subject at this stage, though, no doubt, they would like me to do so.
  Mr. Henry Clarke: Could the hon. Gentleman just answer this question? Proposals about egg production have been put forward. Will an announcement about it be made with the Price Review, or will it be reserved for a later decision?
  Mr. Hoy: I will come to that presently, because I know that it interests the hon. Member.
  The second point that I should like to make is that while I should not for one moment deny that some of the small producers are in a difficult position, it is clear that many others are still finding their egg enterprises a worthwhile side of their farming activities. A large number of these—many producing eggs by the traditional free-range method—are selling all or part of their production direct to the consumer, as licensed producer retailers or through sales on market stalls or at the farm gate. These small enterprises, without undue dependence on subsidy, meet what is evidently a strong and continuing demand from the housewife in ways which are an efficient and economical use of their resources.
  At present, almost 40 per cent. of all the eggs marketed in this country are sold in this way. While we do not have full information about the prices obtained for these eggs, it is clear that farmers with direct sales outlets of this nature find it a definitely profitable undertaking. I recognise, of course, that not all smaller producers by any means have access to such markets, and this includes most of those in the areas furthest away from the main population—for example, as the hon. Member said, in many parts of

  1491
  Northern Ireland; and in many parts of Scotland, too, and in Wales and in some of the remote parts of England there is also this difficulty.
  One solution, to which the hon. Member has referred, for these producers may be to try to improve their efficiency by consulting our advisory services and availing themselves of the other help that may be available to them. As the hon. Member said, it is always open to them, in groups and in co-operatives, to improve their collective position by securing reduced costs for chicks, feed, and so on, and improving their marketing prospects. Successful developments have already taken place in some parts of the country, and it may well be that the best solution for others lies in the same direction. This, I understand, is the main conclusion reached in the recent National Farmers' Union report on vertical integration and its consequences for the medium and small egg producers.
  I cannot, however, give our final views on these matters tonight. At the Annual Review last year, the Farmers' Unions gave us notice that they were concerned about the changing situation of the egg industry and the danger of egg supplies coming from a very few producers. Shortly afterwards, the unions and the British Egg Marketing Board informed the Minister that they wished to place before him their views on production trends. Discussions subsequently took place between the unions and the
  1492
  Board and certain proposals were later put to the Ministry on an informal basis.
  It was then agreed that there should be talks between the unions, the Board and the Ministry, and meetings have been taking place for this purpose since the end of November. As, however, those discussions are still in progress, hon. Members will appreciate that it would be asking too much for me to go into that matter further tonight. The problem is a difficult one. We appreciate the feelings of producers and the threat, which the hon. Member for Antrim, North mentioned, from the farms to which he referred with 12 to 15 million hens. All I will say is that this is not threatened within the next year or two as far as I know.
  I assure the House and the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take full account of the views which have been expressed tonight. We will, obviously, have to consider all the courses that are open to us. We realise that this is a problem for many of the smaller producers and that there are fears about what developments will take place. We have all heard of Mr. Eastwood. I do not know who is responsible for enumerating the number of hens which he is supposed to be collecting. All I can say is that we appreciate the position of the smaller producer and we will see what we can do about it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o'clock.

  LEGAL QUESTIONS AND ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (INQUIRIES)
  LEGAL QUESTIONS AND ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (INQUIRIES)
RAILWAYS
  Diesel Locomotives
  Diesel Locomotives
  Passenger Service, Birmingham-Walsall
  Passenger Service, Birmingham-Walsall
  Trains (Tail Lamps)
  Trains (Tail Lamps)
  High-Capacity Wagons (Steel Plates)
  High-Capacity Wagons (Steel Plates)
  Level Crossings (Barriers)
  Level Crossings (Barriers)
  Stations and Depôts (Freight Facilities)
  Stations and Depôts (Freight Facilities)
  Richmond-Broad Street Line
  Richmond-Broad Street Line
  Central Design Establishment, Derby
  Central Design Establishment, Derby
  Proposed Closures (Consignment of Goods)
  Proposed Closures (Consignment of Goods)
  Holiday Traffic (Rolling Stock)
  Holiday Traffic (Rolling Stock)
  Finance
  Finance
TRANSPORT
  National Parks (Traffic Restriction)
  National Parks (Traffic Restriction)
  Vehicles (Rear Lights)
  Vehicles (Rear Lights)
  Passenger Road Transport Industry (Fuel Tax Rebate)
  Passenger Road Transport Industry (Fuel Tax Rebate)
  Motor Cycles, Scooters and Mopeds
  Motor Cycles, Scooters and Mopeds
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Port of Hull
  Port of Hull
  Public Service Vehicles (Fuel Tax)
  Public Service Vehicles (Fuel Tax)
  Vehicles (Mascots)
  Vehicles (Mascots)
  Drivers (Defective Eyesight)
  Drivers (Defective Eyesight)
ROADS
  A.83 Road (Elmore Lane and Quedgeley Roundabout)
  A.83 Road (Elmore Lane and Quedgeley Roundabout)
  London-Ipswich Road
  London-Ipswich Road
  Bideford
  Bideford
  Chandlers Ford-Otterbourne Bypass
  Chandlers Ford-Otterbourne Bypass
  West Country
  West Country
  Temporary Obstructions (Warning Signs)
  Temporary Obstructions (Warning Signs)
  A.435 Road, Cheltenham
  A.435 Road, Cheltenham
  Exeter-Plymouth Road
  Exeter-Plymouth Road
  Tinsley Viaduct
  Tinsley Viaduct
  Exeter-Launceston Road
  Exeter-Launceston Road
  Camborne-Redruth Road
  Camborne-Redruth Road
  Parking Meter Schemes (Receipts)
  Parking Meter Schemes (Receipts)
  Pedestrian Subways and Footbridges
  Pedestrian Subways and Footbridges
  Road-Building Priorities (Travel and Accident Loss)
  Road-Building Priorities (Travel and Accident Loss)
  Hull—Great North Road (Trunk Road Requirements)
  Hull—Great North Road (Trunk Road Requirements)
SHIPPING
  National Ports Council
  National Ports Council
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  United States Aircraft (Spare Parts)
  United States Aircraft (Spare Parts)
  Advanced Light-Weight Engine Technology
  Advanced Light-Weight Engine Technology
  Airports (Meals and Refreshments)
  Airports (Meals and Refreshments)
  P1127 Aircraft
  P1127 Aircraft
  Turnhouse Airport
  Turnhouse Airport
  Aerodromes, Highlands and Islands (Operation)
  Aerodromes, Highlands and Islands (Operation)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk (Very High Temperature Process)
  Milk (Very High Temperature Process)
  Nitrofurazone
  Nitrofurazone
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Import Surcharge
  Import Surcharge
  Hydrocarbon Oils (Duty)
  Hydrocarbon Oils (Duty)
  Intensive Livestock Production Buildings (Rating)
  Intensive Livestock Production Buildings (Rating)
  Food (Artificial Sweeteners)
  Food (Artificial Sweeteners)
  Trichlorphon
  Trichlorphon
SCOTLAND
  School-Building Programme, Prestonpans
  School-Building Programme, Prestonpans
  Probation Service
  Probation Service
  Cockenzie Power Station
  Cockenzie Power Station
  Robbins Committee (Proposals)
  Robbins Committee (Proposals)
  Fatal Road Accidents
  Fatal Road Accidents
  Teacher Training Grants
  Teacher Training Grants
  Sugar Beet (Cupar Factory)
  Sugar Beet (Cupar Factory)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Anglo-Polish Trade
  Anglo-Polish Trade
  Imports (Semi and Finished Manufactures)
  Imports (Semi and Finished Manufactures)
  New Growth Industries, Scotland
  New Growth Industries, Scotland
  Anglo-Mexican Trade
  Anglo-Mexican Trade
  Anglo-Brazilian Trade
  Anglo-Brazilian Trade
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Air-Raid Shelter, Whitchurch (Demolition)
  Air-Raid Shelter, Whitchurch (Demolition)
  Birmingham Police (Report)
  Birmingham Police (Report)
  Prisons (Building Programme)
  Prisons (Building Programme)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Royal Ordnance Factory, Woolwich (Disposal of Plant and Equipment)
  Royal Ordnance Factory, Woolwich (Disposal of Plant and Equipment)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Underwater Research Vehicles
  Underwater Research Vehicles
TECHNOLOGY
  Computers
  Computers
WALES
  Road Accidents (Deaths)
  Road Accidents (Deaths)
ARABIA
  South Arabian Constitutional Conference
  South Arabian Constitutional Conference
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Asian Influenza Epidemic
  Asian Influenza Epidemic
  Cervical Cancer, Swansea
  Cervical Cancer, Swansea
  Immigrants and Emigrants
  Immigrants and Emigrants
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Sheep (Research Projects)
  Sheep (Research Projects)
  Nursery Schools
  Nursery Schools
  NATIONAL BOARD FOR PRICES AND INCOMES
  NATIONAL BOARD FOR PRICES AND INCOMES
HOUSING
  Council Houses (Average Size)
  Council Houses (Average Size)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Investment and Initial Allowances
  Investment and Initial Allowances
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Water Charges (Report)
  Water Charges (Report)
EMPLOYMENT
  Immigration Vouchers
  Immigration Vouchers
  Outer Clothing (Retail Price Increases)
  Outer Clothing (Retail Price Increases)
  Swansea
  Swansea
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid (Expenditure)
  Aid (Expenditure)

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

LORD PEARSON
The Right Honourable Sir Colin Hargreaves Pearson, C.B.E., a Lord Justice of Appeal, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and thereby created a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron Pearson, of Minnedosa in Canada and of the Royal Borough of Kensington—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

LOCATION OF NEW BUSINESS SCHOOLS
2.45 p.m.
BROWN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why they are permitting the building of one of the two new Business Schools in London, thus adding to the overcrowded South yet another focus of attraction; and why it is not possible to direct this School to the North or East, from where it could serve that area and Scotland, as well as the rest of the country, more effectively.]
MINISTER STATE EDUCATION SCIENCEMy Lords, in July, 1963, a group of leading industrialists invited the noble Lord, Lord Franks, to advise where the two Business Schools should be situated. After consulting a large number of individuals and organisations concerned with academic and industrial life, he recommended that the two schools should be established in London and Manchester, which in his view provided the best possible conditions for
1130
a fruitful partnership between business and a great university. This advice was endorsed by the University Grants Committee and acted upon last year by the previous Government.
BROWN: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask whether it is not clear to Her Majesty's Government that this advice was given with relevance to only the Business Schools themselves; and is it not advisable that the positioning of these schools should take into account Her Majesty's Government's policy to take out of London so far as possible these foci of activities so that we may help to stop the overcrowding of the South?
BOWDEN: My Lords, the problem of siting a Business School is a difficult one to resolve. It is essential that it should be near the main centres of business, for perfectly obvious reasons; and it is essential, furthermore, that it should be near a great university. The Business Schools will have to draw both on business and on the university for their staff. The students will often be people who have come temporarily from local business establishments, and it is therefore essential, as the noble Lord, Lord Franks, himself decided, that the schools should be sited both near to a main conurbation and near to a great university. That being the case, the choice of the two cities seemed almost inevitable.
BRECON: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether it would not have been a better idea if one of these Business Schools had been placed in Cardiff, where there is a great university. There it would serve Bristol and the West of England as well. Perhaps the noble Lord would tell me whether the Secretary of State for Wales was consulted about this matter before it was decided where these schools were to be sited?
BOWDEN: My Lords, the only thing I can add to my last statement is that Manchester and London are both large conurbations and both have great universities. There are other places which may equally take title. The choice had to be arbitrary, and in my view it was the best choice that could have been made in the circumstances.
BRECON: My Lords, would it not be better to try to build up the population of Wales, which is what the Secretary of State is trying to do, and even the West of England? Surely it is quite easy. It is only two hours' journey from Paddington to Cardiff. It is no distance at all; it is much nearer.
BROWN: My Lords, would Her Majesty's Government seriously give consideration to the reasons why these schools should be in the centre of a large city? Would they investigate whether the reason given is a really cogent reason?
BOWDEN: My Lords, I think that we did the right thing in taking the advice of Lord Franks. I personally believe quite passionately that a great city is incomplete if it does not offer such amenities as museums and art galleries and so on as well as a great university. It is quite wrong to try to insist that a city should be deprived of those very institutions which make it into a city rather than a mere agglomeration of offices. Any university in a city plays an essential part in the work of the city.
In this particular case we are proposing to add to the University of London another entity, a Business School, which was deliberately put there primarily so that it would be able to draw particularly on the Imperial College and on the London School of Economics; just as in Manchester the Business School was sited so that it could draw on the Faculty of Economics of the University and on the College of Technology. In each case it would draw on the two institutions and on the business community as well. I do not believe it would be possible to site a business school away from the centres of industry, away from the centres of university development and away from business itself.
BRECON: My Lords, would the noble Lord answer the last part of my question—namely, whether the Secretary of State for Wales has been consulted, and whether he has agreed with what the Government have proposed?
BOWDEN: I feel that the noble Lord is in a better position than I am, if I may say so, to answer this question,
1132
since he was a member of the Government which in the first instance accepted the Franks Committee Report.
BRECON: Is the Secretary of State now overlooking the whole of education and Board of Trade business in Wales? It has been said that he is consulted on all these matters. We did not say that.

HOUSE-BUILDING STANDARDS
2.52 p.m.
ELLIOT HARWOOD: 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 will raise and extend the statutory standards for housebuilding; and whether they will remedy the present unequal bargaining position between the house-buyer and the house-builder.]
JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY LAND NATURAL RESOURCESMy Lords, the only statutory standards for house-building are contained in local authorities' building by-laws. These, and the building regulations which will shortly replace them, are concerned only with standards which relate to health and safety. Apart from statutory standards, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government's publication in 1962, Homes for Today and Tomorrow, contained recommendations for improved standards of house design. These were commended to local authorities in the Ministry's Circular No. 13/62. The National House-Builders Registration Council prescribe standards for private houses built under their registration scheme, which also provides for an inspection system and for undertakings by builders to make good defects. But much private house-building is not covered by this scheme.
Her Majesty's Government are anxious to see an improvement in housing standards, and to see purchasers given better protection. My right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is consulting representative bodies of the house-building industry, building trade operatives, building

1133
societies, local authorities and other interested organisations about the best means of securing this. He is also in close touch with studies being undertaken by the National House-Builders' Registration Council and by the Building Societies Association directed to the same end. Her Majesty's Government wish to consider the results of these consultations and studies before reaching any conclusions.
ELLIOT HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for his full Answer, and to say how glad I am that a study leading up to legislation is being undertaken by Her Majesty's Government. Will the new legislation cover such matters as complaints which arise about such things as fittings and finishings, and also will there be protection under the new legislation for the buyer of a new house against defects—defects which at present he may not be aware of until he has actually bought the house? May I hope that the new legislation will cover those points?
MITCHISON: The Government wish to consider what is going on now by way of consultation and study, as I mentioned in my Answer, before coming to any conclusions as to what, if any, legislation is required. Perhaps it would be of some help to the noble Baroness if I reminded her that the body called the National House-Builders' Registration Council already cover a number of the points she mentioned. I noticed, for instance, that recommendations have been adopted by a number of local authorities recently in relation to matters like a wash basin, second water closet, kitchen fittings, electric sockets, and items of that kind. I respectfully and entirely agree with the noble Baroness on the importance of these things in a new house. I do not think that I can add to that at present, but if she would like to ask me any more specific questions at any time I will gladly do my best to give the answer.
BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that these standards were reduced by the previous Administration as far back as 1953?
MITCHISON: This is really a question about the fitness of houses when
1134
built rather than about the size and adequacy of the kitchen and matters of that sort. But I remember that in December, 1963, my noble friend Lord Rhodes, then in another place, proposed there a Motion, which was carried, touching exactly the subject matter which we are now discussing; and there have been three or four other attempts by way of Private Members' Bills, and so on, in another place. It is a matter which has been very much on the public conscience. I am very glad the noble Baroness raised it.
PEDDIE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government in any future legislation to enforce the minimum standards with regard to living space and space accommodation as indicated in the Parker Morris Report to which the noble Lord made reference?
MITCHISON: Matters of space and accommodation are the subject of the present building by-laws to which I referred; and I am not sure that they remain the same from one local authority to another. There are, however, shortly to be building regulations which are to replace them, and I hope they will satisfy my noble friend on this subject.
PEDDIE: But is my noble friend not aware that the town planning committee of the Association of Municipal Corporations made representations to Her Majesty's Government pointing to the inadequacy of present by-laws and suggesting that some element of compulsion should be introduced in order to stop the steady deterioration in living standards—standards which have fallen substantially over the last fifteen years to a point which the Association themselves indicate is likely to be prejudicial to health, and possibly will create future slums?
MITCHISON: That is exactly why the present local authority by-laws are being replaced by building regulations. Those building regulations have not yet been finally decided upon, but they are likely to be made this summer, to come into operation next year. I feel certain that the views of the Association of Municipal Corporations on a matter of this sort will carry very great weight with my right honourable friend.

HEARING AIDS
2.57 p.m.
ELLIOT HARWOOD: 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 what action they propose to take on the proposals put forward by the Consumer Council for regulating the conditions of supply of commercial hearing aids, and extending the range of National Health Service aids.]
PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY STATE COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD My Lords)my right honourable friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland have studied the Report of the Consumer Council about the supply of hearing aids through the National Health Service and through commercial channels. The Ministers have been advised that the present Medresco range of aids is clinically satisfactory for the great majority of patients. "Behind the ear" aids are more expensive and do not satisfy the clinical needs of as high a proportion of patients. Nevertheless, they have social and cosmetic advantages. A Working Party was set up in the Health Departments one and a half years ago to consider how best to meet the needs of the minority of patients, who cannot be helped by any of the existing range of Medresco aids. Following the Report of the Consumer Council, the Working Party has extended its activities to advice on the development of all aspects of the hearing aid service, including "behind the ear" hearing aids. It is reporting regularly to the Ministers and they are now reviewing the whole matter, in the light of the advice given by the Working Party and of the Report of the Consumer Council. The review will include the question of regulating the conditions of supply of commercial aids.
ELLIOT HARWOOD: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord very much indeed for his reply, which is very encouraging. I am delighted to hear
1136
that this Working Party is in existence. However, if it has been in existence for a year and a half, I would suggest that its work might be speeded up a little. There are two things which I should like to know whether they would be able to deal with. The fact that high-pressure salesmanship quite often influences people in the buying of hearing aids, and the fact that there is no medical test but the salesmen sell the apparatus and the matter does not go through a doctor are serious matters. Also, as the noble Lord said, there are a number of people for whom the ordinary National Health Service aid—Medresco—is insufficient. Would he ask whether a second type of aid, or a third type of aid, could be made available under the National Health Service scheme, in order to prevent people from having to buy them privately under what are sometimes severe salesmanship conditions?
TAYLOR: My Lords, the noble Lady asked about the speed of work of the Working Party. It is a very complicated subject and the Working Party are working very fast and reporting regularly. They are not waiting until they make a Final Report; they are reporting at intervals, as they complete each part of their work. The whole problem is an extremely complicated one, as the noble Lady will be aware, and the question of consumer protection for example, is not really a matter for the Minister of Health unless it involves the health safety of the individual, and he must work in consultation with the Board of Trade. That is what he is doing, and will continue to do, with regard to the question of high-pressure salesmanship of these aids.
With regard to the general supply through the National Health Service of a "behind the ear" aid, that again raises a very difficult question. The noble Lady is doubtless aware that the Medresco aid is manufactured on contract for the National Health Service at a very reasonable price. If it were decided that a "behind the ear" hearing aid was to be supplied, it would be a matter for very careful consideration as to whether it, too, should be supplied on contract, which would make the subject extremely complicated.

DETECTION OF CERVICAL CANCER
3.2 p.m.
LEATHERLAND: 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 progress is being made with the scheme for carrying out tests designed to detect early signs of cervical cancer.]
TAYLOR: My Lords, good progress is being made. About 39,000 women a month are now being tested, and the service is being extended as more staff are trained. Already, about 200 pathologists and 150 medical laboratory technicians trained in cytology are available, and more are in training or awaiting places on the courses. Of the hospital laboratories handling this work, about one quarter are expected to be able to support a routine screening service some time this year.
LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for the very encouraging nature of his reply? He has given us a monthly figure. I wonder whether he could give us any idea of the number of tests likely to be carried out in any convenient twelve months' period; and, also, of the number of technicians who may be trained during the coming year, or who will be trained by the end of this year.
TAYLOR: Yes, my Lords. Such tests are now running at an annual rate of about 470,000 a year, which is a very substantial number. With regard to the technicians in training, as I have said, 150 have already been trained, 72 are actually in training at the present time, and 103 have been nominated for future training courses. There are five training centres now available. These are open to all the Regional Hospital Boards and are, I think, adequate to meet the demands for training.
LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I once again thank my noble friend for the satisfactory nature of his reply? In view of it, as I appreciate that the Government are evidently taking this matter very seriously, it would be ungracious of me to press him further.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
SHEPHERD: My Lords, in view of the large number of speakers for today's debate, the House may like to know that dinner will be available from 7.30 p.m.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
CROMARTIE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to licensing in State management districts in Scotland; and move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(The Earl of Cromartie.)
On Question, Bill read 1a and to be printed.

YOUTH AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES
3.5 p.m.
ROBERTSON OAKRIDGE ROBERTSON OAKRIDGE rose to call attention to the importance of giving to the youth of the nation greater opportunities for becoming aware of their social responsibilities; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that you will forgive me if I start with a platitude. This country of ours stands to-day rather disconsolate, perhaps, and a bit bewildered about her future. We are very concerned about our economy, about our foreign affairs, about our defence, and debates on these subjects take place often in both Houses of Parliament. But is it not wise every now and then to remind ourselves that, however important these subjects are, what matters above all for our future and our future prosperity is what is going on among our youth and how their character is developing? As I said, that is a platitude; it is just a simple truth. But I must say that, thinking back on the manifestos that were issued during the General Election, re-reading, as I have done, the gracious Speech with which this Parliament was opened, I am left wondering whether this simple truth is really appreciated to the full extent it should be.
In this House we debate from time to time various matters that bear upon

1139
youth. For example, I understand that your Lordships had quite a lively debate on Education while I was detained elsewhere. The Youth Service is also debated here, as well as delinquency and its cure. But I want this afternoon to try to convince your Lordships that this problem of youth can be seen in its true perspective only if it is looked at as a whole. It is only when it is so regarded that it assumes its real order of magnitude as one of the great national problems in front of us, on a par with our foreign relations, our economy and our defence.
I have had a little difficulty in wording my Motion. I particularly wished to avoid giving the impression that I think that all our young people live their lives regardless of their social responsibilities. Of course they do not. Nor, on the other hand, did I want to give the impression that I think that they would all sprout angels' wings immediately, if only we would treat them aright. The truth, I suppose, is that we are all born into this world with a capacity for good, or for making a nuisance of ourselves, and what I think chiefly distinguishes the young people of to-day from those, say, of my generation is that their capacity is much greater and develops much sooner.
I should like to point out that this problem is not peculiar to this country. It is not peculiar to this country that there should be a problem concerning the development of the capacity of youth, and a tendency on the part of youth, therefore, not to lift their sights beyond some rather uninspiring objective just in front of their eyes. A year or two ago I was talking to Dr. Adenauer, when he still was Chancellor of West Germany, and he said something like this: "Your papers annoy me. They are always saying that our young people are getting keen on Nazism. They are not keen on Nazism; they are not keen on nationalism, nor patriotism, nor politics, nor religion, nor art, nor anything except materialism. All their efforts are concentrated on passing the examination that will get them the job, that will get them the money, that will buy the material benefits that are all-important to them". Only a few weeks ago I was talking to a distinguished Frenchman and he used practically identical language in speaking of the youth of France.
I am not going to give my assessment in respect of the youth of our country. That has been done by many people better qualified to do it than myself. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Willis, doing it extremely well in a debate that we had last May on Leisure. A very amusing and penetrating analysis of the problem was contained in an address given quite recently by the Headmaster of Eton to the Royal Commonwealth Society. I think it is now being printed for circulation. Never, indeed, was so much written and so much said about youth, and I do not propose to add my quota to the pile. I think it will be sufficient if I repeat what I have already indicated: that in my view we are failing in our generation to give these young people the example, the inspiration and the opportunities they need to enable them to display and use the enormous amount of good that they have inside them if only we can draw it out. Having said that, I will go straight on to discuss, as pragmatically as I can, what I think we should do about it.
How should we set about it, and who should do it? The parents? Of course the parents—and in this country we have got some very good parents. But we also know that there are a good many parents who cannot, or will not, and certainly do not, do anything effective about it. An expert on the Youth Service said to me. "You see, their children are so much better educated and so much cleverer than they are". That may be a reason—in fact it is a reason; and there are others of which we are aware—but this much is certain: that if this job is left entirely to the parents, then in large measure it will not be done. As soon as we get outside the family circle then we know that youth is subjected to a wide variety of influences—the schools, the Youth Service, the Fighting Services, industry, the police, the courts, the Probation Service and the establishments of correction; and, powerfully beamed on them all the time, the Press, broadcasting and television, advertising. I hope that noble Lords who speak after me will focus the light individually on one or more of these influences. I am not going to do that because, as I have said already, it is my purpose to ask your Lordhips to look at the wood as a whole, and I do not want to dwell too long on any

1141
one group of trees. What I am proposing to do is to ask your Lordships to accompany me, as it were, on a short, circular walk around the wood, and I shall make a few comments as we go.
The schools, first of all. Undoubtedly very great efforts have been made in recent years to repair the past neglect of our education system. Much progress has been made, but the system is still handicapped very largely, as we know, by a shortage of teachers. This shortage is a shortage in quantity, but it is also to some extent a shortage in quality. We had a very good statement by the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, just a week ago to-day telling us what is being done to improve the flow of teachers, but clearly it will not be possible to repair this shortage overnight. When teachers are few and classes are large, it seems to me to be inevitable that attention should be focused on the passing of examinations, and that other things, like character training, training in citizenship and community service, should take second place. Then, again, in these days it is fashionable to lay so much stress on technology and science that other things, such as those I have mentioned, rather tend to go into the shade.
I should like to ask the Government whether they are satisfied that sufficient attention is being paid to these things at this time—because from the results it does not seem that this is the case. To give an example, a short while ago we heard the National Students' Union putting out a statement that the country owes a free university education to all students. My Lords, clearly they cannot have been told the proper position, because the country does not owe them anything of the sort. On the contrary, they have been given, or offered, a free schooling, and they now owe the country a return on the money spent. It may, of course, be a good thing—I dare say it is—to give all those who can profit from it a free university education. But, if the community does that, it does it as an investment for its future, it does not do it to repay a debt that it does not in fact owe.
I pass on to the Youth Services. Here I am on pretty familiar ground. The scandalous neglect of our Youth Services—and I do not think those words are too strong—led to the appointment some
1142
half-dozen years ago of the Committee under Lady Albemarle, and we are all greatly indebted to Lady Albemarle and her colleagues for the Report they published. As a result, a great deal of splendid progress has been made. We now know that the Youth Services Development Council have initiated a review of progress made. That is good, and it is particularly important in connection with what I am saying; because surely it is to the Youth Services that we must largely look to give these young people the opportunities to show what they are worth and also to render some service to the community as a whole.
A good deal of progress has been made in connection with what is called "adventure-training". My Lords, my experience is that the demand among our young people, and especially among our boys, for this kind of training is insatiable. A few days ago President Johnson exhorted the youth of the United States of America "to work and to dare". I am prepared to agree that it is desirable now and then to exhort our young people and our boys to work, but in my view it is quite unnecessary to exhort them to dare. What is wanted is to give them opportunities for their daring, so that they may do it in a way which is acceptable to the rest of the community. I am not now thinking just of those rather select boys or young people who work for the Duke of Edinburgh's Award, who go on Outward Bound schemes or who go on V.S.O.: I am thinking of the general run of our boys. I am thinking of "Half our Future"—yes; long hair, sideburns, "winkle-pickers" and all.
Another thing which is good is that a considerable number of our youth organisations are now fully involved in community service. So far, so good, as regards the Youth Services. But anybody who has looked closely at the subject (and I know there are a great many noble Lords present this afternoon who have done so) knows that "so far" is not nearly far enough. Our Youth Services are still primitive, and they are crippled at the present time by a shortage of leaders. As regards full-time, paid leaders, it is clear to me that their pay and their status must be raised as quickly as possible to the point where they attract the necessary number of men—and it is as simple as that.
As regards the voluntary leaders, the unpaid leaders, the situation is more difficult. I am bound to say that I feel that our great universities and colleges, and indeed the young men of university age generally, are not fulfilling their responsibilities in this respect. I quite understand that young people on the threshold of their careers find it difficult to spare the time for this kind of work; but we have got to have them. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, recommended not long ago that the B.B.C. and I.T.V. should combine propaganda programmes for this purpose. When he did that he was only repeating a recommendation of the Albemarle Committee; but, so far as I know, nothing has been done about it, because there has been nobody behind it to give it the necessary push and see it through. Another thing that might help would be if the employers, including those in the nationalised industries, could be persuaded to look upon good service with the Youth Service as a good qualification for jobs, which indeed it is.
Another matter which I think demands the attention of the Development Council is therô le of local authorities in relation to voluntary societies. I live in Gloucestershire where we are very fortunate in this regard; but generally it is too true that many local authorities try to do everything themselves, and some of them seem to be jealous or even hostile towards efforts which are not their own. Nor do I think that the relationships between their schools and the voluntary societies are anything like as good as they should be. Indeed, it is my view that the partnership between local authority and voluntary society which was the basis of the main recommendations of the Albemarle Report is not working—and I think I know what I am talking about here. Last week I was at a large conference of club leaders from the South of England and their complaints about this were all too wide.
Lastly, about the Youth Services, I feel strongly that some rationalisation among voluntary societies is needed. Their number is legion and new ones are born every week. Some are better than others. The Standing Conference of National Voluntary Youth Organisations does its best to get co-operation but, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will know, it is only a conference of repre-
1144
sentatives and it is not therefore a sharp instrument for co-ordination. I do not myself think that the voluntary societies are capable of effecting their own rationalisation. It is a situation rather like the one which obtained in the textile industry and in the aircraft industry. These societies, or most of them, receive some form of subvention from the Government and I think that the Government are entitled to ask, and to ask firmly, that they should organise themselves in a really economic manner.
My Lords, I mentioned the Fighting Services. That may have surprised your Lordships, but, after all, the Fighting Services can offer to young people, to their own great benefit, wonderful opportunities to serve the community. I have always thought that the abolition of National Service was one of the least wise acts of the late Government. However I will not waste the time of the House in trying to persuade our present Government to re-establish it. But I do wish to draw attention to the tremendous amount of good work that the Fighting Services are putting into the field of youth. There are the cadet units, the junior leaders' regiments, the apprentice regiments; there is the lowering of the age of enlistment to 17, including enlistment into the Reserve Forces; and there is the secondment of junior N.C.O.s to help in the Youth Services and to help run the clubs. These are really splendid things and I think we could involve the Fighting Services even more if we really set about it, because they know very well that this is good for their recruitment.
Having said something in rather mild criticism of the late Government, I should like to commend them for the excellent start they made on the question of apprentice training in industry; and I hope the present Government will see that job through. In doing it, I hope they will ensure through their inspectors that apprentice training is not limited just to trade training but will include character training and training in citizenship. I hope they will ensure that attention is paid not only to apprentices but to all young people in industry, including the ordinary young people on the shop floor. I hope they will try to bring home to management, from the chairman and the managing director down to the foreman on

1145
the shop floor and the shop steward, that they have a personal responsibility for the youngsters in the organisation.
The police, the Courts, the Probation Service and the establishments under the Home Office—these are certainly part of the whole problem. As one visits these places and looks into the eyes of the young people there one is—or at least I am, and I think all noble Lords would be—always impressed by the obvious reserves of fun and goodness that lie behind those eyes. All the same, it does not do to nurse illusions. This is a very difficult field, and it is, unfortunately, a field with which I am not very familiar. Therefore, for that reason, and also because there is taking place a Home Office inquiry into delinquency and its treatment, I am proposing to say nothing about it this afternoon, other than to insist that it is part of the whole, and should be co-ordinated with the whole.
I will give one practical example of what I mean. It is generally accepted that the staff of these establishments—I am thinking chiefly of the teaching staff—tend to stay in their jobs for far too long and to get stale. This is because it is a small service. If only there were interchange-ability with the teaching staffs under the Ministry of Education, I think there would be a great deal of benefit all round.
I come now to the Press, broadcasting and television. These, of course, present difficult problems. The Government do not control the Press in this country—and woe betide them if they tried to do so! However, I think the House will agree that we have a remarkably responsible Press. Sometimes we do not know how lucky we are in this respect until we read some of the foreign Press. If the Government had a really cohesive policy for youth and were to get hold of the Press, perhaps the editors of our great dailies and weeklies, and explain to them what they want to do, what they want to avoid and what they want to stop, I believe they would get a very generous measure of co-operation. I do not think that the problem of the Press is as difficult as it is sometimes made out to be.
So far as broadcasting and television are concerned, these are rather different. Whereas we have newspapers that are read by the old and the "square", and other newspapers that are read by the
1146
young and the "with it", television programmes may be watched from start to finish by people of both sexes and all ages. Thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, I am a member of the Advisory Council of the Independent Television Authority and I have thought a great deal about this. I have come to the conclusion that if you insisted on taking out of television programmes anything that could conceivably have a bad effect on youth you would be left with some very dull programmes. I think that the Government, instead of fussing too much about individual items in the programmes, would do better to ensure that the general tone is right. They would do better to concentrate on choosing with the utmost care the men to fill the top posts which are filled by Government, men on whom they feel they can rely to keep a high tone—I do not mean a "pi" tone but a high lone. If they were to do that, I think we should avoid the worst mistakes—for example, what the noble Lord, Lord Willis, referred to one day as "sick satire". We want our Establishment to move with the times. We do not want to shelter it from all criticism. But that is quite a different thing from holding it up to constant mockery by youth. I think that is something which we should very much avoid. Before I leave this point, may I insist that I am not pointing a finger at any man in any of my remarks?
I have now covered my brief circular tour around the wood, and I think your Lordships will have observed that in all those influences which I have mentioned—there are others which I have not mentioned, like the Churches—the Government are deeply concerned. The conclusion I have formed, rightly or wrongly, is that the actions of the Government in this field are entirely unco-ordinated. I am well aware that plenty of mutual discussion takes place between Departments. I am not complaining about lack of liaison between officials. What I am complaining of is that there seems to be no clear policy, No 1nspired planning, among the half dozen or more Ministers who are working in this field. I think that we need a Plan for Youth and we need to put the responsibility for working it out and seeing it through on one man.
Does this mean a Ministry for Youth? I think that if I were to recommend anything like that I should have the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, getting up off his sick bed and coming along to castigate me. I do not think that this is necessary. When there is a need to co-ordinate work among a number of Ministers, it is clearly the responsibility of the Prime Minister to ensure that that co-ordination takes place, and there are various recognised pieces of machinery and various recognised ways of doing this. I feel sure that if Mr. Harold Wilson were convinced of the importance of this problem of youth as a whole, and of the need to co-ordinate the work in this field, he would, without any great difficulty, choose his means and choose his man. It is only when this problem of youth is looked at as a whole that it is seen in its proper order of magnitude.
I have made a number of suggestions as to what should go in the Plan, and, briefly, I should like to mention five others before I finish. First, there should be a renewed campaign among parents to remind them of their responsibilities, to associate them with the successes and failures of their offspring, and to help them, through Counsel Service or other means, to fulfil their responsibilities. Secondly, there should be vigorous promotion of commuunity service for the young. I have heard a number of noble Lords in this House recommend that this should be compulsory for all. On reflection, I think I prefer that it should remain on a voluntary basis. The main difficulty is not to persuade young people to volunteer for this kind of service; it is to organise it well and get it accepted. There are volunteer organisations already working in this field. They seem to me to be a little lacking in cohesion, and certainly lack support. The official attitude, I am told, is ice cold. I do not know why that should be. President Johnson has not hesitated to organise his Volunteers for Service, which is the domestic equivalent of his Peace Corps. He has not been inhibited by the fact that it has been criticised as a kind of Hitler Jugend. That, I understand, is the bogy which haunts Whitehall.
Thirdly, there should be a strengthening of the Youth Service, to start with by raising the status of the Government
1148
department that handles it, a department or branch which at this time lies buried away somewhere within the vast Ministry of Education and Science, under an Assistant Secretary. It would be good, for example, if we had somebody in this House who could regularly and at first hand answer questions on this subject. I have mentioned some other things that to me seem to be necessary in the Youth Service. I feel that I am likely to be told that the Progress Review Committee will no doubt think of all those things. Perhaps it will. But I hope that the Government does not feel that it has fulfilled its obligations if it waits for a report by this sub-Committee and then titivates up the present Youth Service a bit here and there and gives it a little more money for this and that, because that is not what is wanted. What is wanted is that the Government should get hold of this whole problem and translate it to a higher sphere, and make some really bold decisions and inspired planning.
Fourthly, I hope that the Government will look at the suggestion recently made by the Warden of Toynbee Hall to start a compulsory savings scheme on a P.A.Y.E. basis for all young wage-earners. I think we know well that a lot of these young people would be better off if they did not have so much money rattling about in their pockets.
Fifthly and lastly, if one wants to make a man more responsible, what does one do?—give him more responsibility. How would it be to give our young people more civic responsibility? What about lowering the age of voting? I have never really seen a good argument made against doing that. It seems to me that if a man is old enough to die for his country, he ought to be regarded as old enough to vote. As to being immature, it is my impression that young people to-day are as mature at 18 as I was at 20 or 21—not that that is saying very much.
Earlier in my speech, I quoted some remarks made by some of my friends on the Continent. I am going to end by quoting an extract from a speech made by M. Louis Armand, when he was being introduced as a member of the Acadé mie Française. Many noble Lords will know that M. Armand has held many high appointments, national and international, and in particular he was head of

1149
This is what he said—it is my own translation of his French:
"I believe that if the civilisations of this world are in peril to-day, it is not due to the clash of rival ideologies nor even to the atom bomb. It is because they are no longer capable of mobilising the enthusiasms of their youth."
We need a plan to mobilise the enthusiasms of our youth, and to mobilise them in the cause of making their country a better country than it was when they were born into it. I beg to move for Papers.
3.39 p.m.
ABERDARE: My Lords, I think that all noble Lords will be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, for having introduced this Motion to-day. The proof of the amount of interest it has evoked lies in the long list of speakers who are going to speak this afternoon. As he said, the noble Lord took us on a journey around the wood. It was a rather sombre and shady wood, but there were a few rays of sunlight. I hope that in the course of our debate some more trees may be successfully removed and that some useful suggestions will emerge which will improve the position.
I think all of us are very conscious of the fact that we are worried about the lack of social responsibility that sometimes appears among young people. We are often most appalled at the crimes of violence, particularly unnecessary violence to old people, animals and so forth, which is most disturbing. Obviously everything that we can do to remedy this matter is of enormous benefit. So many people have written so many articles and made so many speeches on the subject; but we never seem to get very much further. Probably the answer is that there is no one solution to the problem, and, as has been said on many occasions before, it is not really a problem only of youth, but one of the whole of our present-day society. But that does not mean that we should not seek every means to put it right.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, put first things first when he said that the most obvious and best way of dealing with the problem was to begin in the home. Quite obviously, this is of the most vital importance. If we could get the home
1150
background of all young people right, we should not need to worry very much further. But apart from improving the physical environment of the home, which, of course, is most important, we ourselves, as outside citizens, can do little to influence the behaviour of parents other than to emphasise the responsibilities which they have to their children.
Where the parents fail, then there are two agencies through which the community has to try and improve matters—namely, the Youth Service and the schools, both of which were mentioned by the noble Lord. I am sure that most of your Lordships would agree that the Youth Service, on the whole, is doing splendid work. I must confess that when the noble Lord, in his walk around the wood, made some remarks about the nationalisation of the Youth Service, I felt a very cold shiver down my spine.
LORD PRIVY SEAL: I thought the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, said "rationalisation". It may be that I misheard him.
ABERDARE: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I thought he said "nationalisation".
PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY TRANSPORTGuilty conscience!
ABERDARE: I agree, up to a point, with the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, but I think there is merit in the very diversification of agencies working in this field. The fact that there is no one solution and that different organisations have different approaches seems to me to be of benefit rather than the reverse. Of course the Youth Service needs more resources. But if we are realistic, we must recognise that at the present moment and in the present economic situation it is not likely that the Youth Service will get very much more. At the same time, within the present allocation of resources to it there is a great deal going on in the Youth Service; and in my opinion, it is well directed.
There is one disadvantage with the Youth Service. It tends to provide very necessary facilities for the best of our young people, but it is not able to do as much as it should perhaps be doing

1151
for those who are most in need; that is, the two-thirds of young people who do not come within the Youth Service. I think it is probably true that most of the youth organisations have in the past few years, since publication of the Albemarle Report, been making experiments to see how they can reach out in their work and touch these other two-thirds of what are sometimes called the unattached or the unclubbable. Some of these experiments have met with a certain amount of success. I would refer your Lordships, in particular, to a most interesting Pelican book, entitled The Unattached, by Mary Morse, which is a report of an experiment made under the aegis of the National Association of Youth Clubs into this very problem. It is a fascinating account of how youth workers attempted to get in touch with young people who would not otherwise have come in contact with the Youth Service and who in fact despised any youth club that might exist in their area, But these are still limited experiments; and while it is useful that they should go on, it is still true that the Youth Service, admirable and necessary as its work is, still touches only one-third of our young people.
The schools, on the other hand, do not suffer from this disadvantage, as they cover the whole range of children. It is, therefore, to my mind most important that we should do what we can in the schools towards increasing social responsibility among young people—and the noble Lord has already made this point. This is something on which we could well concentrate our activities. The Newsom Report certainly recognised the schools' responsibilities in this respect, and recommended that:
"The school programme in the last year especially ought to be deliberately outgoing".
I am sure that this is wise guidance, and I know that it has been put into effect in many schools. I hope that even more emphasis will be placed upon it, and that this hopeful way of tackling the problem may be expanded.
The Newsom Report drew particular attention to the use of television programmes for schools. This also seems to me to be of immense value. The Report pointed out that television has the prestige of a medium that belongs to the
1152
outside world, with which everybody is familiar as a form of entertainment; that in a school it can bring a fresh air of outside interest, and can bring into the school, into direct contact with the young people in the classroom, men and women of outstanding achievement from outside. If television is to do such a job, it is necessary, first, that the schools should be equipped with television receivers, and, secondly, that the television broadcasting authorities should pay due regard to this aspect of the work. I think there is a certain amount of evidence that they are going to do this.
There is a recent publication by Mr. John Scupham, the B.B.C. Controller of Educational Broadcasting, in which he refers to the use of television in schools as a lesson in social awareness which would give young people in schools an appreciation of the importance of the other man's job and the interdependence of all those who contribute to the running of our complex modern community. He also goes on to recognise that this is one of the most challenging and difficult of all the tasks that the Newsom Report has set before the television services. In the commercial television field, I think it is encouraging that Granada are planning a series in the near future on human relations for adolescents. What can be done by television can also be done, perhaps to a slightly less effective degree, but certainly usefully, by sound broadcasting and by films.
It seems to me that this type of social education is needed most in those schools which are situated in difficult areas: areas of social, physical or occupational environment that is not particularly good. An interesting report by the Department of Education and Science (No. 17, of December, 1964) was written on Education Under Social Handicap, and pointed out the very grave difficulties under which these schools operated. I think children from bad homes tend to sink firmly to the bottom 20 per cent. of the school whatever their latent potential, and the growing stress on the G.C.E. as the touchstone of success in comprehensive and secondary modern schools sets these rejected 20 per cent. even more sharply apart from their comrades.
This is primarily a social problem, rather than an educational one. But it obviously lays a great deal of responsibility on the teacher, and unfortunately

1153
it is in these schools in bad areas where the teaching situation is most serious. There is a very large turnover of teachers in these schools, and just where most is required of them they are most transitory, and it is difficult for them to cope. 1 would suggest that the recommendation made at the end of this Report is well worth while considering, and certainly worth while experimenting with. This is the recommendation that social workers should be appointed to these schools to assist the teachers. I hope that full consideration can be given to this recommendation and certainly it could be tried out.
I mentioned earlier on some of the experiments being made by various youth organisations in reaching out to boys and girls who would not normally be found in youth clubs. I apologise for making use of one particular organisation as an example, but I would refer to the Y.M.C.A., as it happens to be the organisation which I know best. So I hope I shall not be causing any offence to other organisations, which I know are conducting equally useful experiments. There is one to which I would specially refer, which was recorded in the Daily Telegraph—an experiment by a Y.M.C.A. leader, Mr. George Reynolds, who runs a club in Woolwich, one of the toughest areas of London's dockland. He set out to form street gangs into what he called nomadic youth clubs. His original idea was to find an adult leader for each gang, but unfortunately he was very soon disappointed in this because not only was it difficult to find people who would be willing to give the time, but those who did were not suitable or were not acceptable to the particular gang. So in the end Mr. Reynolds had to do the whole job himself.
However, he met with a certain amount of success. He contacted the gangs through cinema managers, dance halls and coffee bars, and ultimately formed sixteen clubs from these gangs, nine of them consisting of boys under the age of 14. All of them paid half-a-crown entrance fee and carried a membership card with the name of his street gang. Some successful results were obtained from this experiment. But the point I am really trying to make is that the most significant result was that it was the boys under 14 who were most enthusiastic. Some of them, of course, got hold of
1154
the wrong idea to start with, and thought it was just an idea which would enable them to fight other gangs. But on the whole the situation soon improved, and these boys were found doing social jobs and helping other people.
The senior clubs were a much more difficult proposition. They tended to consider themselves too old to form these clubs, and although a certain amount of success was achieved, by far the most co-operation was received from the boys between the ages of 11 and 14. A similar thought was going through our minds in the Y.M.C.A. in the Youth Work Committee, that we should try to form groups or clubs for those under 14, and we have started, based mainly on schools, schoolboy Y.M.C.A. groups whose members are aged between 11 and 15, and our initial experiments have been quite successful.
The point I am trying to make is this. I wonder whether we should not be wise to start our Youth Service at the age of 11 rather than at the age of 14. The Albemarle Report dealt with young people aged 14 to 20, and Government grants are available to organisations providing facilities for those age ranges. I wonder whether at at early date we could not extend the lower age limit and start our youth work at the age of 11. It has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Oakridge, that boys and girls grow up more quickly than they did. That is true, and perhaps we should take that into account. There would be other advantages in starting at that age. In the first place, these children are at school and it is therefore much more easy to contact them. The teachers in the schools know which of their pupils are the most difficult, and which could most benefit from some form of youth club or youth work. Secondly, while they are still relatively young, they are more amenable and perhaps more ready to co-operate. I am not suggesting that we should in any way slacken off our efforts for the 14 to 20 age group, but I wonder whether we might not achieve greater success with that age group if we started our work at the age of 11.
In support of what I am saying, may I quote one paragraph from the book I was quoting earlier, The Unattached? It reads:
"It seems futile to assume that children who have run wild for so long can become

1155
suddenly, miraculously transformed and led into worthwhile activity at the age of 14."
To sum up, I believe that the best way of achieving the objects which are set out in this Motion are by intensifying our ciforts through the home, the Youth Service and the school. And I think we should consider very carefully whether we would not be wise to begin with this education in social responsibility at the age of 11 rather than the present age of 14.
3.58 p.m.
WADE: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, has raised this important subject which he himself has described as a great national problem. I am not making my maiden speech, as I spoke in a brief debate a few weeks ago, but as one who is very much a newcomer to your Lordships' House I hope it will not sound presumptuous on my part to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, for the very thoughtful and moderate way in which he has introduced this debate.
I must say quite frankly that when I first read the words of the Motion I wondered what some of the young people to whom it referred would think of it. Then it occurred to me that probably most of us here are regarded as "squares", and that the wording of a Motion in your Lordships' House would not make all that difference to the impression which they have of us. In any case, it is, of course, the spirit and intention behind the Motion that really matters, and the noble Lord presented it, I think, very fairly. On the whole, I am rather more optimistic than he sounded to be. I think the key words in this Motion are "giving … greater opportunities", and I should like to refer to that and discuss it with special reference to the voluntary social services.
First of all, I agree with the noble Lord that the aims cannot be achieved by compulsion. In time of war and threatened war there is a strong case for compulsory military service. In peace time the value of compulsory military service is much more doubtful. To some it provides a valuable experience; for others it is just a frustrating interruption to a career; and for yet others it seems to be just a period of organised bore-
1156
dom. But, whatever the merits of military service, there is very little to be said for a period of compulsory social service. For this is essentially a voluntary activity. So the problem is how to encourage it and expand it and provide opportunities.
There is no simple answer. In the field of education we have certainly made advances in advising our young people on their careers. We have not done so much as we should do in advising them on leisure and on the opportunities for devoting some part of their time to service to the community, although I must say there are some splendid examples of schools working very well in this field. Then there is the Youth Service, to which already several references have been made. No one can have read the Albemarle Report, published a few years ago, without regretting our failure to do all that should have been done, the tendency to treat the Youth Service as the poor relation of our social services. Certainly progress has been made since the publication of that Report—I welcome the grants that have been made for buildings and facilities—but there is still a very great need for more youth leaders. In so far as money helps to provide them, the money is well spent. I would place great stress on personal contact and the influence of the individual. I believe that counts more than anything else.
If I may mention my own experience, in my very early twenties I worked in a settlement in the slums of Leeds. It was a most tough area; they really were slums. It was the kind of district where the police patrolled only in pairs because it was too tough to go singly. I am not going to discuss what I did then. I was there about a couple of years. But I was asking myself why I did it, and I think the reason was that one man a little older than myself really interested in this kind of service, interested in me, said to me, "Come along and lend a hand". I did, and everything else followed from that one individual approach. So although there is this great need for youth leaders, I am not pessimistic. There are several reasons for being optimistic about the willingness of youth to respond and about the opportunities for service. For example, the nature of voluntary service has changed during the last fifty years. In days gone by it was more a case of charity, financial aid. Now the relief of poverty is met largely

1157
by the State. But there is a growing demand for personal service, and I think young people are much more able to provide personal service than financial aid.
Secondly, there is the almost limitless opportunity for helping old people. I know, and noble Lords may know, that there are old people who will welcome help from the young whereas they are too proud to accept it from adults. Thirdly, to-day there is a very noticeable upsurge of enthusiasm for performing some kind of voluntary service among young people, often outside and supplemental to the traditional voluntary youth organisations. It is very important that this enthusiasm should not be killed by adult caution. The more young people we can have keen about this, and acting on their own responsibility and their own initiative, the better. It is very difficult to give examples, because if one mentions one organisation one feels that some others should not be left unmentioned. But perhaps coming from Yorkshire I might mention one from my own county. In Barnsley, members of the Y.M.C.A. got together on their own initiative and formed a tape recording club, as they call it, to provide broadcasts to hospitals; they are now serving more than 1,000 patients in five hospitals, and this service is very much appreciated. As I say, it was done on their own initiative.
I will mention another example of the spontaneous coming together of young people, in London. This is a body known as Task Force, which was inspired by one young man who is extremely enthusiastic and has been carrying on this work for about five years, but last year it was felt desirable to give it legal status. This followed a meeting at the Palace of Westminster—and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, will recollect the occasion. I am referring to it because I am a member of the board of management, the board being concerned with only financial responsibility and general oversight of policy. It is the young people themselves who run this concern. The object is not to duplicate effort, but to "enthuse" other young people and put them in touch with jobs needing to be done. It works very well.
These "enthusers" work through schools and youth clubs and individuals,
1158
some of them "unattached", as they are called; some former gangs of "Mods" and "Rockers". They try to co-operate with the statutory bodies and local authorities and voluntary bodies. The success lies wholly in the fact that they are working together as young people and organising themselves. Since October last—and this is only in part of London—the membership has risen from 1,000 to 3,500 young people. They work mainly for old people, and this involves genuine befriending, with maintained visiting, not just one visit and forgetting about them.
May I give a few simple examples?—it is easier to show what is done by example. There is the problem of floor covering. There may be an old person who is desperately in need of some new floor covering. The public health visitor will advise that this person needs some lino. 1f the case comes under the National Assistance Board they will provide the cost of the lino, but they have no power to pay for putting it down. The lino will be delivered, and is there at the premises (and one knows of several cases like this), where it may be left in the corner, rolled up, for three months. And then these young people rally round and put down the lino.
Then there was the old lady who was provided with a wheel chair from the Red Cross but had no one to push her out. It turned out that she had previously had a wheel-chair provided, but could not make any use of it, so that eventually it was taken away. Now, two girls have been pushing her out regularly since October and taking her out to tea. There is the case of the old person with no bath—and, alas! there are many such cases. There was no transport to take her to the public baths, so the young people came along and provided transport. She would accept help of that kind from young people but would have been reluctant to accept it from an adult.
There is the problem of week-end visiting. The local authorities cannot provide the staff for week-end visiting; and this is very important, because there is great loneliness at the week-end among old people. Some may die during the week-end, and no one will know anything about it. There was a case of an old lady brought back home from hospital on a Friday. She was not well enough to

1159
provide her own meals, but there are no "meals on wheels" at the week-end, and there was no one to call till the Monday. So the young people rallied round and helped with the meals. The work they do includes window cleaning, shopping and decorating. I am speaking from my own experience here. On Monday this week I was looking at some decorating that had been done for old people suffering from arthritis by boys and girls of fourteen and fifteen. I am not an expert, but it seemed to me that they had done it extremely well.
Unfortunately, there is some resistance from adults and from some local authorities. I have here a letter (I do not propose to read it) from the town clerk of a London borough, in which he said, in effect, that he was sorry but he did not want this offer of help; that they could manage quite well without it. I think that such an attitude is unfortunate. This spontaneous desire to help should be encouraged, even at the occasional risk of people being left out. There are almost limitless opportunities for helping old people. The statutory authorities and local bodies cannot cope with everything. According to the Government Actuary, by 1973 those who have retired—men over 65, and women over 60—will number over nine million. So I believe that this problem of the elderly will grow rather than decrease.
In conclusion, my Lords, may I make two general comments—the first on coordination? There are, of course, a great variety of bodies doing good work. There is Voluntary Service Overseas, in which several bodies are concerned. There are well-known organisations like the Scouts and the Guides. There are the physical and character training enterprises, like the Outward Bound schools and the Duke of Edinburgh's Award; and there are all kinds of social service activities, some of which are not so well known. There is a problem of coordination of information. The Secretary of the Standing Conference of National Voluntary Youth Organisations wrote to me the other day and said this:
"The will to give service clearly exists to a degree that is not at present fully exploited, and the jobs that can be done are countless, but the bringing together of the potential givers and receivers of service is handicapped by lack of knowledge and communications."
1160
I think that that is true; and it would be helpful if some kind of information centre could be set up, perhaps in London and in other cities. I should have thought that this could well be provided by a body like the Council of Social Service. I certainly would not advocate setting up some new vast body to co-ordinate all the other bodies, some of which are already co-ordinating other bodies. Heaven forbid that that should happen! It is better to have a bit of overlapping.
Then there is the subject of publicity. It is not a good idea to overdo the publicity about the work of these young people. Service is like charity.
"… when thou dost thine alms do not sound a trumpet before thee".
I think those words from the Gospel are appropriate to social service as well as to charity, and it is better for those giving and for those receiving that it should be done unobtrusively. Certainly we should try to avoid the limelight. We must not regard these young people as interesting specimens to be examined, and we must avoid being patronising. But there are occasions when we must speak up. This is such an occasion. Somehow, we must correct the false impression that youth cannot be relied upon. We must make it known that there is a great willingness to serve, and that the majority are reliable; that there is great scope for service in the future. I believe that the youth of to-day are as willing and as capable as ever of living up to their responsibilities and accepting the challenge. Given the encouragement and the leadership, and the opportunity, the youth of to-day will not let us down.
4.14 p.m.
BADEN-POWELL: My Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships to-day for allowing me to address you when I have been for so short a time a Member of your Lordships' House. Being a cautious man, it had not been my intention to address your Lordships until I had fully assimilated the customs and traditions of your Lordships' House. However, I rise to-day, with some trepidation, and I ask you to forgive me should I make too many blunders.
The young have always had this problem of adjusting from childhood and onwards. In the past, they have been helped

1161
by a stable and often strict home life. Subsequently, National Service helped them. They were subjected to two years of intensive discipline and taken away from their homes, often for the first time. This was a good idea, for one was away from parental influence; and there is no doubt that over the past twenty years there has been a great lessening of discipline in the home. I am not suggesting that we should return to National Service, because I feel that that would not be in the national interest and would be a retrograde step. But I feel that between the ages of 12 and 20 young people must be subject to some form of discipline; for in what other way will they be able to develop their self-discipline, except by having the example of discipline forced upon them? When they reach adolescence to-day, young people have a choice before them: either self-discipline or self-indulgence. With self-discipline they have a platform upon which they can build their whole future life. Self-indulgence can lead only to boredom, and to all the social evils which that involves.
The young to-day have a great interest in what goes on around them and in how the world ticks. Equally, they realise that we regard them as children. They want a social position; but we tend to ignore them and not to give them a social position. In response, they ignore us; and slowly we are finding that two separate societies are tending to build up—with us on the one hand, and them on the other; and the gulf is widening fast as a result of mutual suspicion and mutual mistrust.
Ten years ago young people were forced by National Service into a socially responsible position. They realised that they were helping the community, and that in so doing they were given a position in social life. To-day, the youngsters still want that position in social life; and I believe that they must, and will, have it. But they need help, and they need help given in the right way—namely, with patience, understanding and sincerity. Young people are most perceptive, and they are quick to suspect somebody who is insincere or patronising. They must have the means to develop their self-discipline, their self-reliance and their self-confidence. This must be done either by example at home, where most influence lies, or at school, or by the youth organi-
1162
sations to which they may belong. This could also be achieved, I think, if the recommendations of the Albemarle Committee were fully implemented. Voluntary youth organisations to-day certainly have ideas, and I believe that they have many of the answers to help the youth of to-day to find themselves. Indeed, I know that the Boy Scouts and the Girl Guides are actively looking into the 'seventies, so far as their ideas are concerned.
I should like to go on to the other point made by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, about the mass media of television, radio and newsreels. I believe they can help by showing parents what their responsibilities are to their children. They can help, too, by actively recruiting leaders for the youth organisations—because our youth organisations can gain their strength only by having leaders of the right calibre. They could also show what good is being done by young people. There are many young people to-day who are pulling their weight and who are being useful members of the community. I know that this does not quite fall in with other people's views. but it is certainly my view.
These mass media often sensationalise the occasional falls from grace of a few members of this great community of young people, but if they were to show the good side of the young people it would, I feel, be of great assistance. For young people are very avid for the publicity which is given to their age group. If it is good publicity they will take to it and will associate themselves with it. If it is bad publicity they will still do the same, but it can do incalculable harm. I am sure that these are some of the answers to our problems to-day; that is to say, discipline coupled with infinite love, on the one hand, and decent and good publicity, on the other.
One example of discipline which springs most readily to my mind takes place in the home of a very close friend of mine in Nottingham. He has taken part in what I believe has been a most successful experiment. Young people who have been remanded in custody, instead of being sent to a remand home, as is normally the case, for three weeks, are sent to a private home. To date, over seventy children have been dealt with in this way. Their home life was in many instances questionable, and often non-existent. It was wonderful to see the change which came over

1163
them in that three weeks. They arrived sullen, suspicious and morose, and at the end of the three weeks they were vivacious, full of life—in fact just normal children again. It was obvious that their whole outlook on life had been entirely changed. This was done first with firm discipline, but also with infinite love and understanding.
In my own experience I have found that the same rules apply just as much to older children. Subconsciously they want, and ask us to give them, our confidence, our understanding, our guidance, and, above all, an all-enveloping cloak of discipline. I am sure that if we would give them this they would come more than halfway to meet us, because they want a position in our society; they want to be called adults, or young adults, or something of that type. But, first, we must strike into the heart of the matter; and this is to be found in the home. Young children can have influences brought to bear on them either at school or in the youth organisation, but the greatest influence of all can be brought to bear in the home. If, by some means, we can persuade parents to help them there, then we shall have done a great deal of good.
4.22 p.m.
NORWICH: My Lords, I feel honoured to be in a position to be able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Baden-Powell, on his maiden speech. He bears a name that is associated with a genius for understanding and inspiring the young and helping them to grow up responsibly. The noble Lord who now bears the title clearly shows his family tradition, and has shown us by his speech that he has both a concern for, and is in sympathy with, the younger generation. It is a happy circumstance that he should have made his maiden speech on such a subject, and we have enjoyed the thoughtful and sincere contribution which he has made to this debate.
I was interested to see the wording of Lord Robertson of Oakridge's Motion. We are considering how we can give young people of this nation greater opportunities of becoming aware of their responsibilities. That presupposes that our society does not provide such opportunities as a matter of course—that the
1164
opportunities will not occur or will not be demanded unless we give them, unless we create them deliberately. The more one thinks of that presupposition the more profoundly one finds it to be true.
What has happened, then, to our society that we have to create, artificially, a sense of responsibility? In some respects, at least, the need to create it appears to be something new. One reason for this is that until quite recently responsibility has been exacted or claimed from each generation of young people by certain conditions which have long existed and which have since changed. There has been a change, for instance, in military requirements, which in the past affected a substantial but varying proportion of young men. This now calls for a different sort of young man, the man with technological training, as compared with those who were drafted or required in the past, and fewer of them.
There has been a change, too, in the economic pressure towards responsibility, which affects young people generally. Until quite recent times boys and girls had to work long hours and hard to keep the family from poverty. Now poverty, or even the threat of it, has largely been removed. We live in relative affluence, an affluence so newly come by that we have not yet fully learned its conditions or the requirements necessary for its continuance. Temporarily, at least, it looks as if the economic compulsion towards responsibility has been relaxed. Thrift makes little appeal in an inflationary economy. Propaganda for national savings has to compete with the glamour of commercial advertising encouraging us to spend. Why postpone the satisfactions of success until they have been earned, when they can be enjoyed now on the "Never-never" system? And if we cannot, or will not, work, there is the strong net of welfare services to cushion our fall.
No one of us would say that the double revolution, the reduction of poverty on the one hand and the creation of welfare services on the other, is bad. On the contrary, these represent a great and welcome social advance. But they have brought in their train the ambiguous consequence that young people can, and do, earn a lot of money without any pressure to learn responsibility for it. Most of

1165
the effective pressures work just the other way: "Spend now and don't worry about the future!" Apart altogether from the lack of responsibility that this inevitably induces in the young, it can easily result in a society which itself is lacking in adequate care and foresight for its own future.
As regards the third sort of pressure which, through changes, has been in large measure relaxed, that of custom and tradition, this perhaps is the most important in its relationship to attitudes of responsibility. Up to the beginning of the century, and in some sections of society later than this, what has been called "the old morality" was widely recognised and accepted—a morality expressed in custom, sanctioned by religion and supported or enforced by law. Nowadays it has nothing like the same influence as it once had. We have, in the first place, become a much more mobile society. People no longer live in relatively small groups in small communities. If your behaviour is not subject to the eye and tongue of your neighbour, the influence of convention is likely to be rather less.
But the code itself has been brought into question. Rapid and universal education has accelerated the age-old process by which one generation questions the ideas of the generation before. In our time every circumstance has conspired to give an edge to the attack and to weaken the defence. There has been so much new knowledge to absorb and to disseminate, and we have disseminated it so rapidly, that as a society we find it hard to see it as a whole. We certainly do not seem to be able to see it as a moral whole. Much in our new knowledge has discredited some aspects of the old tradition, and rightly so, but—and this is a very different matter—it has also led to the notion that most, or all, of the old tradition in itself is discredited as well. So, in an age when authoritarianism has been suspect, when everything has been open to challenge, the moral tradition, too, has been powerfully challenged by influences drawn from new knowledge. And some of the heaviest attacks have fallen on the very notion of responsibility itself.
Here, my Lords, I must guard myself in advance against misunderstanding. I realise that what I want to say would appear as coming very near to a familiar slur upon a department of knowledge and
1166
upon a profession for which I have a profound respect, and I can embark upon this perilous piece of navigation only because I know that your Lordships will be prepared to discriminate between what I do say and what I might have been thought to have said. In what follows I am not repeating the all too familiar, and, in my judgment, misplaced, attack upon psychology. Here is a science which has made spectacular progress in our day. The psychological sciences have advanced, with great effect upon our ways of thinking. They have provided some salutary questioning into the neat patterns of philosophical and theological thought, and this is all to the good.
There is a legitimate interest in exploring the workings of the human mind; there is a humane application of the knowledge so gained in the reduction of human misery and human sickness, and in the promotion of human happiness and human understanding. For what I say now, therefore, I am not wishing to attribute blame to that science or to practitioners of it, or to so many psychiatrists who are doing work for which we have every cause to be very grateful. Nevertheless, it has to be said that from some misunderstanding of those sciences and some misuse of their vocabulary a powerful assault has been made upon the notion of responsibility. In the social and economic context to which I have alluded this assault has had some damaging success.
Why has this happened? Mistakes are made, of course, in the infancy of every new branch of learning, and in its adolescence there is the recognised characteristic of over-assertiveness to cover insecurity. Psychological and social sciences have passed through their period of infancy and adolescence. They were passing through them, furthermore, when the newspaper industry was in the heyday of its expansion, enlarging its circulation to a newly-literate population, and this has almost inevitably led to a good deal of over-simplification and distortion. Those early psychiatrists, for instance, who first pleaded the split mind and diminished responsibility as a defence in murder trials, were on occasion caricatured in the papers, and their science with them. Exaggeration followed until the idea began to get round that no one is really responsible for what he does.

1167
Next, the very language employed by psychologists and psychiatrists, and by the earliest social workers who were trained in these disciplines, lends itself readily to misinterpretation. The older language of medicine and surgery created a technical vocabulary on Greek and Latin models, to serve precise medical purposes. It is wise for a science to do this, however impatient the lay public may be with it. Unfortunately, the new psychological sciences were content to re-use the old words, which already had established meanings and powerful emotional associations wrapped around them. The word "guilt", for instance, was already so charged with meaning and emotion that it would have been wiser for the psycho-analysts to invent a new word to express the new awareness which they had, rather than to try to graft new meaning on this old, overloaded word. They did not do so, and the way in which their own examination of the sense of guilt has been disseminated has resulted in much fruitless controversy and untold popular misunderstanding. The words "accepting" and "permissive" in the social worker's vocabulary are another case in point.
The therapist accepts the client or patient as he is, and permits him to be himself, to say what he will, and all in the interest of the therapeutic process. But this has all too readily been misunderstood to imply an attitude of moral neutrality in the therapist to all behaviour and evaluation as such. This, in turn, comes to be interpreted in the popular mind as giving scientific authority to an undermining of the validity of any notion of right or wrong as applied to human conduct. So from the popularisation, or perhaps sometimes the correct word would be "vulgarisation", of the psychological sciences, and not from the sciences themselves, notions have spread abroad which undermine the concept of human responsibility and suggest that there is no real distinction between right and wrong, that we need not and must not ever feel guilty, that guilt is bad for us and that, anyway, we cannot help what we are and what we do, for we are not responsible.
My Lords, we may ourselves repudiate these notions, but we must not be blind
1168
to the fact that they have gained some currency—in part because of a misunderstanding of the context in which psychologists refer to these matters, and in part because there is so much in our present way of living to encourage them. With little inherent encouragement to a sense of responsibility, there is the more need for the greater opportunities of which the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, speaks, and for the practical schemes and suggestions which in this debate and elsewhere are advanced for our acceptance and support. Many of these have been initiated or supported by the Albemarle Report—and what a boon that Report has been! Many have been undertaken by youth organisations, which are adapting their methods to changing conditions, and many others—such as the Duke of Edinburgh's Award, schemes of voluntary service at home and overseas, and the kind of rescue training and service which is so superbly exercised at the Atlantic College—the international Sixth Form School at St. Donat's Castle—these and other such schemes are releasing the desire and capacity of the young to be of use and to be responsible.
But since my own contribution to this debate has been mostly in terms of ideas, elementary and over-simplified as they are, it is in terms of ideas that I would offer my own suggestion. I hope, my Lords, that, despite so many speakers to follow, you will bear with me for a moment or two longer while I try to put this. It is ideas which in the end prevail, and I believe that we are beginning now to move into a new position in which there is a greater consciousness of our own adult responsibility for the inadequate and confused pattern of ideas through which we have been leaving young people to find their own way. Details of the moral debate are, of course, in perennial dispute; it is in too many people's interest to keep the debate on sexual morality alive for this to be allowed the period of quiescence which is its due. There is emerging far more positive agreement than the propagandists and exhibitionists would have us realise in formulising a recognised code or tradition of what is to be expected from the members of society—the establishment of a norm of human aims and behaviour and the conventions associated with it.

1169
I should like to refer to three or four instances of this convergence—small books or articles, all of them, but valuable and significant in this constructive trend. There is, first, The Permissive Morality, by C. H. and W. M. Whiteley, two Birmingham philosophers who discuss the complex of ideas in which such a wdespread permissiveness has evolved; there is a short book by J. H. Jacques from the Christian standpoint on The Right and The Wrong; there are the recent broadcast talks by Professor Ronald Hepburn on Religious Humanism; and there is a significant emphasis, for instance, in a leading article in the Economist at the time of Sir Winston Churchill's death interpreting his leadership in terms of moral purpose. What is common to these is a deep concern in the realm of ideas as to what constructively is proper to man as man.
But ideas must have social expression. I believe that our young people will learn responsibility only from a society which itself is responsible: and although one does not need to live long in any community without finding a wealth of personal acts of kindness and a sensitiveness to human need, there are nevertheless obvious indications of a lack of social responsibility in our present society. Take, for instance, the increasing number of people who refuse to come forward as witnesses of an accident, or who take no action when they discover something radically wrong or corrupt in their own community, simply because they do not want to get involved.
The adult community has to bear a considerable measure of blame for failure to engage the human sympathies of the young and to release to good purpose their energy and ability. There is unquestioned truth in the sharp assertion of Mr. Alec Dickson that the town hall would know more readily what to do with 200 teenagers rioting on the esplanade than with 20 teenagers standing at the town hall steps asking for a voluntary job to help people. This matter was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wade.
In the book to which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred, The Unattached, by Mary Morse, it is shown how puny is the influence of our best-intentioned social provisions—youth employment
1170
officers, youth leaders, social workers and the like—compared with that of the commercial pressures with which these boys and girls are surrounded. Why must it be that so much commercial enterprise so often results in encouragement to irresponsibility? It need not be so—and, indeed, it is not always so. This Report speaks of the value to these unattached boys and girls of well-run commercial coffee bars, fish and chip shops and the like. Many of our great industrial undertakings have a long and honourable tradition of social concern, and this ought to be extended, given a new direction to-day, bringing it into the forefront of those sectors of commercial enterprise which make contact with young people.
I am not suggesting paternalism or a patronising extension of commercial concern: what I do submit is that a sense of responsibility is caught, and if those sectors of young people over which so much concern is expressed are to catch this sense of responsibility, they must encounter it and must recognise it where their interests are, where they resort, where they feel at ease and, perhaps most important of all, where they work.
The contact that they make with older people in their work can perhaps be of the greatest influence of all, aside from their own homes. To do a job to the best of one's ability gives a sense of achievement, and to hold one's place alongside older men and women in a factory or a shop which was not designed just for young people, as is the case of a youth club, is one of the most natural ways of growing up, of acquiring a sense of responsibility and of coming to maturity. Those who help young people to understand what working well means are doing a very great deal for them. How often, too, responsibility is learned simply by being given it. It is often the case that the best way to cope with the rebel or the troublemaker is to put him in charge; and this is a means of enlisting responsible behaviour which might be more frequently employed.
My Lords, I warmly support the terms in which this Motion has been presented. It is a relevant Motion at a time when the concept of responsibility has been undermined and when changes in the last half century—social, economic and conceptual—have taken place, some of them

1171
beneficial but removing many of the sanctions by which responsibility has been supported. We still have to replace these and provide the opportunities by something consonant with our present social and economic organisation, in such a way that the younger generation may come to see that life holds together, that it has meaning, and that the precepts of religion, the theories and avowed purpose of education and a true experience of the world and humanity not only make sense but invite an honest response. As and when this opportunity is afforded one may have sufficient faith in redeemed human nature to believe that there will be a response.
4.47 p.m.
WISE: My Lords, we have just had two extraordinarily good speeches, and, in rising to make a short speech myself. I feel quite incapable of equalling them in any way. But, first of all, I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Baden-Powell, on his maiden speech. The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich said with true Norfolk sincerity how much he welcomed that particular speech. The noble Lord bears a name which will be honoured both in military history and in history generally throughout the ages. We remember his father, who sat in this House; and some of us are old enough to remember his grandfather and what happened in the Boer War. For the reason of the past record of his family, we are glad to see the noble Lord here, and we can assure him that this is a very friendly place and that he will find a friendly welcome here.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred to the long list of speakers, and it is obvious from this particular list that the problems of the youth of this generation and the ways and means of solving them are much in our own minds. Whether these problems are greater or less than those which faced us in years gone by can no doubt be argued both ways from our own youthful experiences. The circumstances and conditions of present-day life, with our increasing population and changing world activities, seem to create perplexities which were unheard of and unfelt in the decades of the past. Our aim now should be to impress upon our boys and girls that they should be
1172
growing up to be useful citizens of no mean country; and we should also try to foster within them a spirit of pride in that they have been born into a community which seeks to be respected by all men of good will throughout the entire world. Whether or not we can bring this impression to life and reality remains to be seen.
As our youth grow in years—and in turn, I hope, seek to do good and eschew evil—there seems to be a distinct category of youth of both sexes to-day a few of who are irresponsible and tiresome; but the majority have much that is pleasing and wholesome in their make-up. The future will bring a heavy responsibility to all the youth of to-day—and I stress the word "all". There cannot be any exceptions; they cannot dodge the issue of national survival. I want to speak of those who I think are starting on the right lines. They can well become the foundations on which the welfare of this nation will rest. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, referred to the wood and the trees. Well, the young people to whom I am referring are, in my view, the oaks in the wood.
My Lords, I have spoken before with knowledge of those at school who by their participation in athletics and organised games are keeping themselves physically fit and thus healthy in mind and body. I do not think it unbecoming in this connection for me to plead once again that these boys and girls should receive every possible encouragement from those in authority. I am afraid that in the past well-directed encouragement has been absent; perhaps the advent of the Sports Council will remedy this. So far, for the most part, reliance has had to be placed on the voluntary effort of devoted teachers, of both sexes, mainly during out-of-school hours. I pay my tribute to them; they have been sowing the seeds for a ripening harvest of very great national importance to us.
In July, the All-England Schools Athletic Championships will be held at Watford. That event, covering two days, will be sponsored in large measure by a private firm of good will and national repute. This sponsorship by different firms has happened, I believe, year by year, and the championships could not otherwise be held with such significant success and importance. I hope the

1173
Government will take note of this point. Gathered together at Watford will be approximately 1,700 boy and girl athletes from every county in England, and they will be competing for individual and county team honours. The girls will be as keen and efficient as the boys and both will have put in months of training beforehand. This annual event is so important in our national life that the Duke of Edinburgh has attended it on two occasions, the first at Plymouth and the second, last year, at Hendon. The noble Duke who is sitting on the Front Bench opposite also has knowledge of these particular championship sports. The athletes who will be chosen to represent their counties are the salt of the earth so far as the youth of this country are concerned; and from them will spring future Olympic champions and national leaders. The All-England Schools' Sports Association shoulders the responsibility not only of running athletic events but other such amateur sports as football, hockey, cricket, rugby and gymnastics at the international level.
I have said that Government recognition has been parsimonious or lacking, but the appointment of the Sports Council is welcome and may stimulate knowledge and help. I hope so, at least. I am sorry that one omission seems to have been made in the composition of that Council. There does not appear to be any member having a direct connection with the carrying-on of sports in the schools. If the Minister for Sport feels as I do, that this omission should be rectified, then if it is not too late to do this, I should be pleased to recommend to him a member whose knowledge and experience would be of inestimable benefit to the Council. The Minister has said that the Government expect that all bodies who have responsibilities for sport and physical recreation and receive grant-aid from official sources will collaborate with the Council. Collaboration is a two-way business and the needs of those associations catering solely for youth should not be overlooked. I welcome the appointment to the Council of one of the members of this House, Lady Burton of Coventry, and also of Mr. Walter Winterbottom. Both are excellent and acceptable appointments.
1174
In a fortnight's time the Schools Crosscountry Championships will be held at Colchester, and in the three races, according to age, there will be no fewer than 800 competitors. Cross-country running is no easy matter; and it says much for those competitors who fit themselves to compete and who are determined, as their county representatives, to stay the course. My own county of Norfolk has held a series of crosscountry trials and as many as 600 boys have turned out in one afternoon, in freezing cold and with East and North winds blowing. I commend the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich for himself turning out on one occasion and starting one of the races, because it was a very cold and bleak afternoon.
I have spoken of one particular aspect of the beneficial and worthwhile activities of youth to enable them to realise their responsibilities as an integrated part of the community. I now want to turn to other matters of progress. In the Eastern region covered by the Central Council for Physical Recreation, the Council, with town councils, education departments and adult sports clubs, have joined together to set up local sports councils in more than fifty towns. Nearly every town in East Anglia now offers a public sports coach and centres for tennis, swimming, athletics, judo, badminton, golf and many other such activities. The adult clubs are co-operating by having junior sections, and young people are flooding into the clubs from the introductory or coaching centres. This is good. I expect it is duplicated in other regions of the country. Attention is being given to the needs of rural areas and the Forestry Commission has helped to guide thousands of young people in their expeditions through the forested areas of Breckland. Sailing clubs and boating firms on the Broads have assisted the Central Council to introduce many more people to sailing and canoeing. Over four hundred of the secondary schools and colleges have a regular information service from the Central Council to help school-leavers to link up with the world of sport.
Special courses are provided at various centres and events arising from the attendance at these courses must enhance the social awareness of young people

1175
seeking a basis in an East Anglian society which thinks well of them. There is a great need for a regional residential training centre for youth and adults to improve the regional panels and instructors, coaches and officials. I have spoken of what I know. I may have stressed the needs and virtues of one section—and I like to think the better section—of our youth, but I want the Government to realise their presence in our midst and to make it possible not only to sustain but to augment the value of youth on whom the future of our country depends.
Finally, if the young men and women seeking to serve us and to be proficient in the arts, and suchlike, are to be encouraged financially, and centres are to be constructed to provide for them, should not our young boy and girl athletes be similarly encouraged? In their spheres, they are just as important to our way of life. This is a simple truth and—I repeat the words of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge—I do not want us to fail in our generation.
LONGFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes his extremely interesting speech, may I ask him whether this point is in his mind? He referred to what he regarded as the absence from the Sports Council of any members specifically connected with education, but Mr. John Disley, the international athlete, is a member of the education sub-committee and Mr. Stuart Macintosh, the director of education in Glasgow, is another.
WISE: I know that they are members of the Council, but I was thinking of active members of the schools sports associations. I do not think that these gentleman have a full connection with what I have in mind.
5.3 p.m.
AMORY: My Lords, I should like to start by expressing my share of the gratitude we all feel to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, for raising this matter. And who is better qualified than the noble Lord, with his outstanding record of service to his country and the continuing interest he has shown in the service of young people? I would express straight away my agree-
1176
ment with the constructive sense of urgency that he showed and say how much I liked the quotation with which he ended his excellent speech.
I should like to apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, if I am not in my seat when he comes to wind up. I find myself in an appalling dilemma—a choice between showing discourtesy to the noble Earl himself or of showing discourtesy to his very distinguished wife. I came to the conclusion that the second alternative would be unthinkable.
LONGFORD: My Lords, may I assure the noble Viscount that he has paid me a great compliment in even wondering how to solve that dilemma? Most people find it remarkably simple.
AMORY: I would next, if I may, say how much I enjoyed, like other noble Lords, the immensely impressive speech of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich. I am afraid that after that speech anything I say will sound humdrum and superficial. I must advise your Lordships anyway to take anything I say on this subject with a pinch of salt, because, although at one time I was fairly active in several youth movements, for some years now I have been, as it were, put out to grass. I have entered that period of life, which some of your Lordships may know, which can be called "the presidential era", when one is translated from active work either to posts of great honour, in which it is believed that one will be incapable of impeding progress, or to serving on certain committees that are safely embedded very far away from the front line.
I believe that adults owe young people three things, and only three things: opportunity, encouragement and example. The rest is up to them. I believe that personal example is still the most potent of all human influences. If we are critical sometimes of the conduct of some young people, I think we should pause to consider whether we are not in fact criticising ourselves as adults, to whom they have the right to look for example. In matters of fashions and attitudes they may not wish to shape their conduct on that of their immediate predecessors. We may be "squares", as one noble Lord has said—"noble squares," I would go on to say—and personally I am well content

1177
to be one. But I think sometimes that the guidance we give must seem to young people to be confused and uncertain. I suppose that nature has deliberately made young people rebellious to ensure that they shall leave the family nest. I think it was Mark Twain who once said:
"When I was 15, I was surprised to find how many things my dad did not know. By the time I was 20, I was amazed to find how much the old boy had learned in five years, "
I believe that, at the end of the day and all things considered, young people do respect sincerity and honesty of purpose when they can recognise them.
One thing we must remember is that young people to-day are physically about eighteen months more mature than they were forty years ago, and far more sophisticated. Do we always take that fully into account in the activities we provide and the degree of responsibility we place on them? Perhaps as a result of that, I believe that a sense of purpose is more a prerequisite than it ever has been before. Teenagers (it is not a word I am particularly fond of) want to feel that they can see the point of something they are asked to undertake, that it makes sense and that they feel it is worth while. If they do, then that spark of unselfish idealism and generosity, which is latent in almost all young people, can be ignited; and when it is, it can rapidly become a flame. The background against which we have to compete—and it is a paradox, in a way, that it should be so, at a time when there are more alternative occupations and recreations and more money available to enable advantage to be taken of them—is one of restlessness and boredom.
I share the pleasure I am sure all your Lordships felt in listening to the excellent maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Baden-Powell. His father was a respected Member of this House, and one we all regarded with deep affection. His grandfather, whom I had the privilege of knowing when I was a very young man—"B.-P."—founded that great movement which now comprises over 9,000,000 boys, scattered over almost every free country in the world, and, through the co-operation of that wonderful wife "B.-P.'s", Lady Baden-Powell, many millions of Guides, too. "B.-P.", by bringing that unique combination of gifts to his task, succeeded
1178
because he used the natural interests and enthusiasms of boys and harnessed them to the task of character building and training in unselfish service for others. "B.-P." was more interested in people than in theories and ideas. So I believe most boys are, too. They will respond best to personal leadership and personal guidance. I found myself entirely in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, told us from his personal experience in this respect. If, therefore, we want to interest young people in voluntary service for others, and social responsibilities, the more we can personalise and individualise these things, the better. We shall have more success if we ask young people's help in terms of helping individual people rather than speak in theoretical terms of society at large.
I own that when National Service was in existence after the war I had mixed feelings about it. When National Servicemen were at home in barracks it seemed that they were mainly interested in the week-end leave which would come at the end of the week. But when they were overseas, or on board ship, actively engaged in training, the effects were good. Though no doubt there was some wasted time, and though the Service Chiefs found the system uneconomic, in retrospect I believe that something was gained from the national and the individual standpoint which we are missing now. I have heard university teachers say that those generations, with just that short experience of two years' service, acquired a background as a result of which they were more mature students and that this made up for any interruption in their academic studies. I believe that some young men to-day feel a sort of nostalgic regret, as it were, that they are missing an experience which their older brothers had.
But quite apart from any form of compulsory service, the opportunities for the encouragement of many forms of voluntary service are perfectly feasible and exist to-day. Here is a field in which I believe that greater efforts could be made, with great advantage, to increase the opportunities and stimulate interest with more positive encouragement. Quite a lot is happening to-day in many fairly small-scale operations. I suppose there is no one answer to the problem of juvenile delinquency. Though I have

1179
little knowledge in this field, I am learning something, day by day, as a member of a Royal Commission. I feel sure that the answer does not lie in the direction of withholding responsibility from young people, but rather in the opposite direction of increasing the responsibilities laid upon them. One good antidote is the provision of opportunities for robust, adventurous, challenging and, above all, purposeful activities which will stand up to, and exercise a stronger pull than, the temptations of delinquency.
A great deal of work is being done, with great energy, by most of the established youth movements in that field, and I will not refer to that further. As has already been said, it is sad that sometimes more publicity is given to the actions of the delinquent minority than to the perhaps less spectacular achievements of many youngsters who are giving unselfishly of their best. If your Lordships will put up with me for a few minutes longer, I should like to refer to one or two of the operations which are taking place to-day.
One, which I will mention because it is better known to me than some others, is the movement of which the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich was one of the co-founders, Voluntary Service Overseas. Other organisations are working in this field and doing excellent work, too. I can speak only for the V.S.O. A sort of progress report is that there are now over 700 volunteers in the field, and this year the target is to send out well over 1,000. Her Majesty's Government are giving generous financial support, as are many companies, trusts and individual contributors. There are now over 40 local committees of V.S.O. spread throughout the country. The achievements of these young men and girls are such that we have every reason to feel proud of what they are doing. V.S.O. is unique in so far as it is the only movement that gives young people one thing only, and that is the opportunity to give one year of their lives in service. I believe that the success of this movement to-day may have something to do with this. These young people see the point of what they are asked to do, and after examination they come to the conclusion that it is a worthwhile job. I believe that thereby these movements provide what they feel the need
1180
of most, which is a sense of a worthwhile purpose to serve.
Other movements applying the same principle are finding opportunities for service at home. There is Community Service Volunteers, started by Mr. Alec Dickson, who, as the right reverend Prelate will remember well, as the originator, with the right reverend Prelate himself, in founding V.S.O. Then there is the movement to which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, referred, The 1964 Task Force, to which I will not refer further, except to say that it seems to me to be a most excellent project. The youth side of the Y.M.C.A. is also at work in many fields, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Aberdare. Another good project (I mention it because it is, in a sense, local to us here) is that of the Youth Council of London University, which is stimulating interest among undergraduates in voluntary service in boys' clubs in London, and thereby rendering a valuable service to the clubs. There are also vigorous schemes for training volunteers in life-saving service—patrolling beaches and so on—and in particular that referred to by the right reverend Prelate, run by the Atlantic College.
My Lords, these efforts, where leadership is showing vision and understanding are present, are breaking new ground with, I believe, most encouraging results. It is true that in some cases progress is limited by the difficulties of getting to grips with practical projects. And I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that some local authorities, and other public authorities, could do more positively to open up projects for voluntary service than they are doing at present. I believe that many of them underrate the capacity of young volunteers to tackle a job and see it through. Some—possibly due to a certain temerity, timidity and doubt—even put obstacles in their way. A warmer and more positive welcome would open up far more projects in hospitals, institutions and private homes than are coming to light at present. If these youngsters could be made to feel that their personal help is really needed, then I believe we should be surprised by the national response there might be.
Napoleon, I think, said that there were no bad troops, only bad officers. I quote

1181
from Napoleon quite often, and I apologise for not quoting in French. If I had had a little more time, I could have turned that into French. If one substitutes "youngsters" for "troops" and "adults" for "officers", I wonder how wildly far from the truth that would be? But if that is so, do not tell the youngsters so—it would not do them any good at all. What I mean is that I believe the responsibility lies squarely on our shoulders. If the right lead and the right example is shown, a response will come.
I do not believe that any sincere effort is ever without some effect. We in this generation may be falling down on our responsibilities because our own perplexities, doubts, and hesitancies may be preventing us from giving firm and positive guidance of the sort that adolescents have a right to expect. The Headmaster of Eton the other day gave a most excellent address on that subject to the Royal Commonwealth Society. I think, therefore, that we need to raise our sights, demand more from young people, and show our trust and goodwill in them and our confidence in their abilities—a point made excellently, I think, by my noble friend, Lord Baden-Powell.
If we can find the opportunities for useful jobs of service that they themselves feel are worthwhile, and then, when they perform them, show that we think a little more of them for doing so, I believe we shall see a great extension of this work. A sense of responsibility, born as a result of personal efforts during those vitally important, impressionable years between 15 and 22 or 23, can become a priceless asset. It can form character and shape habits that last a lifetime. And it is in those years somewhere that that spirit of voluntary service must be acquired.
I agree very much with what several noble Lords have said: that the best way to teach responsibility is to give responsibility. It is fashionable to-day to decry the virtues of the rising generation. I am going to quote to your Lordships a few words written by Peter the Monk in the year 1274, and I apologise if I have quoted this to any of your Lordships before. I do not know whether Peter the Monk spoke this in your Lordships' House. I was not able to find it in
1182
Hansard, but this is what he is recorded as saying in 1274:
"The world is passing through troublous times. The young people of to-day think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they alone knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As far as the girls—they are foolish and immodest and unwomanly in speech, behaviour and dress."
I want to make it clear that that was what Peter the Monk said, and not what I have said. So we have been all through it before.
The raw material of to-day is more promising than I believe it has ever been before. The trouble is that it too often remains raw material for lack of inspiration. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, directed our thoughts to a problem of vital importance to the future of our country. If our nation will treat it as that, and if we apply our energies to its solution, showing faith in the capacities of our young people and expecting much from them, then I believe a new spirit of voluntary service may be engendered which will greatly strengthen and fortify the spirit of the nation.
5.25 p.m.
SOUTHWARK: My Lords, like the noble Viscount who has just addressed us, I too must ask the noble Earl, Lord Longford, if he will accept my apologies if I am not here at the end of this debate. My reasons for absence are not as attractive or as charming as those of the noble Viscount, but simply that I have to give an address elsewhere. There is an old saying I have heard—it is, I fear, a platitude—that whereas "dog bites man" is not news, "man bites dog" is. It is the unusual happening that makes news, and since only a minority of young people, whether by breaking the law or by disputing generally accepted moral standards, hit the headlines of our nation's newspapers it is reasonable to assume that they still represent, though perhaps by a narrower margin than ten years ago, the unusual.
There is much in the younger generation for which, as the noble Viscount has said, we should indeed be profoundly thankful. If at some point there is cause for grave concern, we should see it in perspective, putting alongside it the many

1183
potentialities and achievements of young people to-day. In particular, I would call your Lordships' attention to the steady growth of what might be called service by youth. Reference has already been made to that by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, when he gave us an example in the area of Woolwich. I find, too, as I go round South London that more and more youth clubs are developing service units. These are designed chiefly to be of use to the aged and infirm. The young people visit the elderly in their homes, redecorate rooms, dig gardens, plant vegetables, do the shopping and, in certain seasons of the year, organise parties. I see work of this kind going on week after week in South London. Apart from such work, fostered as it is by national voluntary youth organisations as well as by the churches, there is of course the remarkable success story of Voluntary Service Overseas. I have no doubt that a growing number of young people want to be of use to those less able to help themselves. Perhaps the real problem here is to wed this care and compassion to projects which make sense to the mind, and which are seen to be worth while.
Quite another cause for satisfaction lies in the growing interest of young people in the Arts. It is not only the Beatles and the Rolling Stones who evoke a response. A high proportion of the audience at the National Theatre of the Royal Shakespeare Company's home at the Aldwych is young people in their teens and twenties. The same is true of concerts and ballet. In the sphere of literature, the "paper-back" industry is flourishing; so, it would appear, are the public libraries, even in the most unlikely districts. I do not always find myself in agreement with the new thought that is permeating this world, but I am thankful that at least people are posing real and relevant questions, that they are probing towards a design for creative living, that they are, at their best, actuated by a real concern for truth and for social justice. In so far as young people are caught up in this world of new ideas, here is evidence that they are taking advantage of the greater opportunities for becoming aware of their social responsibilities.
Having said all this, and having left unsaid much more that gives cause for thankfulness, it remains unhappily true
1184
that in home and school, in youth club and church, we are making little, if any, progress with a considerable minority of our young people. Five years ago the Albemarle Committee presented us with their admirable Report. The recommendations which they made were for the most part implemented by the Government of the day. The Training College at Leicester was set up. More money for development work has been made available. Every encouragement has been given, to both statutory and voluntary bodies, to initiate experimental work in new fields. And yet, despite all this, it seems clear that at least in the 16 to 20 age group, who obviously gave most concern to the Albemarle Committee, little progress has been made.
Some of your Lordships will recall that shortly after this Committee was set up in November, 1958, the House debated the Youth Services, on February 4, 1959. During that debate the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Norwich, in drawing attention to certain aspects of delinquency, spoke of the impression of part boredom, part unhappiness and part defiance that some young people give. Any one of us driving or walking home late at night and seeing a group of young people under the neon lights of a coffee bar or shop window knows exactly what the right reverend Prelate had in mind. What we used to call "the un-clubbables" are now known as "the unattached", and there is an aura about them in the group which appears to make any kind of communication all but impossible. Certainly it is an aura which makes many adults who might seem to be potential youth leaders shy off in fear, rightly or wrongly believing themselves to be confronted with a situation beyond their capacities for effective engagement.
Some, of course, have broken through, established real communication, discovered that the group aura is often no more than skin deep, and have made beginnings in integrating such young people into the community. Local authorities and voluntary organisations are naturally reluctant to give publicity to any success which they may have had for fear of jeopardising work only just initiated and dependent upon a self-effacing leadership for ultimate achievement. Nevertheless, the work done by Father Shergold with his motor cyclists,

1185
first in Hackney Wick and now in another part of London, seems to indicate that where a leader demonstrates real care for "the unattached", where this care is seen to be utterly disinterested and without strings attached, and where it is matched by a natural and spontaneous identification of interest rather than something contrived and artificial, then real communication is possible. Young people previously written off as socially irresponsible suddenly find themselves organisation agents for Inter-Church Aid. That has actually happened.
My Lords, the Motion before us is
"To call attention to the importance of giving to the youth of the nation greater opportunities for becoming aware of their social responsibilities".
This is, of course, a matter which engages, or should engage, every section of the community—parents, teachers, employers, clergy, youth leaders. I have however, confined myself to the contribution of the Youth Service, the contribution it is already making. I should like to conclude by suggesting three contributions which it might consider for the future. First, I should like to see the whole concept of the service of youth broadened and deepened. Youth clubs, whether on the pre-Albemarle or post-Albemarle model, whether concerned with a multiplicity of "activites" or concerned just to be a meeting place around the coffee bar, have still a great job to do. They will not, however, meet the special needs and interests of all young people. There will always be substantial minorities who prefer to use their leisure in, to instance only two examples, the spheres of sport and the arts. For this reason I welcome the setting up of the Sports Development Council and trust that it will be given sufficient money to make available both more playing fields and more sports centres of the quality of that recently opened at Crystal Palace.
When one considers the amount of money rightly being spent on youth clubs one wonders whether those young people whose interests lie primarily in outdoor activities are having their share of the "cake". Similarly, I hope that the kind of work being done by Mr. Michael Croft with his Youth Theatre and by others concerned with promoting an interest in drama and music among
1186
young people, will be recognised as "youth work" quite as much as clubs are already recognised, and so regarded as equally eligible for grant aid.
Second, I should like to see far more money made available for experimental work among "the unattached". Whether this is done in the context of a cafe or by an itinerant leader working a beat in a restricted neighbourhood, or around a sectional interest such as the motor cycle club to which I referred earlier, or in some other way, it is important that once a grant-aiding body have discovered a leader in whom they can have confidence, they should next demonstrate that confidence by giving him a free hand and, within reason, a free purse.
Finally, it is clear that we need many more leaders both full-time and voluntary. Again and again in South London I hear of parishes where opportunities are being lost because of the difficulty of finding the right leaders to take advantage of them. The emphasis is even more on quality than on quantity. Youth leadership is not an easy job. It calls for immense self-sacrifice. It cannot be done on the basis of so many sessions per fortnight. It demands a willingness to attend to the individual's needs at any hour of the day or night—just as does the work of a doctor or of a priest. It demands living on the job and not in a comfortable suburb ten miles away. It demands infinite patience, infinite understanding and infinite perseverance. And, most difficult of all, it demands in the leader's own life, and ultimately in the lives of those for whom he is responsible, the rehabilitation of certain concepts consistently devalued in the past 25 years—words like "duty" and "discipline" which alone can bring out the real meaning of words with which we are more familiar, "rights" and "freedom". If we could approach men and women in their 20s and 30s with the challenge of this kind of youth leadership, might we not go some way towards meeting the needs of the hour? Can such an hour be met, save, in the words of Cromwell,
"by men who know what they fight for and love what they know"?
5.35 p.m.
WILLIS: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, not only for putting

1187
down this Motion, but for so carefully wording it, because I think he has most successfully directed the attention of your Lordships' House, as has been seen by the various speeches, into the problem of social responsibility. Consequently there have been many excellent contributions on this question of giving youth the opportunity to exercise some social responsibility.
The noble Lord who opened the debate referred to looking at the problem as a whole. It sometimes seems to me, when I hear people speaking, or read some articles which have been written about the so-called youth problem, that we have in fact created a kind of mental reservation for youth into which we have herded them. They are a separate and distinct race which we study: we send down anthropologists and other investigators to discover what they want, what they are like, why they are irresponsible, why they are together, and so forth. It seems to me that although a certain amount of this kind of research and approach is necessary, it is also worrying because it seems just a little too clinical, and it is directing our attention into channels which are perhaps not the most important. It is clear that we cannot do everything in this field, but I think it is also clear that there are a certain number of precise and clear areas in which we can operate and in which we can provide the opportunities that are demanded in this particular Motion. I think it is on this that we should concentrate.
The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Southwark referred just now to The Unattached; and it was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I agree that it is an interesting book, which shows excellent work by several youth workers and leaders in what was altogether a most useful experiment. Nevertheless, I hope that we are not, as a result, going to build up the idea that to be unattached is a sin; that to be on one's own, to be not one to be clubbed or to join an organisation, is wrong. This seems to me to be the kind of tendency to which we may be leading, and I think that this would be wrong. In this field, as in the arts, it is necessary to provide the opportunities; to provide, above all, the inspiring challenge, and let young people respond to that in their own way. It is in this area that I particularly want
1188
to concentrate the very few remarks that I intend to make.
At the risk of repeating some things which have been said I want to come back to the question of voluntary service and social responsibilities. In my view it is in this particular area that the greatest breakthrough could be made. We talk too much in terms of what we can do to help young people solve their problems. I think that the right way to put it is to suggest what young people can do to help us solve our problems—theirs and ours. It would be quite interesting if we were to have a debate in which nobody was present over the age of 21, except a few of us sitting in the gallery, and the young people were debating how to make opportunities for adults to face up to their social responsibilities; and I think we might see the problems in a slightly different perspective. The right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Southwark, spoke about the amount of propaganda and publicity given to a young juvenile delinquent who steps out of line. We all agree we have had too much of this.
I should like to sketch in very briefly some of the things that have been done on the other side of the picture and which shows a remarkable degree of imagination, ingenuity and courage. In the last five years more than 200 schools have started schemes to involve young people in some form of community service. The sixth form boys in one school bought tandems so that they could take blind boys out cycling. The girls in a Lancashire school wired old hair dryers to alarm clocks so that deaf people could be woken up by a blast of warm air in their faces. Boys in a school in Derby left home early in the morning and before they reached school went to the geriatric ward of a local hospital, not the most cheerful place in the world, and helped the old men to shave. Girls in the same school before going home went to the same sort of wards and gave old ladies shampoos and "hair-dos". One group of lads and girls went to meet the boat trains arriving at Waterloo with West Indian immigrants, and helped them to take their luggage across London and to find their various destinations and stations.
The police in many areas have also seen the value of this kind of service.

1189
Nearly 20 forces have released their cadets to do volunteer work in Cheshire Homes, schools for the maladjusted, farm training schemes, housing settlements for immigrants, even in remand homes and approved schools. And employers and trade unions have cooperated in many areas to release apprentices and young workers to help in occupational therapy units and in adult centres for subnormals.
The leadership of Mr. Alec Dickson, with his community service volunteers, has already been mentioned in this debate. He has shown remarkable initiative in the work he has undertaken in placing youngsters from 17 to 19 in a whole range of exciting projects. He has volunteers working with retarded adolescents, in the wards of mental hospitals and among immigrant Asian children, visiting homes of elderly people for redecoration and company, and so forth. Some have gone to work in borstals where they literally live the same life as the other lads, wearing the same clothes, eating the same food, submitting to the same discipline. Nobody can tell me that that does not require a degree of courage and self-confidence which is wholly admirable. I could go on, for the roll of honour is a very long one, but I think I have made my point, if, indeed, it needs making at all.
We all know young people will rise to a challenge, but the tragedy, as has been indicated, is that we so consistently and stupidly fail to make this challenge; for the strange and alarming thing which was indicated by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich is this: that there are more volunteers among our young people than there are opportunities. In city after city, town after town, offers of help from young people are being turned down. Even Joan of are would be turned away from some of our town halls if she came along with an offer of help. Even in some areas where they have been accepted, the youngsters have had to fight with their bare hands for the privilege of giving their time and energy to the service of the community. Local authorities either actively resist any suggestion of help or are just indifferent.
Your Lordships all know that part of the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme comprises some form of community ser-
1190
vice, but many schools, groups and individuals who have entered for the award find that they cannot get the opportunity to do real community service. The opportunities are not provided for. Nobody wants them and nobody can be bothered. I believe—and I use the same word as my noble friend Lord Robertson of Oak-ridge—that this is a scandalous situation, and the one contribution and point I want to hammer home as my contribution in this debate is to beg the Government that it should be altered and to show some striking initiative in order to get it altered. I want to plead here for bold and imaginative leadership from the Government and local authorities. Let us wipe this odious word "do-gooder" out of our vocabulary. Let the Government and everyone else recognise that community service is not a matter of flower arrangements in hospitals on Sundays or delivery of parcels to old people at Christmas or doling out soup, but is essentially a part of everyday living, and something, above all, which provides young people with an outlet for their idealism and energy.
It is basically a question of national attitude, a question of our attitude and not a question of young people's attitudes. There are hundreds of thousands of young people who would respond, given the opportunities. There is a quivering army of energy here which we are not using, and I believe that is totally wrong. I could understand it if it were merely a question of money, but the fact is that though grants are important and money is important it is not so much money that these young people are asking for as opportunities. We are not on our hands and knees begging the money from the Government so much as begging them to give some kind of leadership in this field: in fact, to give young people the opportunity to save the nation some money.
If in Israel youngsters can turn deserts into flowering farms, why cannot our young people be given the opportunity to transform the Lea Valley and other areas into pleasure gardens and parks? If a few British youngsters can go to the underdeveloped countries and give valuable help in various projects—and this is wonderful—why cannot others be inspired here to turn to our own

1191
underdeveloped areas, our bombed sites, and work on them? The restoration of the Stratford-on-Avon Canal is one example of what has been done. The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Southwark referred just now to Michael Croft's wonderful scheme for a new National Youth Theatre. They are crying out for a building. They have support from thousands of young people up and down the country. Is there not some local authority in London with the initiative and inspiration to give Michael Croft and his Youth Theatre a site, and challenge them to build their own theatre? This is the sort of thing that can be done and the sort of example that needs to be set. If I am told that this is impossible, I suggest you go and look at the Questors Theatre in Ealing, built by the people themselves, of course with expert advice and leadership, but it has been built.
There are thousands of other projects where we are neglecting this supply of energy and idealism in the community. I was in Australia a couple of years ago, and in a small town of about 8,000 people I saw an Olympic-size swimming pool. Your Lordships know how many Olympic swimming pools we have in this country. But this 8,000 people community pointed with pride to "our Olympic pool", which they had built themselves in the evenings and at weekends, and it came up to full Olympic standards. There are hundreds of places in this country where we have not got swimming pools. Why can we not get sites from local authorities, funds from local authorities, expert advice from local authorities, and ask young people and others to join in the community and build the swimming pools? It seems to me that if we were thinking in this direction we could release a great deal of energy.
Is there not some newspaper that would spearhead such a drive? Why cannot we get television and radio to step down from this stupid attitude of insulation towards this sort of thing, and actively campaign for youth leaders to fill the gaps—for young people to work in this particular field? I hope sincerely that the Government will not tell us that the answer lies in co-ordination, in the creation of some kind of clearing house and so forth. You can only clear what already exists, and
1192
if you add zero to zero and co-ordinate them you still get zero.
I beg the Government not to pussyfoot around with this question any longer. We in the Labour Party have been in office for three or four months, and I believe that we have done some marvellous and wonderful things. But I am disturbed at the fact that there seems to be no particular urge in this direction. I believe that we need a new leadership and a new development. If we fail to give the challenge and the opportunity, then we have no right to criticise young people, to accuse them of a selfish attitude and to suggest that they want everything given to them on a plate. We are bound to get a social constipation if there is a continual giving in without any giving out. This must be stopped; it must be changed. Can we not put a new emphasis on youth service, as has been suggested by the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Southwark? Can we not give a lead on a national scale that will prompt others to follow suit? We have these new regional authorities. Can we not get them to consider what they can do about youth?
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, referred to the question of appointing a Minister for Youth. I think this would be a marvellous idea, if only because it would elevate this particular problem to the level at which it deserves to be considered, instead of its being a tiny corner in one particular department. If we cannot have a Minister for Youth, at least let us have somebody responsible who will give a new drive to this whole problem. Do not let us talk about "the Dunkirk spirit", because if we do not follow it up, that is just empty and meaningless chatter. The essence of the Dunkirk spirit was the inspiration and mobilisation of people, especially the young, in the service of their country. That is what is needed to-day. In short, we need a gigantic movement of self-help among the young people. I believe that this would bring about a tremendous change. The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, said that we were "noble squares". May I suggest that this question is so urgent and so important, and that we have chattered and argued about it for so long that something must be done. I suggest that we, as "noble squares", ought perhaps to surround Downing Street and demand that at last

1193
something be done to end the chatter and begin work.
5.54 p.m.
ASSEREENE FERRARD: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, for introducing this debate, though I cannot agree with the noble Lord than teenagers should have a vote. Whilst you may be old enough to hold a rifle straight, I do not think that that necessarily means that you are old enough to have the wisdom to choose your administrators. But that is aside from this debate.
I was extremely interested to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Willis. I agree with him, although he surprised me when he said that local authorities are inundated with young people wanting to do charitable work. I am extremely pleased to hear this, although, as I say, it surprised me. I personally do not know of any cases where young people wanting to do charitable work have been refused. I have been for a long time associated with boys' clubs, through the National Association of Boys' Clubs, with the Kent Association of Boys' Clubs, of which I am treasurer; and I have been on the Executive for quite a long time.
I am afraid that in this debate we may give our young people rather an inferiority complex. What are the real figures that we now have? To hear some speakers, one would think that the whole country was filled with young delinquents. If this is broken down into percentages, I am sure that the percentage of so-called "impossible" young people is not more than 2 per cent., or perhaps 2½ per cent., and of that percentage probably one could reform half. When we see a young man with his hair down on his shoulders and dressed in odd clothes we are inclined to think that he cannot be any good. Of course that is complete nonsense. He is probably a quite excellent person. This is only a form of drawing attention to himself. I personally think that long hair, together with modern clothes, is quite absurd. It was probably all right in Jacobean days. But many young men want to draw a bit of attention to themselves, or to "cut a dash". In some ways, it is rather a healthy sign, and we cannot blame them for that.
1194
My noble friend Lord Aberdare said that the real start in this matter ought to be made in the home. Of course that is so. The extraordinary part about our modern society is that, while everybody has far more material benefits in the home, we appear to have lost some of the moral and spiritual cohesion of the family. I will not enlarge on that, as it is the sphere of the right reverend Prelates opposite. But it is a fact, and a sad fact. Taking the instance of a country like Sweden, I understand that it has the highest standard of living in the world, but it also has the highest suicide rate.
I think that a great deal of the real trouble of our young people is that material things are too easy to come by, that they get things too easily, compared with past generations; and after they have everything and have done everything, they become bored and want some new excitement. It is preposterous that mothers with young children should prefer a new car to looking after the welfare of their children. I think this is ghastly. I think it is impossible to do anything, except by example, but I wish that by some means a mother could be made to remain in the home to look after her children. I know of several instances where children have come home to cold food.
I am sure a great deal of the trouble occurs in the early stages. When one considers the question of schooling, we spend in this country something like £1,000 million a year on education. The schools of this country have a vast responsibility, and I have often thought that the emphasis in recent years has been rather more on one's rights than on one's duties. In regard to State education, some people are always a little suspicious that the State may be conditioning the pupil to become the "dogsbody" of the State, but it is very difficult in State education, I would imagine—I must admit I know very little about it, and I suppose I really should not be speaking about it—to give a child an entirely unbiased education. But I have always hoped that in State education, and probably in other forms of education, too, if the emphasis could be put on the teaching of history it would help young people to understand their social responsibilities. Further, if only the basic elements of economics also could be explained during schooling,

1195
that too would be a great help. I wonder if every State school in fact does this.
The really testing time comes when children leave school. At that stage they have far more temptations put before them than ever my generation had. For commercial reasons they are easy prey: they earn big wages, and television, radio and Press have quite a lot to answer for. When one considers all the extremely lurid advertising one sees, it is most difficult for young people not to go "off the rails".
What they really want is an ideal. When I was young I had the ideal of the British Empire, that great, incorruptible organisation which fought disease, which was impartial in its justice, and which stood up for the underdog. That, of course, has now all gone. What are we going to put in its place for young people to look up to? We have heard about helping old people. Well, that is an extremely fine ideal, but it is not really a romantic ideal to catch the imagination of the young. Could we put before them the ideal of the United Nations? The trouble is that United Nations can hardly be said to have organised their affairs in such a way as to become an ideal for young people. Furthermore, one cannot have as an ideal the Welfare State, because that is completely material. President Kennedy's Peace Corps was an extremely fine ideal, though one has to be careful that it will not be infiltrated by undesirable political propaganda.
One or two noble Lords have suggested that we really ought to organise and have a plan for youth. Well, I believe that the average young person would rather shy away from that, for one does not want to make them feel that they "must" do something. I am all for having it on a voluntary basis, with all these voluntary youth services operating. It is preferable to there being a great organised system. We do not want something like the labour battalions in Germany, for if the set-up is too organised youth will rebel against it.
There is a tremendous enthusiasm in youth, if only it can be harnessed and channelled in the right way. One has to be most careful not to hurt the feelings of youth. In regard to the Peace Corps and other societies which undertake
1196
international voluntary work, they do a wonderful job in sending youth to the Asiatic and African countries. But it can sometimes happen that their efforts are not appreciated by the local population. Therefore, one has to be careful where they go to do this work, because sometimes primitive people might take their charitable purpose in a completely wrong way. They might perhaps laugh when they see girls or boys with bricks on their shoulders on their way to build a mission hall. Some primitive people might not understand why they are doing it and think it is for some bad motive. We have to be careful not to discourage young people in any way.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, mentioned the example of Israel cultivating its deserts and turning them into citrus groves, and Israel has certainly done a wonderful job. But it is easier for the young in Israel for they have before them a great challenge. They are surrounded by not very friendly powers, and there is that challenge which they face. The noble Lord asked, "Why could not our young build swimming pools?" Well, I suppose they could, but it is hardly much of a challenge, to go and build swimming pools. They could easily answer, "Let the contractors build them." The country is not going to founder because we do not have any swimming pools; whereas Israel would be in a bad way if it did not learn to cultivate its deserts. I think that the great trouble in this country, where we have great material prosperity, is that it is terribly difficult to get this challenge. I am quite sure that, if this country were threatened, all our young people would be absolutely splendid. But it is a challenge that they need, and how you are going to get that challenge I do not know. That is an extremely difficult subject.
It has been said by an earlier speaker that the Youth Service ought to take in young people earlier, and I quite agree with that. I believe that a noble Lord mentioned the age of 11. It would be a very good thing if that were done, because the earlier you can catch young people the better. I should also like to express, again, my belief that this work should be done on a voluntary basis. Local authorities and the Government help a great deal with grants, but I do not think we really require this Service

1197
to be nationalised. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, spoke of "rationalisation", but I also thought he used the word "nationalised". We do not want anything like a nationalised Youth Service: this work must be done through these voluntary associations.
Finally, I only hope that young people will not get the idea from this debate that we adults look rather askance at them, because I do not think I have ever come across a really bad, evil young boy or girl in my experience with youth clubs. That may be because youth clubs get the best of them, but I do not really believe that is so, because we have a lot of industry down on the Estuary in Kent and I am sure that if there were any really bad ones I should have come across one or two of them. My Lords, I have spoken long enough, so I shall now sit down.
6.14 p.m.
SWANBOROUGH: My Lords, like everybody else I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, for having raised this whole question, but I should like to thank him even more for having had the courage to tackle the problem in the way he has done. In this country we do not often seem to lack physical courage, but moral courage is what we require in dealing with this sort of question.
I personally think that as we discuss the question of giving more opportunities to youth we ought at the same time to realise that we are giving them those opportunities in order that they may be able to fit themselves for what they really want to do, which in turn will strengthen them in their walk through life. I think we need to make it quite clear that in discussing giving them opportunities of recognising their responsibilities within the community, we do not make it appear as something which is going to benefit them, but something which, by its doing, will benefit the community itself. There is nothing worse than going into a job as a soporific, and I am quite convinced that all of us have to keep this very clearly in our minds.
Speaking rather against my own interests I should like to suggest that the opportunities given are not only in the field of voluntary service but also in every sort of craftsmanship: in hobbies,
1198
in the arts, and in athletics—and I say this because I am convinced that the practice of any of these things will do the one thing we are aiming to achieve; that is, to give the individual the opportunity to strengthen his or her own character, to the ultimate benefit of the individual and for the aggregate value to the nation itself. Because in my life I have found that the worker does best what he likes doing best, I think that those in charge and those who have the ability to offer opportunity should keep well in mind that this angle should be studied, and that the decision should not be made merely because of the wish to get the product.
My own experience is based on girls and boys who work with the services with which I am connected—and this ranges from the girls and boys who come from schools, from organisations, from institutions, including Borstal, from the police, in the shape of cadets, to a very virile youth-organised motor-cyclist corps which is now working throughout the whole of Great Britain and doing a wonderful piece of work. My view—and I base it on a good deal of experience—is that the young should be offered responsibility, and not in anything but a very generous way, but that the adult should stand behind the young (if I were a cricket fan I should say "at long-stop") and that the adult should have the courage never to interfere. If things did have to be put right they should be put right without ado; and, above all, praise should be given from a quarter from which praise would be valued.
If we look back to the time when we were the age of the boys and girls we are talking about, I think there would be few of us who would not remember that we were beset by a great many doubts and dilemmas, a great many predicaments when we were not quite sure why our aims had dislodged and why our values seemed to shift. I think this is something which it is very important for us to recall.
I was very much moved when listening to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Baden-Powell. As he was speaking, I thought of his grandfather whom I was lucky enough to know well, and I recalled conversations with him. I felt how infinitely proud that grand old man would have been that his grandson could

1199
make the contribution we all heard today. In trying to give adulation to the grandson, I think I am perhaps saying something which would mean a very great deal to him—at any rate, I hope so. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willis. I should like to see bathing pools up and down the country. I believe that it needs only a little energy and push from the centre to get the boys and girls to start on them—but I should like the boys and girls to do it themselves, rather than be organised by outside people. Help should, however, be available to canalise the effort in the right direction and to remove difficulties.
When the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, first spoke he used a phrase which is tremendously important in all of this work. He said that on occasion it seemed as if the person who could supply the job was almost jealous of, or perhaps even hostile to, the efforts which were not his own; and this is the most difficult thing that anybody dealing with this problem can meet. It is where I think the adult should clear the ground, so that the young do not get the frustration and the sadness which those of us who are older and more weatherbeaten have had in our day.
I believe we must tackle this problem on the basis of what the instigator of the debate indicated, the picture as a whole. So I should like to start by saying that I believe implicitly in the youth of to-day. I am not frightened about them. I think merely that the media of communication to-day make the bad things much worse, and belittle the good because they do not think it is going to be "hot news". But my experience with the young and the not so young, and with the middle-aged and the old, has convinced me that it is not enough, especially in the field which we are discussing, to interest the participants. It is essential to convince them—and this is perhaps the most difficult thing for anyone who is trying to organise or administer, or trying to make something come to pass. It needs infinite patience, it needs a good deal of wisdom, some dexterity and a good deal of the cunning of the asp.
I believe that if you are going to convince a person you have first to give him the opportunity; and, if that opportunity interests him, you have to spend
1200
individual time telling him why, where and what—but never how. And, as you get his interest, so you will, in time, get not only participation but dedication and ultimately leadership. To do this it is obvious that it is necessary to have, as the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, said, an example. Above all things, an unself-conscious example. Alongside that example must come both explanation and experiment, so that as these things melt together the whole is a real whole. I believe that, unless this philosophic aspect of the whole is invoked, success can be only temporary, and then it is of no value either to the participant or to the country on the basis on which we are thinking.
We have been discussing this matter from different angles, but whether the objective be interest, hobby or occupation or participation, surely it stands to reason that if the effort is to be continuous the motivation must be carried by the person himself. It is no good for an extraneous person to try to push, or pull, or drive. If things are to happen the person must do them because he wishes them to happen. Therefore, I believe it is a mistake—the mistake most often made—to lack realisation of the intelligence of the people with whom one is dealing. The boys and girls whom we are talking about—and I think it is a little presumptive of us to talk about them in the way we are doing—have as much intelligence as we have, if not a great deal more, and they often have a great deal more ability, imagination and enterprise. So I believe that unless we, the adults, take the trouble to recognise that a great many of the situations to-day are due to our fault, the young will neither listen to us, nor want to work with people who they think are not seeing the whole in its right aspect.
It is obvious that we have to look at our ultimate objective, and I believe that the ultimate objective we have in mind is the strengthening of the fibre from which character is made; and this should be kept, I feel strongly, in the very forefront of our mind. I have always felt that true leadership is too valuable a strength to be treated lightly, and I believe that the requirement in this particular application might be steermanship as a starting point: so that the burden of responsibility can be

1201
assumed, the carrier can be tested, and eventually, if in fact the burden is well carried, advance can be made towards leadership, which in fact is what we are asking for.
The boys and girls of to-day are already the inheritors of to-morrow. They will not be found wanting. It is ridiculous for us to think that they are going to behave in the way we do, any more than our parents should have thought we were going to behave in the way they wanted us to. I hope that, instead of appealing for co-ordination or anything or the kind, we can appeal to the adults of the country to participate more in this subject rather than to talk about it, and to get more done in the way of practical results that will convince the youth of the country not only that they are going to be given an opportunity but that their assumption of responsibility is recognised and will be relied upon by those who at present are the adults of the day.
6.26 p.m.
PHILLIPS: My Lords, at this late hour, and as the thirteenth speaker in this debate, I will do no more than underline some of the splendid speeches which have been made by other noble Lords. I believe that we have created a society in which the worst thing you can be is old and the best thing you can be is young, even if you are a stupid young person. I believe that this generation does not have the problems that the generation that I knew—that of the 'thirties and the 'twenties—had. We had to contend not only with poverty and unemployment, but, of course, later, with war.
This generation, however (and since nobody appears to have defined the group we are talking about, may I say that I am speaking of those between fourteen and nineteen), can expect to earn reasonably good wages; they can expect longer periods of leisure; they are healthier than their parents were at the same age, and they are better informed, if not better educated. They are exploited ruthlessly by the commercial elements in our society. Records are churned out by the million, for which artificial demands have been created. And in this our mass media must accept responsibility. Cosmetics, motor bicycles, cars (there are too many goods for me to
1202
enumerate them all at this late hour) are there on the market specifically for this age group.
As a woman, I know only too well how the ready-made clothing market is completely dominated by the desire to sell to this age group, so that the older woman is almost unable to get anything which does not make her look like mutton dressed as lamb. In fact, in conversation with a shoe distributor the other day, one of my colleagues had it put very forcibly when he said to her, "We are not interested in your age group; you buy shoes only once a year. It is the teenagers who spend the money."
Television presents to the whole of society the image of the adolescent as a leather-jacketed listener to unmusical noises known as "pop" music, and many adults, seeing only that kind of adolescent. really believe that this is exactly representative of that age group. Certain papers aim their appeal directly at young readers (although occasionally they compromise a little by saying, "To the young in heart", which means that some of us might also be included), with the result that their content appears to be composed of cartoons, pictures, strip cartoons and captions, so that one gets the impression that these young readers are unable to cope with words of more than two syllables.
The trouble is that many adults—and these are the people that I despise most—in an attempt to be up to the minute, condone standards of behaviour which they do not understand, or with which they do not really agree, and so do a great disservice to this group of the community. We have to offer these boys and girls something different. We have to use in a positive and creative way their desire for excitement and adventure. This really is the period in life when one is idealistic. At eighteen I wanted to change the world. Now I am much more mellow, and I will settle for changing only three-quarters of it.
Our splendid Welfare State can run successfully only if there is a marriage of the statutory services and the voluntary agencies. When we consider the large number of people of pensionable age, many of whom live alone and are not able to do simple things for themselves, we have some idea of what confronts the State services, local authorities and

1203
the voluntary agencies. When we consider that hospital beds are being closed for lack of staff, that there are thousands of neglected or orphaned children, that there are people in multitude physically and mentally handicapped and not in hospitals, who need to be cared for in the community, we must look for the volunteers, the voluntary people, to help fill the bill for lack of full-time professionals.
The established youth organisations, the Churches and the councils of social service (and no one has mentioned these so far) already have some very imaginative schemes in hand, and it is quite unnecessary (though here I shall be in direct conflict, I feel, with many noble Lords) to set up new and possibly expensive administrative machinery. More flexibility is certainly needed on the part of the authorities to whom the volunteers offer their services; and here I should like to quote from a letter from a local council of social service in which the secretary says:
"The finding of jobs is the crux of the matter. There is an abundant readiness to serve on the part of the youngsters, and much has already been done to help the elderly by their own unsponsored efforts."
One sixth-former, giving an account of the work of his school, said this:
"I am enjoying doing this, but if this work is going to be organised by a lot of old jossers, you can take it from me it is finished."
With that quotation, I feel that I can underline what so many other noble Lords have said: that the young, if they are to be successful, should have the opportunity of administering their own machinery in this voluntary service. I am happy to see that this is recognised in the Council of Social Service, for junior councils of social service are now being set up in some numbers.
My Lords, there is so much more to this than supplying the people to fit the job. And I agree with the noble Lord who introduced this Motion when he said that we have to stir the conscience of the nation and present the idea of service as something exciting and inspiring. I am an enthusiastic social worker, and I am very disturbed at the way the term "do-gooder" has now come to be almost an insult. Why should not the good deeds of people have at least the same Press coverage as the antics of the "Mods" and
1204
"Rockers" when they go to seaside resorts? Last week I had the privilege of speaking to a hundred young women under twenty in the New Town of Crawley. Not only was this inspiring and exciting but it restored one's belief in human nature.
I would conclude by quoting Mr. Michael Dower, of the Civic Trust, who has organised some very interesting schemes in work camps and has used young people to beautify some of our incredibly ugly cities. I should like to see swimming pools, but I should like more to see the wretched bomb sites in our cities not covered with all the filth and rubbish which people seem to throw there. Mr. Dower said, in a speech to young people, that at the moment
"we are using only one in 8,000 of our young people in voluntary work. Not all would be interested or could be brought in if they were given the opportunity."
But he went on to say that he believed it to be the case that far more would come in if they knew about it. My Lords, let us have some inspiration from the top; let us have some encouragement from the mass media, and I feel sure that we shall not lack young people coming forward to take their share of the responsibility.
6.35 p.m.
SANDFORD: My Lords, I make this speech the thirteenth speech, and having heard the first twelve, I am alarmed at the thought that I have the responsibility to society for four of these young people. I find, unlike many noble Lords, that my attitude towards them is a rather variable one. At this time of the year when most of the young people are spending most of their waking hours out of the way at school, one's attitude towards them is of affection, fondness and high esteem. But I know only too well that in a few weeks' time, when all of them and all of their friends are all over the house all the time, I shall look at them with a rather more jaundiced despair, at any rate from time to time. I do not myself feel in any sort of position to criticise any parents in their handling of this very difficult problem. However, to-day we have to try to overcome these frailties and look at these young people as calmly and as evenly as we can.

1205
I am certainly in favour of this Motion, and grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, for introducing it. But I should be very reluctant to support the Motion if it were put to the Vote without a chance to say at the outset that, surely, we are not here picking on the young people, singling them out as especially lacking in a sense of social responsibility. I know of no evidence to support the view that young people are more lacking in social responsibility than any other section of our society; and no noble Lord so far has brought any evidence to that effect in the course of this debate.
It is quite true that there is an intolerable rise in the statistics of juvenile delinquency, and that there have been these unseemly and unfortunately much-publicised affrays at Clacton, Brighton and Southend. But has anyone shown that these deviations from social responsibility among the age group with which we are concerned signify a greater proportion of lack of social responsibility than there is among any other group in the nation? It is, of course, convenient for us to take a special look at young people in this debate; but I submit—and here I would agree with the noble Lords, Lord Wade and Lord Willis—that it is not good for the young people themselves to be singled out like this for quite so much attention, either by us or by any other medium that brings them to the attention of the public. It is not fair to pick on them unless we are quite certain—as many noble Lords have already said—that it is not the whole of our society that needs to become more aware of its social responsibilities.
I think in this way to-day for two reasons. In earlier days many of the most acute social problems were dealt with by lock and key. Paupers were put away in the work-house, lunatics were locked up in asylums, criminals were locked in prisons and, to a large extent, they were kept there. A great number of these people are now dealt with in society. Officials of the National Assistance Board visit the poor in their homes, probation officers see young offenders while they are in full employment, the mentally sick are cured and cared for in society as out-patients. Therefore, there is more social service done in society and by society.
1206
But there is a second reason, which complicates this situation and adds to it. I do not believe society is really aware of the changes that have occurred. If our forbears were enabled to forget some of the worst social problems by locking people away, our generation—and particularly since the war—have been helped to go on overlooking these problems by the very growth of the social services themselves in the Welfare State. The appearance on the scene of these professional social workers has given the man in the street, not a greater awareness of his social responsibilities, but a feeling that it must be the responsibility of one of these professional experts rather than his to cope with the ills of our society, and even a feeling that, if he wanted to help, he is after all only an amateur in relation to them and might well make a mess of it. This, I believe, is the situation which has arisen and with which we have to deal, and to which I should like to turn in a moment.
First, however, I think there is another possible misunderstanding in the terms of the Motion, although I agree that it has been most felicitously worded. It is this. I do not want to support the Motion without saying that in doing so we are not criticising the teachers or schoolmasters who have educated our children on our behalf. I do not think they are to be blamed for not providing greater opportunities for making them aware of their social responsibilities. Rather the reverse. I think that in debating this Motion we ought to congratulate the teaching profession for sticking so doggedly to their main task, of preparing our boys and girls to live their lives as responsible citizens. They have done this in the teeth of tremendous pressure from many quarters for overmuch academic distinctions for their children and in the teeth of the tremendous demands from industry and commerce for more and more highly skilled, technically competent manpower for the shop floor, the office desk and the various professions. That some balance has been maintained, that the young people do have, on top of all their extra skill and learning, such a sense of social responsibility as they in fact possess, is very much to the credit of their teachers and their schools. And it has been achieved by them in spite of the demands of

1207
society, which in many cases have been in conflict with their aims.
In many instances it is the teachers and the schools who have supplied to children the authority and the discipline essential for life in society, which children really want and certainly must have, but which they do not always get at home. It is often the teachers and schools who instil the awareness of social responsibility in children who may otherwise not be able to get it. So I would agree with those noble Lords who say that the situation is rather different from that implied by the terms of the Motion. It is not so much that young people are unaware of their social responsibilities, though some are and all could be more aware, as the fact that our society outside the schools fails to provide the right conditions and the right opportunities for young people for the discharge of their social responsibilities. They are open all the time to tremendous temptations to self-indulgence. The noble Lady who spoke just before me developed this theme.
Opportunities for service in society are not a match, I submit, for the awareness of social responsibility that has been fostered in our young people. Many of the young people need much more social responsibility than they are in fact being offered. But it is no good pretending—and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, rightly made much of this—that the giving of social responsibility to young people is easy. It is, in fact, a process of the greatest difficulty and delicacy, and this is perhaps the reason why it is not done enough. I know that it is tempting to think that it could be done by devising some comprehensive and better Youth Service—nationalised, rationalised, co-ordinated or un-co-ordinated—but whatever is done, at the moment, the Youth Service does not cater for more than one-third of those with whom we are concerned and, generally speaking, that one-third needs the service least. What we need to bear in mind is the other two-thirds or, as the Newsom Report put it, the other half, who at the moment are not in, and so far as one can see cannot be got into, any voluntary youth service.
Therefore, I doubt whether we are right to put so much hope in the Youth Service, and wonder whether we should not be wiser to concentrate, as the authors of the
1208
Newsom Report did, on what can be done in the secondary modern schools and other schools who cater for the whole of our young people. I believe also that awareness of social responsibility is not best learnt as a separate subject in some intermediate stage between life as a child at school and life as an adult at work. I believe it is best learnt by tying together more closely these two stages of childhood and adulthood. The pattern to be followed in order to find greater opportunities for young people to learn and discharge their social responsibilities is, I believe, the pattern prescribed in the Newsom Report and in two recommendations, on which I should like to spend a moment. In passing, I think I could say that what is to be found in the Newsom Report as particularly applicable to grammar schools is also applicable mutatis mutandis to independent schools and universities.
One recommendation of the Newsom Report, No. 4, was that the last two years at school should be related to the occupational interests of children and attention should be given to their social development. This involves bringing into the schools and curricula some of the real life, concrete situations and problems of the world outside. It means talks on school premises in school time from probation officers, industrial training officers, marriage guidance counsellors and housing managers and other expert people working in the social field. And it means drawing young people into the confidence of these professional experts and bringing about the beginning of that marriage of which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has just spoken. I would be the first to admit, from my own bitter personal experience, that study and discussion on problems and issues like this by this inductive method is a daunting prospect in the last two years of secondary modern school children, but it can be done and is being done, but it ought to be done much more widely.
The second recommendation from the Newsom Report which is relevant to our problem to-day is that the school programme in the last year should be deliberately outward looking—the reverse of what I have just been stressing—initiation into the adult world, as it is put in the Report. All links with adult organisations should be strengthened. This in-

1209
volves sending senior boys and girls from the school, while they still belong there, to live and work for short periods in adult situations, to give them adult responsibilties, but under controlled conditions—the sort of enterprise for which Gordonstoun is well-known. These experiments, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has said, are no longer a rarity, but they are not yet common enough. These community service schemes are growing, but they ought to grow more rapidly.
The process of working out the details before they have actually started is itself fruitful of a lot of valuable mutual understanding. Firms employing boys and girls on this sort of secondment become much more sensitive to their capacities and their limitations. Teachers sending them become more aware of the realities of local life just outside the school life. The boys and girls have their eyes and ears opened in many ways and bring new insights into their class work. In passing, I think it is much to be regretted that these developments, the setting up of which has involved so much time and patience from headmasters, are now being diverted by this very premature debate on the merits and demerits of comprehensive education, which has taken the place of consideration of the Newsom Report and is absorbing the energies of so many of the educational authorities.
To come back to the topic of the debate, this initiation into adult life needs thinking out properly and carefully. It is not an easy plan for providing cheap labour—even cheap labour for digging old people's gardens, which is one of the first things people mention when anybody asks what youth Ought to be doing. This is a plan for giving boys and girls an awareness of social responsibility; and any good plan has to be imaginatively and carefully worked out. One that I came across from, I think, Tonbridge illustrates some of the points I am making. This is a scheme whereby certain senior boys, after proper instruction, were given the responsibility for preparing other younger boys in the town for their cycling proficiency tests. If you think of it, my Lords, this enterprise fits its purpose admirably. Here you have certain responsibility of a fairly high order, involving the safety of life and limb of other people, and yet requiring just that sort of knowledge and skill
1210
which a 16 or 17 year old boy could reasonably be expected to have; and as a by-product it brings the boys into contact with the local constabulary under favourable conditions. So much for learning more about social responsibility and discharging it, as it were, in part-time activities.
But I think there is a wider aspect here which has not been developed to-day, and that is the discharge of social responsibility through one's main occupation and job. There was a job widely advertised, which your Lordships will fairly easily recognise, and it goes like this
"Secure job. Excellent promotion. New sick pay scheme. Pension scheme. Free travel. Good sports and social facilities. Average earnings £13 16s. 5d."
That is a mere catalogue of what can be got out of a job, encouraging the very thing to which the noble Lord, Lord Baden-Powell, drew our attention—namely, the temptation to young people towards self-indulgence. That advertisement for a job is merely cataloguing all that can be got out of it, and says nothing whatever about its value, its importance, the demands it makes and the opportunities for social responsibility in it.
One must not expect too much, but surely to present any job solely in terms of what can be got out of it is to appeal to and to encourage the wrong motives, and to suppress and eventually to snuff out altogether any sense of social responsibility. Of course young people, when they are looking for jobs, want to know about pay, prospects and pensions. But surely they also want to know whether the job is worth while, and they should be encouraged to ask whether what they mean to do is considered helpful and useful; whether it has any social value, and how it might give to them more.
It is tempting to think that this sort of approach is hardly likely to cut much ice in attracting people into jobs; but I am inclined to think otherwise by a letter which many noble Lords may have seen in The Times on Monday of this week. This was from a Mr. William Allen, writing on behalf of the architects. He wrote that he is satisfied, after his profession had made efforts in this direction, and after he had personally interviewed

1211
several hundred candidates for the profession, that
"belief in the purpose, the meaning and the social value of the work that these people mean to do is a more powerful factor in their choice of a job than any other."
I think this is most encouraging, and I well believe he is right. I also believe it is the right motive to appeal to in offering any young people a job. It is a motive which we ought to appeal to with more conviction if we sympathise, as I do, with the terms of this Motion.
6.57 p.m.
ROWALLAN: My Lords, I think I have spoken only once in your Lordships' House in the past 25 years. At the same time, I plead not guilty to dereliction of duty, because most of the time I have been engaged in the very type of work with which this debate is concerned. It immediately struck me when I saw the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, how closely it fitted in with the words of a great Englishman which are carved on the memorial at H.M.S. "Britannia" (I think it is):
"See that ye hold fast the heritage we leave you:
Yea, and teach your children its value,
That never their hearts may fail them nor their hands grow weak."
Surely that is exactly what this Motion we are debating to-day is about: seeing that we teach our children the value of the heritage that they have received, which has not just come by chance but is the result of the work and sacrifice of tens of thousands of men and women in high estate, and unknown to all except their friends, through the centuries; which has built the freedom we enjoy and the society into which we have been placed, with all the advantages and privileges, and also with all the responsibilities to see that we do not fritter this heritage away but hand it on, not only undiminished but increased, to those who come after us.
One great influence in the formation of character is hero worship. I believe it to be a necessary part in the full development of the spiritual side of man. In the days when most of us here to-night were children we were brought up on tales of courage, bravery, self-sacrifice and endurance. Those tales still have a
1212
thrill for young boys growing up to-day if they are presented rightly; but too often they never hear of them. They hear the life story of the latest "pop" idol. They hear all sorts of trash. But there is very little of the other side of the picture: the story of achievement, courage and sacrifice.
And yet I have been tremendously impressed lately with the way that the young friends of my family whom I have met have been thrilled and enthralled by the television series, The Great War. It has impressed them with the way that those men who died and suffered there built and preserved for us the heritage and passed it on to us. The story in the series of The Age of Kings was a thrilling and enthralling one, which again had tremendous appeal. I only wish that we could get more stories like that—more stories of a similar character, perhaps, for Children's Hour; stories of boys and girls living to-day who have shown themselves capable of great sacrifice and courage; stories of girls and boys who have overcome physical defects and have been an inspiration to all who have met them and seen how bravely they bore, and how gallantly they overcame, the sufferings that were their lot. Of course, when I was Chief Scout, I came across many of these stories and saw them personally, and repeated them all over the Commonwealth on my journeys. The small African boys were just as thrilled at hearing them as our boys at home were thrilled at hearing the stories of their African brothers in the Movement, far away in quite different conditions.
But it is not just enough to talk about these things. One of the things that have struck me very much in recent years is, as the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Norwich, reminded us, the immense increase of human knowledge, and all the problems that that has brought with it in the education of young people to meet the needs of to-day. The result has been that we have all looked for a formula, a short cut. We have forgotten the value of what the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, spoke about, of teaching "where, what and why", but not "how". I heard a story not long ago of a man who was always going up to his boss and saying, "What do I do next?", to which the boss said, "For heaven's sake!, use your common sense", to which the reply was, "Sir,

1213
common sense is a rare gift from God and I, alas!, have only a technical education." I hope he was not at the Manchester School of Science and Technology, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, will forgive me for telling that story. Unfortunately, there are many people to-day who have only a technical education in the sense of that story.
During the war I had the job of developing maturity in young potential officers. They were supposed, often on very slender grounds, to have the germ of leadership in them, and I was supposed to discover it. We had every kind, from the happy moron to what we called the frustrated M.A. The happy moron we could do a great deal for. Of course, the unfrustrated M.A.s had already got their commissions; and so we got only the frustrated ones, who, of course, could pass any examination we liked to give them. They were quite interested so long as we were giving them the bare outline of some things which would add to their comfort in a night on a hill in a snow blizzard. But when we left it in the air and refused to give them the final formula, they felt really frustrated and, unfortunately, our success with them fell from about 70 per cent. down to about 10 per cent.
We have not the time nowadays to teach people to think for themselves. We have not the time to teach them to use their eyes and their ears. And yet once you have opened the ears and eyes of a boy so that he can hear and see, you open his heart also. Life is a very different thing for him from then on: there is no more place for boredom, there is so much going on all around him, now that he has the power to see and hear. I shall never forget the thrill with which so many of those young chaps up on the mountains heard the silence and saw the darkness for the first time. They were no longer afraid of being alone, which had been the bane of their lives before, but which had made them all cluster together. They were no longer afraid of hearing the sounds of nature, which before they had drowned with a gramophone at one end, a piano at the other, and a radio in yet another part of the same room, in which they were all talking at the tops of their voices and not able to hear anything at all.
1214
I believe it is tremendously important to recultivate the senses which have been lost under conditions of civilisation if the boy or girl is to achieve his or her full potential. We have heard a great deal about the community service, about doing things for themselves; and yet one of the tragedies that we have come up against in the Scout Movement is the frustration that we found in dealing with some local authorities who would not allow us to build, even under skilled supervision, our own headquarters, and who made it impossible for us in some back street to get a small plot on which we could erect a second-hand wooden hut until we could collect sufficient money to build something more substantial.
It is not so easy, as has been already noted by some of your Lordships, to do things for ourselves nowadays, because we come up against problems. I hesitate to think what the reply would have been if we had suggested that we should build a swimming pool. We should have had the sanitary inspector, the plumber and the planners round, and goodness knows whom else—all the people who would have been dead long before we could have got the swimming pool started. It is not so easy, and I only wish that the Government could realise how much they are depriving the young people of to-day by making regulations which it is almost impossible for them to carry out, and so depriving them of the opportunity of a place of their own in which they could take a pride, which would give them the self-respect that some of them have lost, in doing things, not only for themselves, but for their fellows. Very much of the trouble to-day is because they have lost their self-respect, and it is our job to try to teach them the heritage which has been left to them so that they may gain their self-respect in passing it on to generations to come.
Now, my Lords, the time is already late and there are a number of you still to contribute to this debate. One could go on for ever, but I am glad to say I am not going to inflict that on your Lordships. So I will sit down, thanking once again the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, for his perspicacity in giving us this most interesting and useful and, if I may say so, inspiring debate.
7.11 p.m.
BROWN: My Lords, it is late, and I am going to confine myself to a facet of the subject which has not received a great deal of attention in this debate. There is little doubt that the working career of a person, particularly the male, is the most significant, critical issue of his life, and his orientation towards his career is bound to have a tremendous effect upon his behaviour and his character. Unlike adults, who have wives and families, and homes to maintain, young people to-day have a great deal of leisure, and I would suggest that society is entitled to demand of these young people that some part of that leisure be filled in a constructive, educational manner which will better fit them for their own future careers and support the position of our country in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, referred to some of the remarks made to him by Dr. Adenauer with regard to the position in Germany. Quoting from the Crowther Report, I have these figures. Though many leave school in Germany at the age of fourteen to fifteen, 85 per cent. of these young people become apprentices for a period of three years, and 90 per cent. are successful in passing examinations which test the training they undergo. In fact most young people in Germany—and, I think, to a greater extent than in this country or in other European countries—take it for granted that they must undergo some form of training for the careers that lie ahead of them.
Again quoting from the Crowther Report, which was printed in 1959 (and therefore I have to admit that some of my figures culled from it may be out of date), I can give these figures. As we know, one in six of our youth remains at school until the age of eighteen. Only 20 per cent. of those who work in industry or have apprenticeships are allowed day release for education in technical colleges, and 40 per cent., or something near that figure, receive no formal education at all after they leave school at the age of fifteen. Then, out of those who pursue courses for National Certificates, City and Guilds, and so on, some 70 per cent. fail to stay the course or fail in the final examination.
Obviously, there are many facets of this situation for which we cannot hold
1216
them in any way responsible; but, leaving aside those aspects of the matter for which Government or local government or other bodies are responsible, leaving aside such matters which are not the responsibility of youth, I think we are entitled to say very loudly to youth to-day: "We expect you to spend some of the leisure which is yours in advancing your own careers". Unless we do so, we shall remain an under-trained nation; for I believe that is what we are to-day.
The Crowther Report, again, had this to say. The numbers of trained men and women which will be needed are far beyond what will flow into the grammar schools, and we shall have to mobilise far more if there are to be not only pure scientists and technologists but the whole army of technicians and craftsmen needed for industry and agriculture. This theme needs dramatising and giving to youth. We need to give them a positive message. "Our country needs more trained people. Are you one of the 40 per cent. of young people who fails to spend any of his leisure time in further education? If so, you are letting us down not only yourself but also your country". In saying this I do not join with those who spend a lot of time criticising the habits of youth to-day, but this has not been said to youth and I think it must be said.
At this point I want to leave my main theme and comment on two strictly industrial matters. I have referred to the fact that there is insufficient opportunity for young people in industry to get day release for education, but there is, in addition, a gross shortage of apprenticeships available to young people in industry to-day, and I think many of us are aware of this. However, I believe this situation is about to be corrected. We have on the Statute Book the Industrial Training Act, and I am familiar with the repercussions of this, so far as the engineering industry is concerned. We are informed that within months we may, as individual engineering companies, have to pay to the Engineering Industries Training Board as a levy up to 2 per cent. of our annual wage bill. That is a very large sum of money. However, each company can recover from the pool thus created sums up to and in excess of the levy that they have paid if they can prove that they have spent such sums on the training of their own or other employees.

1217
I believe that the results will be dramatic. Most companies to-day are examining and costing their own training activities to see the extent of the recovery which they will be able to reclaim, and many, perhaps most, are discovering that their current expenditure falls far short of the levy which they may have to pay. The obvious course is to increase expenditure on training, and I think we shall see a dramatic increase in the number of apprenticeships. This will make a profound contribution to solving the problems we are debating here this afternoon.
My second industrial point is this. It will be said—indeed, it is already being said—by others, in response to the discussion we are having, that the real trouble is the number of dead-end jobs occupied by youngsters. As an industrial manager I am repeatedly having the comment made to me, by people unfamiliar with industry, that it is a soul-destroying place, full of jobs of a highly uncreative nature. Of course there are thousands of people in what can be described as "dead-end" jobs to-day, but the accelerating trend of industry is the steady elimination of work which calls for much muscle and little mind. What is still not altogether clearly understood in society is that wherever the need for the use of discretion or decision by the individual is lower, or absent, then that is the job that can be very simply mechanised. People are needed only where the human mind is needed to make decisions.
We are faced to-day with the need in industry for a more and more highly trained population, not for a growing number of button pushers, as is so often thought to be the case. The future for our young people is not by any means perfect, but it is brighter than it has ever been before in history. The trouble is that many intelligent people see others doing work which to them would be extremely boring; and they assume that the individual doing that work is equally bored. But we are not all equal in intellectual attainment, and boredom is a situation in which the level of work-being done is below the work capacity of the individual who is doing it. In fact, there is no such thing as boring work. There are, however, plenty of instances of a bad match between the work capacity of the individual and the
1218
level of work that he is asked to do. If you have any real morons about you find for them moronic work and they will not be bored.
I do not think that we have any problems in this respect, but I do feel it is time that we got rid of some of our own damaging illusions. People are no longer used in industry as sources of physical energy; they are employed because they have minds, not because they have muscles. And this is one of the benefits that the application of science through technology in industry has brought to us. I have made this point about work and boredom because we must avoid that exaggerated and pessimistic attitude which suggests that the future of ordinary people is condemned by the horrors of automated industry. I believe quite the opposite is the case.
Turning back to my main theme, I believe there is in society to-day some degree of alienation between generations, but I do not think it ought to surprise us. It is due to the accelerating rate of change and conditions. Frankly, the older generations cannot keep up with this rate of change. When the young say that we are not "with it" I do not think it is altogether a frivolous criticism. When we look at our trade unions, our industries, the law, the City, or, indeed, some of the procedures in this our own House, we ought to blush. Youth sees nothing to admire in much that we accept as the natural order of things. So a sort of rift of non-understanding develops the greater the rate of change from which we benefit or suffer, as you care to look at it; and this causes many of us older people to hesitate in giving the lead that we should. But this abdication on our part worsens the situation. We shall reach the stage soon, if we do not watch out, where youth can say of us, "Poor dears!, they don't really know what they want".
There are all sorts of responsibilities and duties which our teenagers ought to face up to. They have been referred to by many other speakers in this debate, and I will not try to catalogue them. But we must indicate loudly and clearly to youth what they are. That is our job as their elders. I have confined my remarks to this one point of trying to get our youth to face up to this very serious business of preparing themselves and

1219
spending their leisure zealously obtaining training for their own future careers. I want it said loudly and clearly, not only because I am anxious about youth but because I am anxious about the economic future of this country. We can, so to speak, perhaps kill two birds with one stone if we treat these facets of the problem of youth with as much seriousness as any other facet we have discussed in this debate this afternoon.
May I end by suggesting this in the form of a question? Are the Government, or the Opposition, or the Press, or the B.B.C., or our schools or our youth services, or the parents of children in this country, saying to youth to-day what really needs to be said?—to wit: "We need more trained doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, technicians, craftsmen" (I will not go any further with the list) and you, youth, must fit yourselves to take up these essential occupations in the years to come. Those are the opportunities which are open to you and you must take them up."
7.25 p.m.
ST. JUST: My Lords, in debates on social matters in your Lordships' House often the same names of noble Lords seem to appear on the list of speakers, and they are often, if I may say so, headed by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, who I am very glad to see is to wind up this evening for the Government. I feel we may not have all the answers, but nobody can say we are not persistent or do not try.
In rising to speak this evening, I am not going to cover so much the ground of the educational side of youth, but I wish to deal more with the emotional development of the character of the child and adolescent. These problems are, I think, becoming more strained at the present time as the competitive situation concerning examinations becomes more marked. And there is a danger, through this, as the medical world will say, that a child may swing easily, through worry and strain, towards a form of neurosis.
To try to compete with this situation I want to put a few points which are points of experts, not mine. The first one is awareness of teaching of social responsibility; the second, less authority between staff and child, between teacher and pupil, and more respect of the individual child.
1220
Thirdly, community activities for children in primary as well as secondary schools should be more marked. In fact what I am leading up to is the emotional development of the child. If he is to become aware of his social responsibilities this must take place through all these phases.
I do not want to tackle the teachers on the question of education, because I think this problem is somewhat outside their control, and the growing up of the child must not be judged only on the success of this; I feel strong account must also be taken of the failures. There is no doubt that, as we have heard earlier in this debate, the child mind develops to-day much sooner, much more quickly. I may be wrong, but I feel that because of this the bracket between the generations has in some ways grown wider, though I believe the understanding is much closer. I think the age groups have grown wider. One of the things that impressed me deeply, looking back over the lying-instate of Sir Winston Churchill, was seeing pictures in the papers and on the news reels of the number of young people who were queueing, hour by hour, to go through Westminster Hall. I felt very strongly that somehow our generation, my generation and the young generation, through this had closed together very considerably. This was one point that they were wanting to understand and did understand; they understood our position in regard to it, and I think it was a very encouraging sign.
I want to quote a true story of a boy who obtained three "A" levels at school, which proves that the intelligence was there. Then the child collapsed emotionally. The problem of emotional development has, as we know, many causes. Home environment must basically be the primary cause. If the home is disjointed, if the home is unhappy, there is real danger from this angle of maladjustment starting and a chance that the maladjusted child may not be discovered at school for some years. This also is a danger. I think another most important point is the fact that parents now feel, if there is a serious problem with a child in the home that they now cannot deal with easily, that there are experts, such as social psychologists and so on, who will cope. So, in a sense, it is "Over to you, the State, to deal with" This is

1221
a serious matter, because if this control and confidence of the parent and concern over the child is lost, we are in a serious difficulty.
As we know, psychology is advancing at great speed. I agreed with the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich in all he said concerning the modern trend of psychiatry. We know that this is a young science, and I think that any skilled psychologist or psychiatrist would agree that what he said about the question of truth of the conscience is most important. I agree with him in everything he said.
Taking the situation as a whole, I believe that many educationists are worried lest the purely teaching side is being forced a little too fast while the emotional side, with all the responsibility that it brings, is being left behind. A safety gap valve for the child and a time to think are most important.
LONGFORD: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that emotional training is something that has hardly been worked out at all yet? We used to have character training. Emotional training is where the future lies to a great extent, but at the moment it has not gone beyond this point.
ST. JUST: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Earl the Leader of the House; but what I am trying to say is that basically it is the parents' job, and parents can in many ways overcome the problem in the initial stages. If they can do that, the battle is won. I agree that this is a great field in which advancement is still to come. I do not know if this exists—I am ignorant on this point—but I am wondering whether, in the schools, some form of group therapy, in a very mild and not advanced form, could be given under a trained teacher, whereby a child could talk out its problems, not only about the school but about home. Might that not be possible? I think that in that way there is a possibility that strain in a child might be detected.
In a debate on Leisure I put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Science—in fact when we were sitting on the Benches opposite—the possibility of a few camps being formed. I did not have much success then. It is worth
1222
another try. In that debate I asked whether it would be possible to have a few camps, organised, probably, in conjunction with the schools, where children who proved to be slightly difficult, or obviously rather full of energy, could go and do mild forms of mountaineering. I was not suggesting an advanced course. One does not want to put the challenge too high. I suggested two or three camps to see whether such a scheme proved a success. There may not be anything in this idea, but I believe that it could develop into something important.
In conclusion, I should like to say that I am quite certain that the whole basis of the problem of the maladjusted or neurotic child goes back to the family unit. If control by the family is lost at this stage, then we are faced with a difficulty. It is easy for this to happen, by reason of the freedom and outlets that children have, and also the money they have. Money is a rather important factor. A child with a tendency to be neurotic will develop and become unstable. This is the child who in fact, as he grows older, becomes a real menace to society, and certainly will never, so long as he is in this state, be able to face the full responsibilities of a fully integrated person.
7.36 p.m.
BRISTOL: My Lords, I venture to hope, at this time of the evening, that part of the significance of a debate of this kind is that some kind of convergence of opinion should emerge from the process of debate. This, I think, has impressively happened during the long discussion which has taken place in your Lordships' House to-day. All I can hope to do is perhaps to reinforce one or two pleas which have already made their appearance in the discussion. Other speakers have already said, much better than I could hope to do, some of the things I wanted to say—and I am referring especially to the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who gave us such a vigorous contribution. My two main pleas are simply these: first, for a greater readiness on the part of public authorities of every kind to envisage all social problems as involving voluntary youth service in their solution; and secondly, that we may stress that the proper place of youth in the community is in full association with

1223
all other elements and not, too self-consciously, as an isolated ingredient of society.
On the first point, about the need for a much greater readiness on the part of many kinds of authorities to offer opportunity, I think the evidence we have already heard to-night is overwhelming. I was recently struck, attending the speech day of a school in my part of the world—a good school, perched on the top of a high hill—to hear the head boy say, in the course of a really witty annual report, that, "The School this year has been going downhill", and he went on rapidly to explain that what he meant was that in large numbers the boys had been literally going down hill to those parts of the city where their voluntary service was much needed. On all sides, one finds this eagerness to be of service; yet one must admit that on all sides there is evidence of a reluctance to evoke it. Reading the Annual Report of the Director of the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme, I came across this sentence:
"In spite of much heartening news of service by young people resulting from the Award Scheme, there continues to be some degree of frustration in the matter of giving service, attributable largely to a dark reluctance to trust youth with responsibility".
Then I would quote two other sentences which I think touched off my desire to speak in this debate, when it eventually arrived on your Lordships' Order Paper. They are both quotations from that man to whom other tributes have been paid to-night, Mr. Alec Dickson, to whom we all owe so much for the vision which launched Voluntary Service Overseas, and who is now devoting himself with the same enthusiasm to Community Voluntary Service at home. In a letter to the Guardian some time ago, he described the experiment in which it was possible for the Avon Canal to be partly mended by voluntary labour afforded by the Home Office, who enabled prisoners to join in the work.
He wrote:
"We, too, have reason to be grateful to the Home Office for welcoming the attachment of volunteers to serve amongst young offenders, but if the Welfare State is to become a community that cares—if young people, not in hundreds but in thousands, are to feel genuinely needed—then we may have to regard Britain as an undeveloped country, viewing every social problem in the light of how volunteers can be involved in its solution."
1224
Shortly afterwards, in a letter in The Times, he wrote about a number of imaginative experiments such as were described by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, but then went on to say:
"At present these efforts are quantitatively pitifully small. Whilst so much more could be achieved with greater resources, money is not in fact the heart of the matter. And though the numbers involved so far are few, this is because until now no drive for recruitment has been made, lest difficulty be experienced in placing them. What is missing in this country is neither funds nor volunteers—but a whole dimension in public thinking, an awareness of what the young have to give to Britain."
There is no need at this stage of the debate to add, as I might have done, and could have done, to the intriguing list which Lord Willis gave us of ingenious ways in which the young are ready to serve. I myself should love to try to discover how you wire an alarm clock to a hair-drier to enable you to wake up in the morning if you happen to be deaf. But these are only examples of the kind of way in which service is available.
There is one other thing I might mention which has not so far been mentioned, and that is the kind of work camp which is organised by such bodies as the World Council of Churches and the British Council of Churches, in which it is possible not only to have an international but also to have an interestingly inter-confessional body of young people getting to know each other as they serve. There was, for example, a recent camp sponsored by the churches at Kingsley Hall, Bow, in East London, where a group of some 25 young people, including Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Continental Reformed, as well as Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians and Quakers, lived together for a month and undertook three separate pieces of service.
They assisted in a survey of the neighbourhood by visiting the newly-built blocks of flats, endeavouring to find out the leisure time and recreational activities of the children and young people as part of a survey being carried out by Kingsley Hall to know how to meet the needs and interests of that area. They also ran a children's play centre during the holiday month of August in which 200 children were in regular attendance, to the great gratitude of their parents. They undertook the responsibility of taking children to hospital for treatment, another

1225
service which was much appreciated. On the last Sunday they all attended Mass in the local Catholic Church, and led the congregation in the singing of the Gelineau psalms, which will be known to some of your Lordships. This is typical of the kind of international and inter-confessional work which camps of this kind can do.
Yet it remains true that the list of the things which are yet to be attempted is still long. We heard some interesting remarks indeed just now from the noble Lord, Lord Brown, about the relationship between brains and brawn, but it still, surely, remains true, whatever may be the long-term future of automation, that there are here and now in Britain many tasks for which the primary need is simply helping hands and the vision to see that they might be done. For example, in towns the landscaping of bomb-sites, the planting of trees, the clearance of rubble, the creation of small open spaces, the repair and maintenance of walls, railings and historic features such as monuments and clock towers; along with the redecoration of the houses of people who would welcome such help because they cannot do it themselves. There are many comparable opportunities in the countryside, such as the removal of derelict buildings and other eyesores, the opening of blocked footpaths, streams, woodlands, canals and beach accesses, and much else. I mention this because quite recently on a visit to Scotland I was thrilled to discover what is in fact being done there, under the auspices of Enterprise Youth, which has been set up with the help of the Scottish Education Department and the Scottish Council of Social Service, in association with the National Trust in Scotland, to do precisely this kind of useful service.
However, as more than one speaker has pointed out, there is a grave danger that when imaginative plans of this kind are mooted some authority somewhere interferes, like a tiresome, tedious aunt, with nothing better than to say simply, "No". Can we not have a totally new kind of expectation in the thinking of public authorities so that their approach is not, from the beginning, negative in the way that it too often is? Clearly, there will be need for some organisation. for some kind of, at least, clearance, if not that dangerous word "co-ordination", let alone either rationalisation or
1226
nationalisation. These ideas should be seriously entertained in the National Youth Development Council, and there should be an extension of the Youth Service to encourage the taking of those who are still at school into projects of this kind, and a generous provision of finance to make it possible.
All this, if it is not to be regarded as simply the thinking up of artificial jobs, has to be seen in the wider context of regarding youth, at its healthiest, as being, not a self-conscious and isolated element in the community, treated as something peculiar, but an integral part of the community as such. For it is only if the community as such genuinely sees tasks of this kind to be desirable tasks, and is itself engaged in some way in carrying them out, that properly self-respecting young people will see the worth whileness of doing it; for they will not see any point in simply being kept employed on things which other people think will keep them out of mischief. This is the totally wrong approach, as noble Lords have recognised in the debate to-day. There is no need to fear any imputations of the beginnings of a Hitlerjugend, for the voluntary is still compatible with a clear and emphatic leadership in freedom. We have indeed much to be grateful for, as many of your Lordships have stressed, in the post-Albemarle Youth Service. It has indeed, in a way that has evoked the gratitude of millions of young people, done much to provide for their needs, but this surely needs also to be matched by a corresponding emphasis on the need to evoke from them the service which what has been provided for them enables them better to give.
My two pleas really, then, fuse into one. I would echo ardently the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for opportunities to be given, and to be given by the acknowledged leaders of the community, so that the young may know themselves to be part of a community with a purpose. If in that sense we give them the opportunity to serve we shall certainly discover that the service has been rendered to us all.
7.50 p.m.
LYTTON: My Lords, you will have noticed with relief that I am the tip of the tail. I join with others in congratulating the noble Lord,

1227
Lord Robertson of Oakridge, on having successfully launched a second marathon campaign debate on youth so soon after the other which was so ably launched by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, only the other day.
I had hoped to be present during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Baden-Powell, but I was called out of the Chamber by somebody even younger than himself, and I returned to find his speech nearly over. So I do at least congratulate him on its brevity and on his youth, and on his name, which is as splendid as any other in history. I am glad to follow the right reverend Prelate from Bristol, because in a sense I am in his diocese. Although from a Church of England point of view I am in Bath and Wells, as a Roman Catholic I am in Clifton, so I am really in his diocese.
Owing to the lateness of the hour, I propose to scrap most of what I wanted to say, but I should like to pick on one of the trees in the wood and to adopt a different metaphor, because, although I used to be a forester I am now a farmer. The theme I have been following in this line for some thirty years or more is better expressed by: "Be sure you know your own lands." I want to start by an illustration in connection with the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Southwark.
I went to his district 35 years ago in order to run a section of a working boys' club, and I did that until it was wound up by the war. I visited the homes of my boys as the bombs were raining down and destroying them. Yesterday I revisited the site—the club, the primary school (which was new, because the area had been bombed), the church, the secondary school—and I spoke to some of those who had been boys in my club.
I used to run a club for boys of from 11 to 14 years because I thought it was a good thing. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, thinks that the running of clubs will be a good thing in the future, but people were doing it in 1936 when I started, although there was controversy as to whether it was too soon or in competition for accommodation that could be better used for others. I must say that yesterday's visit was a most splendid eye-opener as regards improvement. It was hard to
1228
believe that it is the same place. The schools are transformed; the accommodation is transformed; the people look different, and the variety of things to do in the schools certainly exceeds what is available for my daughter at her public school. There has been a tremendous change; and, so far as I can see, it is a complete change for the better. I talked to a few of those who were left, and they agreed that there is an improvement, that things are better and that, educationally, the position is not the same at all. I was a pre-Butler Act worker down there, and we have moved ahead a very long way.
I want to stress my theme, briefly, through the primary school which I visited. It has 430 children in it, and I spoke to the children, to the Head and to some of the teachers. The Head knows everybody. As well as knowing all the staff, she knows everybody's parents, every home; and so do quite a number of her teachers. When I was an instructor at Sandhurst, I took the trouble to know every one of 600 cadets. By the second Friday of the term—it was a great effort—I knew them better than anyone else; and I could say, "Good morning, so-and-so" to every one of 600 cadets. I also wrote 350 character reports each term for those who wanted them. So I know the kind of difficulty that there is.
The eleven-plus examination has gone, and the Head has Primary School Profile—a document which I have here—which asks instead for all kinds of character and scholastic and other attainments, dispositions, handicaps and home background, in order to make a decision as to which group the primary school leavers will go when they move up next summer. The assessment cannot be done in the school time, and I am wondering how many Heads are going to be able to achieve this admirable object. I do not believe they have done it before and even this particular Head who knows everybody—not merely by having a card index, but knowing everybody on sight, and their homes—will have difficulty in coping with it.
There are so many difficulties which come to light, in deciding which children should go up, if one does not have the routine method of the examination. The home is probably only one room. Is

1229
it to be television or homework; or is it to be the mother going out as an office cleaner for the night? I am assured by everybody that, unless there is going to be homework, it is a waste of time to put children in a higher stream. It is obvious, however, that in this school which I visited everybody is known, and it has all the appearance of being a good show.
It is much the same with the secondary school, although I did not go into that in such detail. But for all the school-leavers whom I saw and of whom I asked questions, there is a change in outlook. For instance, when I was in the area everybody went either into the Surrey Docks or to Hay's Wharf, to storage, to the brewery or to Jacob's biscuit factory. There were a few places into which they all went. When I asked the children yesterday, practically none of them mentioned these places, and some of the girls had decided that they were going into banks, West End banks or City banks Some of them with the lowest I.Q.s successfully do needlework in the West End. There was every sort of variety. There were dresses in the process of being completed, and one felt that things were going well—in farming terms, that the lambs were known and were being looked after and cared for. There was every sign of a good spirit and an immense change for the better.
I have tried to find out, not so much there but in other places, what happens when the "lambs" go to work. I have asked a number of people—the boys themselves, the directors of industry—and I will give an illustration from someone outside that area to whom I spoke the day before yesterday, because it is so good. He said, "When people come to us we give them an induction course for a couple of days. Everything that we do, and our purpose, is explained to them." His firm has about 1,800 employees, so it is of a considerable size. The employees are shown every process and are set to work after having everything explained to them. The firm has a review every year on the employee's birthday. Where an employee is still under eighteen there is a review twice a year, with a view to considering whether the employee should be moved, promoted or given more pay. The employees are visited in hospital, as is done in the Army,
1230
and are given their pay by a member of the firm.
This, so far as I can see, is the sort of way that we were brought up in the Army—to know everybody for whom we were responsible. It is not merely as a card index: it is knowing the people. This man said, "We know everybody; I know everybody". I asked, "Do you ever have any real trouble?" He replied, "Nobody can say he is not going to have trouble to-morrow, but I am retiring next month and we have not had trouble yet." I think he would say, with Napoleon—and I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, who mentioned this—"There are no bad soldiers: there are only bad officers." Transposed into industrial terms, I think that is what he would say. It is almost what he said, in fact.
I checked it from the other angle, and I asked some of the working men—people who I know are good and all right—whether they thought an employer could change the whole picture. They denied it. They were from a different environment, and they denied it. Some of them said, "The chief handicap of the young in industry is the old workers on their own level". That was their view, and I dare say there is truth in both viewpoints; because unless somebody takes control and knows everybody, the tone is bound to be bad—one knows it from the Army—among the older men. So these lambs going to market, as it were, go into an atmosphere which is needlessly crude and sometimes blasphemous, and where there is sometimes petty persecution—anyway, all the things that develop if a finger is not on the pulse from the top.
That, I suggest, is one of the main points at which knowing the young breaks down—the point at which some of them go into work. The clubs, as many speakers to-day have said, get some. There are always unclubbable people. All the unclubbable people came into the club I started. They stayed until I asked them to pay their penny a week. They were six weeks or so in arrears. I decided they should go, and they went. There is a kind of discipline and control that you cannot keep in a club: there are the unclubbables. Nevertheless, somebody, somewhere in industry, should surely be in a position to control them, manage them

1231
and know them, and they should know him and be able to come and talk to him when there is any difficulty. That is the theme which I should like to add to this debate; and with that, my Lords, I shall sit down.
8.3 p.m.
LONGFORD: My Lords, even after a score of speeches, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, can be relied upon to say something fresh and original, and I only wish I thought it would be possible, a little later on, for someone to say the same of me. I am sure we all feel that this debate has been rendered memorable by many speeches, including the maiden effort of the noble Lord, Lord Baden-Powell. One often listens to maiden speeches which are well-informed and graceful, but I do not remember, for a long time back, a maiden speech which was quite so moving as that of the noble Lord, Lord Baden-Powell. And in this atmosphere it was altogether suitable that the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, should make one of his rare appearances. If I do not attempt to follow his profound argument, I am afraid he will share the fate, so to speak, of being somewhat ignored, in company with a number of other speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Brown, and the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who struck rather different notes from others.
All the speeches will, of course, be studied very carefully by the Government. Indeed, I do not aspire to answer this debate: only to play my part at the end of it, or nearly the end of it. No one, so far as I know, has asked me a question which could be answered, and no one has attacked this particular Government, so far as I know, which would have cast on me the burden of defence. So I will just cast my mind into the common pool, somewhat inhibited, but I hope not hopelessly inhibited, by the fact that in previous debates of this kind I spoke from the other side of this House, whereas in this one I speak with the due responsibility of a Minister.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, has rendered many notable services to our country, in war and peace, and I am sure will render many more;
1232
but I am doubtful whether in a single day he has ever rendered a more signal service than that of starting this debate and of speaking as he did. If I may say so, it was an ideal opening speech in a far-reaching debate. Naturally, I shall be returning to a number of points made in his speech, but, if I may, I should like to congratulate him in particular on the balanced attitude which he adopted towards youth. It was essentially generous, but it was not in any way fulsome.
I think he struck the exact balance; and in that respect he was followed by other speakers, including the noble Marchioness, Lady Reading. I do not know whether either of them happens to recall a passage in Sir Winston Churchill's memoirs about the Oxford Union resolution not to fight for King and Country—a resolution which was passed in 1933, a month or two after Hitler arrived in power in Germany—but Sir Winston, writing after the war, of course, said:
"Little did the foolish boys who passed that resolution know that they were to conquer or die gloriously, and prove themselves the finest generation ever bred in Britain."
I felt that the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, of the noble Marchioness, Lady Reading, and many others were rather an extension of that line.
The noble Lord, Lord St. Just, has now left us, so I am afraid his speech does not come in for review or reply, but he made a particularly interesting speech—I see the noble Lord has just resumed his seat. I would take up the point he made about the tremendous devotion—perhaps a somewhat mystified devotion, but a very genuine devotion—that the young showed to Sir Winston Churchill when he died. This, I think, will be carried on into future generations. I found an opportunity of visiting his grave at Bladon, and found mothers carrying small children past the grave; so I think it will be carried on into future generations. But it was very striking. Furthermore, I think the first young man past the bier, who had stayed up all night, was wearing a C.N.D. badge, which again showed the extraordinary power that real greatness can exercise over idealistic youth.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, was just as concerned—and nobody could be more concerned—about the welfare of the young, but he was possibly concerned

1233
more in another sense. He seemed more worried about them. I think I heard him say that they had, for the time being, at least, lost part of their self-respect; and there I would venture to differ, although it is one of these differences that no one can really prove either way.
ROWALLAN: My Lords, my intention was merely to say that of the very small minority which had caused the trouble.
LONGFORD: I am very glad to be corrected, because I was rather worried lest the noble Lord thought that this applied to youth as a whole, and that he was, of course, setting out to try and put it right.
ROWALLAN: Oh, no.
LONGFORD: It might have been so; but I am glad he was not as pessimistic as I feared.
My Lords, there are, of course, a number of difficulties about even attempting to give any satisfying reply to speeches which will, I hope, between them, collectively exercise a real influence in time to come. I should like to think—and I hope this is not egotistic because I initiated that debate; and there may be some veterans of it here to-day—that the debate which we held in this House in 1959 on the Youth Service was not only the first held in either House on the subject, but was not without some effect on the Albemarle Report that followed. But it is the speeches as a whole that matter.
The Government have been in office for only about four months, and I do not think that noble Lords will expect them in that time to have formulated new policies in this field, where it is notoriously difficult to give practical expression to one's ideals. But some concrete proposals have been put forward which, of course must one day be answered one way or the other. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in his very interesting speech—and we know that he is a veteran of these friendly struggles in the House on the subject of youth—suggested among other proposals that the age of youth service should be reduced to eleven. As he knows, organisations receive help even if some of their members are under the minimum age; but I would agree that help is at present concentrated on the older groups. I
1234
must ask his leave to allow that point, among others, to be considered.
It would be possible to deliver an entire lecture—in fact, more than one lecture—about the services which the young are now rendering: the service by youth, in addition to the service of youth. I think that a pretty good document could be put together from some of the illustrations that have been offered this afternoon. I am assured by the National Association of Youth Clubs, whose opinion I would accept as possessing a lot of authority in this field, that some kind of voluntary community service has now become accepted as a normal part of youth service and a normal part of most youth club programmes. That is going further than I should myself expect to be able to go; but if the National Association of Youth Clubs say this, it should be mentioned to the House. It shows a very encouraging trend.
We have been given a number of illustrations—Task Force, 1964; for instance. I certainly join in the great admiration for what I believe it is doing and for the inspirational force of the young man who started it. Then there is Voluntary Service Overseas, in which, of course, the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, has done a great deal of work; and we have heard a good deal about that this afternoon. The Community Service volunteers were mentioned, and we could have heard of other examples.
But I take an example from a different field. In the approved schools the boys are now given the opportunity of service. In the North-East some boys from an approved school worked in their leisure hours on the restoration of a harbour wall, and as a result were awarded the first prize in the Guinness Youth Awards that year. In the National Parks boys from approved schools have helped to demolish derelict buildings, clear debris and in other ways. In fact, one local newspaper wrote recently of one approved school, under the caption "A Helping Hand":
"Any fears that the school would be a liability have been dispelled over the years."
The school overlooks the town. Agitation which the introduction of the school caused has now completely died down, and there would apparently be a counter-agitation, an agitation of the opposite kind, if the school were moved. All that, of course, is very welcome news.

1235
I appreciate that there are other noble Lords who have spoken, notably the noble Lord, Lord Willis, the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Bristol, and others, who have stated strongly that this has not gone anything like far enough. Their views must be taken very seriously in the appropriate quarters. But, while I naturally hope that much more could be done (and I am sure that it will be done, as time passes), I feel that it is a question of how much energy and how much inspiration comes to our assistance here. I must not let loose a bee in my own bonnet about which I lectured last year to the National Association of Youth Clubs; but I believe (though it is perhaps best if we do not get too much involved in delinquency to-day) that the young can help the young, and particularly the young delinquent. By that I do not only mean by visiting the camps or the borstals or approved schools, valuable as that is, but actually helping the young when they come out of these institutions. From some points of view these are the most unrecoverable of all unrecoverable boys: they are further out than the unattached in the general sense. But I will not dwell on that, though I should like to give a large part of my own time to that idea of helping to bring together the orthodox young and the young delinquents.
My Lords, these introductory remarks have carried me well into the subject and lead me to a consideration of the request of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, that we should draw up and carry out a kind of National Plan for Youth. Some speakers were a little nervous about this, but once the question of nationalisation versus rationalisation was cleared up, I do not think there was very much anxiety about it—although the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, was perhaps pessimistic. May I say, in passing, that I feel that the noble Viscount was wrong in suggesting that the Welfare State could not be an ideal. I think that anyone who worked with the late Lord Beveridge, and millions who did not, can think of the Welfare State as an ideal. All these things depend on the way one regards them; but I would put it to the noble Viscount that the Welfare State can be an ideal, at any rate as considered by a large proportion of our population.
Turning to the question of a national plan—and I speak primarily for my own
1236
Party (although these are not Party issues, and I speak for my Party because I am more qualified to speak for them)—I would remind noble Lords that in 1959, just before the General Election, the Labour Party Youth Commission, set up by the late Hugh Gaitskell with the present Lord Chancellor as Chairman, produced a far-reaching Report. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, is aware, though other noble Lords may have forgotten, that one of the proposals of the Gardiner Commission was that the right to vote should be acquired at 18, instead of the age of 21, which was the point the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, brought up to-day. That has been left over until now; but, as the House is aware, a Speakers' Conference is expected shortly, and the proposal for voting at 18 will no doubt be among the proposals which will be considered by that Conference. The House will be well aware that I say this without any kind of commitment, one way or the other, on the issue. But it is certain to be considered by this impending Speakers' Conference.
I mentioned the Gardiner Report because in that Report the problem of youth was viewed as a whole. It was not just a Report on the Youth Services; it was a report on youth as a whole. The chapter headings, for example, were "Learning", "Playing", "Earning", "Marrying", "Living". They would have dealt with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brown. They dealt with points of that kind, and not only with those which are usually covered in these youth debates. But I would just mention, with some little pride, although I was not a member of the Commission (my wife was; but perhaps enough has been said about her to-day), that I was very much interested in that Commission; and among the chapter on "Living" the first among the principal recommendations was a suggestion that opportunities ought to be offered for voluntary community service. That was six years ago; and I should like noble Lords to be aware that we were keenly interested in it then.
If you take the thinking of the Labour Party, which no doubt will ultimately be expressed in the present Government's policy, and take it over the last few years, you can say that a starting point was to be found in the Gardiner Report. It

1237
could fairly be called a global approach, which is not the same thing as saying that there is an organised plan. The noble Lord may or may not consider that the Gardiner Report offers a plan, but at any rate it is an approach to youth as a whole.
I will not deal with the question of delinquency any further to-day, though, of course, I was Chairman of the Committee which produced the Labour Party Report on this matter last year. I should like to quote a sentence from the Introduction to that Report:
"Opportunities for young people to develop and use to the full all their latent talents and frustrated energies—mental as well as physical—are not only their right but also the community's greatest safeguard against hooliganism, vandalism and anti-social behaviour generally."
Again, we refer to youth as a whole. We do not regard youth as composed mainly of delinquents, nor suggest that we must separate the good and the bad. Our attitude is that we have to take them as they are, as a complete generation.
May I remind the House that the present policy of the Government for leisure and recreation is based on the Labour Party booklet, Leisure for Living. As your Lordships know, we now have Miss Jennie Lee and Mr. Denis Howell in the Department of Education, with special responsibilities for the arts and for sport. The former has recently produced an important White Paper and the latter has become Chairman of the newly formed Sports Development Council. I will not pursue this aspect, but we hope that a lot will be done for youth under these heads.
It may be rash, and rather foolish, to claim that, already, in the early days of the Labour Government, all these Governmental activities are perfectly coordinated. There are those who may wish to see closer co-operation than has ever existed in the past between the Home Office and the Ministry of Education, and there are many other ways in which one can think that more co-ordination is desirable. But I cannot say more to the noble Lord on the general question of coordination than that it seems to me one of the most important issues that has come up in the debate and one that must be studied as carefully as possible.
1238
I must now say a few words about the development of the Youth Service. I argued in 1959, in that first debate on the Youth Service, that the Youth Service had been shamefully neglected. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, considered that it had been scandalously neglected, but I do not think that the difference between "shameful" neglect and "scandalous" neglect is very great. This was a view shared by many speakers on that occasion, and I do not think that the Minister of the time dissented very strongly. I remember pointing out, as did other noble Lords, that only one penny was being spent on the youth service for every pound spent on education as a whole.
The publication of the Albemarle Report in 1960 will always be a landmark in the history of the Youth Service of this country; and lucky indeed were we, as a country, to find someone like Lady Albemarle to take the chair of that Committee. There was no doubt that there followed a revival of interest in the Youth Service. The Minister of Education of the day, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, as he is now, gave an admirable lead by becoming Chairman of the newly-created Youth Service Development Council, and there was a willingness to share in the improvement and expansion of the Service among both local authorities and voluntary bodies.
The money spent on the Youth Service, however one judged it absolutely, was considerably larger than anything we had seen previously. In 1957-58, the direct expenditure on the Youth Service by the Ministry and local authorities combined was a little over £2¾ million, or one penny in every pound spent on education. For 1964-65, direct expenditure on the Youth Service by the Department and authorities combined is likely to amount to £8-1 million, or nearly three times as much as in 1957-58. But, of course, expenditure on education generally has gone up a good deal meanwhile, so that does not mean that for every pound spent on education 3d. will be spent on the Youth Service. In fact, it means that 1-8d. in every pound spent on education will go on the Youth Service, which is still fairly good. I am not claiming for the present Government credit for this improvement, because in fact it was achieved in the time of our predecessors.

1239
We must hope that we shall do still better as time goes on.
Before the publication of the Albemarle Report in 1960, the total value of building for the Youth Service amounted to less than £1 million a year. For each of the last three years, the programme has amounted to about £4½ million worth of "starts". I do not know whether the figures are completely comparable, but I fancy that they are. So there has been a considerable expansion, though still on a small scale.
Various speakers have emphasised the need for youth leaders. The Albemarle Committee recommended that the number of full-time youth leaders should be increased from 700, the number in 1959, to 1,300 in 1966, and good progress is being made towards this target, though it must be said that it is still very small. But it is fair to point out that there has been a similar expansion in the number of part-time leaders. The Youth Service Development Council was set up in 1960 to meet the expanding needs of the Youth Service in ways which would attract young people who are not connected with any part of it, as well as to stimulate the work of those already in the field. At the end of last year, a Committee of the Development Council, under the chairmanship, I am glad to say, of Lady Albemarle, was appointed to re-examine the objectives of the Albemarle Report and to decide upon further developments. I think that this fact is of great importance.
It is clear that our concern, and, no doubt, the initiative taken during the time of the last Government, show that it is recognised that a turning point has come. And though it is difficult, almost unwise, to offer one's own opinion, even with a good deal of expert advice, I cannot help raising the question: Five years after the Albemarle Report, how does it seem things are going? Obviously, I cannot commit the Government to these estimates, though I have had a good deal of help. There is no doubt that in those years the need to experiment has been recognised much more widely. The rapid development of adventure centres has gone on faster than anyone expected, and there has been a welcome expansion of the voluntary community service, of service by youth
1240
to the community. Yet the overall picture of the Youth Service remains very patchy. The Ministry of Education asked authorities, after Albemarle, to draw up working plans for action over the next few years, and in doing so to consult fully with their voluntary partners at all stages. To-day, all that one can say is that the provision by local authorities is still incredibly varied, so that some young people in some parts of the country are having much greater opportunities than the young people in other parts. One must take note of that.
Just as varied is the co-operation, or lack of it, between statutory and voluntary organisations. In some places it is very good, but as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, pointed out feelingly—obviously, he had suffered from it—in some places this co-operation is quite inadequate. I am afraid that there is no getting round this fact. In short, one is bound to feel that the expansion and, to some extent, the enthusiasm that followed publication of the Albemarle Report have slowed down markedly of late. Perhaps that was bound to happen—but certainly there is little doubt that it has occurred. The first impetus has worn off and some new incentive to action is badly needed.
The Minister directly responsible for the Youth Service, Mr. Denis Howell, a gentleman with exceptional energy who cares passionately for these things, pointed the way in a powerful speech in another place on December 4. I commend his remarks to noble Lords and will not repeat them now. But the simple fact is—and this was brought out in the debate—that the proportion of our young people making use of the Youth Service is not noticeably different from what it was when the Albemarle Committee reported. It is about one-third now, and it was one-third then. It is a larger total number, but the same proportion of a larger figure. It is still only one-third, and no doubt a large number of the remaining two-thirds are engaged in some kind of voluntary activities. So one must not talk as if two-thirds were unattached in some regrettable sense. But if we take the Youth Service to-day, we must face the fact that only one-third are still using it.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in a speech which should be answered much

1241
more carefully than I could attempt to do now (and when I say "answered", I do not mean refuted—far from it—but should be followed up) pointed out that the people who need the service most are those who do not draw on it. That is a fact of which we must all be aware. We can take pride in the fact, however, that the number of young people staying on at school beyond the compulsory age, and therefore obtaining some education and discipline, has year after year exceeded all expectations. I took some trouble to obtain figures—they could probably be pulled to pieces, and in a sense I think it could be said that they are not so significant—and I should like to give them to your Lordships.
If you take the 15-year-olds, you find that a high proportion are staying on after the age of 15 because they cannot leave; but if you take the proportion of 15-year-olds who stay on longer than they need, you find it is 25 per cent. The proportion of 15-year-olds who were convicted last year of an indictable offence was about 1½ per cent. If one was being very clever, one would have to add those convicted of non-indictable offences, where the figures are not available, but may be of the same order.
But however you look at it, there are many more 15-year-olds who do something serious and show themselves more aware of responsibilities than was expected in many cases than those who can be called delinquent. And when one calls a child delinquent, it is rather harsh in the case of many of those of the 3 per cent. who have been convicted of some petty stealing. However you work it out, the figures are that about 25 per cent. stayed on at school longer than they need, and 1½ per cent. were convicted of indictable offences at 15. This does something to put into perspective the idea that our young people are slack, frivolous and non-social.
Speaking broadly, I would say that in spite of all the excellent work done, all the attempts which have been made to try to find new forms of youth service which are adapted to the unattached, we (and when I say "we" I mean all of us, the nation, Protestants and everybody else) have not been successful in spreading the appeal of the Service. This must be faced, in spite of the efforts made following the Albemarle Report. Clearly,
1242
there is no magic solution of this elusive problem, which certainly cuts across any Party division. I can only assure the House that this Government, in their various manifestations and in particular Mr. Howell, the Minister, who is so dedicated to his work, will redouble their exertions to reach the unattached, although after four months in office it is no good my pretending that we have discovered some extraordinary formula.
In past debates there has been some evidence of tension, and even conflict of ideas, between what used to be called the traditional clubs or associations—some of them bearing the most famous names, like the Boy Scouts, the Boys' Brigade, the Y.M.C.A. and others—and the informal or experimental movements. We are told that these latter have set out, and ought to be encouraged to set out, to allow more emphasis on pure enjoyment and less emphasis on doing good. I am afraid I am unrepentantly proud that anybody should be good enough to call me a "do-gooder"—a word brought out with a certain amount of ambiguous comment to-day. I agree entirely with the general approach to these matters of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. I do not think we should be frightened of setting out to do good to other people, or even of being accused of it. Anyway, I believe that the conflict between the traditional club and the novel, experimental club is unreal.
The most interesting piece of research on how to help the young which has been published for several years is a book called The Unattached, which the Minister recently welcomed at a Press conference. It has been referred to by several speakers to-day, and I know the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has studied it with great care. What is particularly significant in this book, in my eyes, is that it is the result of research promoted by the National Association of Youth Clubs, who might be supposed to represent the classical tradition. I would emphasise this to support my contention that there is no clash between the old and the new. The book puts forward many recommendations, some of them familiar, but above all it stresses the need of individual work with the individual. Some individual human being, coming to the work in a spirit of idealism, must set himself or herself up to help

1243
the individual unattached young men and women; and this work need not necessarily be done in a club or a group. This does not mean that I reject the idea of group therapy; but I will leave that with the noble Lord, Lord St. Just, for another occasion. If this contention is right, we must somehow find a way of training social workers who can work with the unattached, appeal to them and help them as individuals in this way. It is not just a question of going out to recruit them as members of clubs, even as members of novel and experimental clubs.
We shall need the social workers in the field. Some of them may go out from the clubs, and others may be organised differently. We want them to be able to reach out and help the unattached by guiding them, befriending them and understanding their whole lives. This concept of personal counselling gains a new and, I should think, lasting significance if one reads this book, The Unattached. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, in his interesting speech laid special emphasis on the need for personal contact which can take place in a club, but equally can take place elsewhere. This question of trying to reach the unattached as individuals seems to be the most striking of all the new challenges confronting the Youth Service.
Going back to the main theme of the debate, I agree with what has been said about finding many more opportunities of service for the young. I think—and here I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge—that in this matter we need a far more systematic national approach. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not follow up some of his other points, but in that respect, the question of how to draw together the young who are ready to do this work and the people who are ready to provide it, which is perhaps the core of the whole debate. I feel we can all agree that a much more systematic, national and determined approach is essential.
I have hardly mentioned, if I have mentioned, the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich, and yet I think for many of us that speech was as impressive as one
1244
could imagine. I will not try to put my own gloss on it in any way, but while he was speaking it occurred to me to ask: how do we set standards for the young? I am not talking of the act of befriending them, but how we set standards for them which they are likely to copy, even if they do not admit they are copying them. I realise that this must be done unobtrusively in many cases, whether in the home or in youth work. But there are also, of course, public standards which are set by all those who are in public life or, If not politicians, have an influence on public life.
I need not dwell on a painful matter, but I am bound to say that in my mind earlier to-day was that revolting programme about Merseyside which was put on by the B.B.C. on Saturday. I need not dwell on it, because the B.B.C. has now apologised, though I think the apology could have been framed more strongly. At any rate, they have apologised, so I will not pursue that matter any further. But it is a serious thing that the B.B.C. should be convicted of something of this sort. If anybody wants to know what was said, noble Lords are perfectly able to find out. If I had not the text of it I should have thought that it was quite incredible that such a programme could be put on. It could not have been put on by a particular producer in a fit of aberration; there must have been a number of people involved; and this is our public Corporation in which we take tremendous pride and to which we all owe a very great debt. I do not think there is any institution of which we are more proud, unless it be the Monarchy, Parliament or the Courts, than the B.B.C.; and that it should be associated with a programme of this sort, dirty beyond belief, leaves me staggered. But there is an apology and we must hope for better things.
This is far removed from the things in the mind of the right reverend Prelate, but it seems to me (and it is perhaps one part of something Lady Phillips said earlier) that there is a danger that, in our desire not to show ourselves "squares", even "noble squares", we are slow to criticise, to denounce, what is really evil when it appears. I think most of us—I speak for myself—are probably more frightened of being called prigs than of almost anything else. I am afraid this is a feeling which is possibly

1245
not confined to me, and not confined to one Party or another. If we want to criticise the young, then we must love them and set their standards instead of sinking to any of the lower standards which we might quite wrongly associate with them. If we want to love them truly, if we do love them truly, then we must set out to correct them, to help them, and to improve their lives; because I am sure myself that we have it in our power to help the younger generation to be not only richer people—that is quite likely—but better people than we have been ourselves. I think what the right reverend Prelate said is probably more helpful than anything else in this debate.
The questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, have not received positive Governmental answers, but I hope that when a certain time has elapsed he will return to them again. Whatever the showing of the Government may be, well or badly represented by myself, this has been a debate whose echoes will reverberate for a long time, and we are all deeply in the debt of the noble Lord who started it.
8.45 p.m.
ROBERTSON OAKRIDGE: My Lords, the chief and almost the only thing I want to do now is to express my very sincere thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I have enjoyed it thoroughly, and I hope they feel somewhat rewarded for the time and trouble they put into the preparation and the making of their speeches by the course of the debate itself. I hope, indeed, as the noble Earl the Leader of the House has said, that it will be a debate that will produce some lasting effects.
It would be inappropriate of me to single out any particular noble Lord, save perhaps two. The first is the noble Lord, Lord Baden-Powell, who made such an excellent speech. I attended the funeral of that great man, his grandfather, buried amid lovely African countryside during the war. It was a funeral that was attended by a seemingly unending procession of young people, drawn from all over the world, giving their homage to
1246
a man who had done perhaps more for youth than anybody else. I am sure that he would have enjoyed this debate, and would have been well satisfied with the contribution made to it by his grandson.
I am also particularly grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House, in the first place for taking upon himself the burden of replying to my Motion; secondly, for the nice things he was good enough to say about my own speech; thirdly, for clearing up for me some little misunderstandings to which my words seem to have given rise. If there still remains any noble Lord in the House who thinks that I want to nationalise the Youth Service, or to regimentalise or Governmentalise it, I hope he will refer to Hansard to find that I wish to do nothing of the sort.
There is only one other thing I want to say. I addressed my speech to the Government because it seemed to me that that is the normal function of a speech made in Parliament. But I was conscious all the time that I was working on it, and making it, that I was omitting the fact that there is a personal and individual responsibility here on all of us that we cannot get out of by passing it over, as it were, to the Government. I was very glad, therefore, that those who are really qualified to speak about this did so, notably the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Norwich, and also the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who reminded us not only that the young people have responsibilities, but that we have our own. And, surely, among them is to give generously of our affection, time, and indeed our money, to help the young people of to-day to form their own characters and to lead good lives. My Motion was not intended as a verdict on youth; it was intended to draw discussion. I hope your Lordships feel that it has done that, and I now ask for perimssion to withdraw it.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

WAR DAMAGE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE BILL [H.L.]
8.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Summerskill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The in the Chair.]
Clause 1:

National Assistance Board may join in certain legal proceedings
1.—(1) The National Assistance Board may join with any plaintiff (hereinafter called "the other plaintiff) in any proceedings whose purpose, or part of whose purpose, is the recovery or obtaining of any sum or sums of money the equivalent of which or of part of which the Board thinks itself likely, if such proceedings were not brought, to have to pay to the other plaintiff; and in particular may join as aforesaid with a mother in bringing affiliation proceedings.
(3) In any case in which such a direction as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection 1s in force, the Board may pay to the other plaintiff such sums as are ordered by the judgment to be paid to the Board, whether or not such payments are actually made to the Board.
DRUMALBYN DRUMALBYN had given Notice of his intention to move, in subsection (1), to omit "any plaintiff (hereinafter called ' the other plaintiff') in any" and to insert instead:
"a mother (hereinafter called the other plaintiff) in any affiliation".
The noble Lord said: If your Lordships are willing, I propose to take the first and second Amendments together. The effect of the first Amendment would be to limit the provisions of the Bill to mothers of illegitimate children. The second Amendment would go further, and would include also deserted married women and any other case that falls under Section 42 of the National Assistance Act which provides for the maintenance of those for whom there is an obligation to maintain. In my personal view, the deserted married woman is at least as deserving a case, if not more so, and often in fact a more needy one because she may well have more children to look after. A woman who has several
1248
children and who is separated from her husband may not be able to earn enough to keep them all and may be far more dependent on the money she gets from her husband than an unmarried mother may be. For that reason my own preference would be for the second Amendment.
When I drafted these Amendments I had in mind the speech that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, made on Second Reading, almost all of which was devoted to the unmarried mother; but then on re-reading it I found she said these words:
"The purpose of this Bill is to enable the National Assistance Board, where it thinks fit, and only where it thinks fit, to underwrite the affiliation or maintenance order of the unmarried mother, or the separated or divorced wife and her child, or children, as the case may be, at the time the order is made."—Vol. 263 (No. 41), col. 618. February 18, 1965.]
CHAIRMAN COMMITTEES: Does the noble Lord move the first Amendment?
DRUMALBYN: I do not move the first Amendment, but I move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("money") insert ("which are claimed from any person in respect of his liability under section 42 of the National Assistance Act 1948 and").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
SUMMERSKILL: I gather from what the noble Lord has said that he is prepared to support the claims of the unmarried mother and the divorced and separated wife and their children, but of course what he is anxious to do is to limit it to this case and not to include the other powers which he mentions the Bill would cover if perhaps somebody thought she would use it in these different ways. The noble Lord will recall that I said I would move an Amendment which included the Statutes I had in mind, and he will see that a subsequent Amendment covers this.
I had no ulterior motive in leaving the Bill in the form in which it stood and I do not wish to amend it now, for this reason. I was advised that perhaps in the future the National Assistance Board might be giving assistance to somebody who became involved in litigation in a case such as a running down case, which

1249
the noble Lord and my noble friend, Lord Mitchison, mentioned in winding-up the debate. Is there any harm in giving the National Assistance Board these powers? Perhaps in the future the National Assistance Board may think, as they are helping an individual who needs help very much in order to pursue what the Board feels is a just claim against somebody, that it would be advisable to join that person in the claim. So I would ask the noble Lord to have some sympathy in this case. It could be, of course, amended on the Report stage so that these powers were omitted, but I am advised that it does no harm to leave the other powers in, and indeed the National Assistance Board at some future time may be grateful for them. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment.
DRUMALBYN: For my part, I should rather like to hear what the Government have to say on this point before making up my mind on it. I quite see that it is possible that a case of this sort might arise. Normally the cases are so different in character, particularly in this respect, that when we are dealing with court orders under Sections 43 and 44 of the National Assistance Act, or affiliation proceedings and the like, they are framed in the form of weekly payments, whereas I take it that compensation in other cases is in a lump sum. They are so different in character that I will say to the noble Lady that if I were to withdraw my Amendment at this stage I should like her to consider the matter further to see whether it is not wise to take one step at a time, and to take a step which is clearly defined and is not likely to be confused with other types of payment.
MITCHISON: I would only say to the noble Lord and to my noble friend Lady Summerskill that I expressed my views and those of the Government fully on Second Reading. The House came to a contrary decision, and I think it would be inappropriate for me or the Government now to express any view in subsequent stages of the Bill. Therefore, I do not propose to do so.
SUMMERSKILL: May I say that I will certainly consider this if the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will leave the wording as it is now. If I think that it should be amended further along
1250
the lines he suggested, we could do it on Report stage.
DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to the noble Baroness. I must say I think the attitude of the Government on this matter is a rather extraordinary one. If I understand the noble Lord correctly, what he is virtually saying is this: "We have opposed this Bill in the first stage and we shall go on opposing it throughout, and therefore it is hardly worth discussing the matter now". That seems to be the only possible interpretation of his remarks. I have not been very long in your Lordships' House, but I have not come across that attitude before. However, if that is the attitude of the Government it is a little difficult to make up one's mind on the various Amendments that are proposed.
MITCHISON: I only rose out of courtesy to the noble Lord and I can only repeat that I have fully expressed my views, and those of the Government, at Second Reading and I have nothing to add at this stage.
DRUMALBYN: I take it your Lordships can only take note of that statement, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
CHAIRMAN COMMITTEES: I apprehend that if Amendment No. 3 were agreed to, I could not call No. 4.
SUMMERSKILL: It will be recalled that on Second Reading I said that I would amend the Bill in such a way that it would include all the Statutes that I had in mind when the Bill was drafted, and this Amendment fulfils that promise. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1. line 11, leave out from ("plaintiff") to end of line 12 and insert—
(" () Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, the Board may in particular join with the other plaintiff in proceedings brought under—

(a) The Matrimonial Causes Act 1950, so far as such proceedings relate to the support of the other plaintiff or of any child affected by the proceedings;

(b) The Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960;

(c) The Guardianship of Infants Acts 1885 and 1925;

1251

(d) The Affiliation Proceedings Act 1957, and to proceedings to recover arrears under any order or decree (whether made before or after the passing of this Act) made under any of the said Acts, or to vary or revive any such order or decree.")—(Baroness Summer-skill.)

DRUMALBYN: May I make one observation? That is that the Acts cited do not appear to apply to Scotland. I think if the noble Lady wants to carry this further she will have to inquire what are the relevant Parliamentary Acts in Scotland and incorporate those.
SUMMERSKILL: I will certainly do this.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.2 p.m.
SUMMERSKILL: The Committee will recall that on Second Reading I said that I thought the Assistance Board would find it easier to administer the proposals in this Bill if the Board were notified when proceedings were pending. I think the noble Lord agreed that this would be highly desirable, and this Amendment covers the proposal I then made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
(" () It shall be the duty of any court in which any proceedings mentioned in the foregoing subsection have been initiated to bring such proceedings to the notice of the Board.")—(Baroness Summerskill.)
COLVILLE CULROSS: I would add only one thing in view of the attitude taken by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison. When he came to this part of his speech on the Second Reading and referring to this explicit point, he said, if I remember his words aright, "I am sure I do not know what the Home Office would have to say about this". The noble Lord said this evening that he has expressed the Government's view in full upon every aspect of this Bill. Quite clearly, upon this particular aspect he did not express the Government's view, and therefore I do not know whether he would tell us what the Home Office do think.
MITCHISON: I always rise to this bait. I rise in courtesy to noble Lords, and I hope and believe that the courtesy will be reciprocal. I have nothing to add to what I said on Second Reading.
IDDESLEIGH: I feel a little puzzled. I supported Her Majesty's Government on Second Reading. I always like to support Her Majesty's Government if I can, whatever that Government may be. We were defeated, Her Majesty's Government and I. We have this Bill on our hands. Now we are having a Committee stage which involves a great many technically difficult points on which I, a non-expert, may have to vote. I feel that I am entitled to the guidance and help of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. I feel this attitude deplorably reminiscent of Achilles sulking in his tent.
MITCHISON: May I remind my noble friend that Achilles sulked in his tent before a successful battle? This Bill has yet to go to another place. While it remains here, I have nothing to add to what I said on Second Reading.
DRUMALBYN: I hope the noble Lord will be careful of his heel in this matter. I always raise points of drafting with the greatest diffidence, but there are two points here. One is a question of the intention of the noble Baroness, and the other is really a question of drafting. She has made it clear that she expects the notice to be given to the other plaintiff while the proceedings are pending. With all respect, I do not think that is quite what the words before us say; and, so far as I can see, it would be possible for notice to be given either before or after the proceedings. I may be wrong about that.
What I think is of rather more substance is this. Supposing the Board were to receive notice before the proceedings, I take it that she envisages that the Board would then get in touch with the other plaintiff, before the proceedings, to find out whether the other plaintiff in fact wanted the Board to be joined with her. It is not said anywhere in the Bill, but I take it that it is not her intention that the Board should join with the other plaintiff if the other plaintiff did not want them to be joined. I wonder if it would not be desirable, when the noble Baroness is considering this matter at the next stage, if that is her intention, to make that point quite clear in the Bill. Otherwise the Board might decide it was in their interest to join, whether the other plaintiff wished it or not. I say this

1253
because, of course, as I pointed out at the earlier stage in the Bill, Sections 43 and 44 of the National Assistance Act seemed to me to be devised primarily to protect the Exchequer, and therefore the National Assistance Board very often will bring the proceedings in lieu of what is here called "the other plaintiff" in order to protect the Exchequer—in order, that is, to ensure that the monies they will have to pay in any case to the plaintiff can be recovered by the Board. That being the case, the initiative obviously lies with the Board. But if it is her intention that the Board should not be joined unless the other plaintiff so wishes, then I think, with respect, she ought to express it in the Bill.
SUMMERSKILL: I am quite prepared to clarify this matter. The essential part about this Bill is that it is not mandatory. All this is done within the discretion of the Board, and obviously if they meet a woman who says "I wish you to take no action at all" they will accept that, because it is a permissive Bill. If the noble Lord thinks it is not quite clear I shall be only too happy to redraft it in a way of which he will approve on the Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
DRUMALBYN DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "pay to the other plaintiff such sums as are ordered by the judgment" and to insert instead:
"make to the other plaintiff such weekly payments as are ordered to be made".
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment and the next (for which this is a paving Amendment) is to ensure that the Board will not pay out more in the form of assistance to the other plaintiff than they received, where that excess would be more than they were entitled to pay under the National Assistance Act itself. I think that this is right. I think it would establish a remarkable principle if we were to say that the Exchequer—for this is what it amounts to—was to underwrite a failure on the part of the person responsible for the maintenance of a deserted wife or payments for an illegitimate child, to make those payments.
I think that what the noble Lady has in mind is largely that the amounts which the court may order to be paid would be in excess of the amounts which the National Assistance Board would be
1254
entitled to pay in accordance with their scales, plus, of course, the rent payments and the like. There is obviously no reason why they should not collect those payments and pass them on. Indeed, I understand that they do so at the present time where the whole of the payments are made to the Board, although in some cases the payments may be made in part to the Board and in part directly to the other plaintiff. I go on saying "the other plaintiff" for reasons of brevity. But where those payments are not made, and in those cases where they would be in excess of what the Board are entitled to pay under the National Assistance Act, I do not think it would be in any way right that the Board should make those payments—that is to say, payments which are in excess of what they are entitled to make in accordance with their scales.
It is perfectly right—and of course they would in any case do it—to make the payments that they are empowered to make in accordance with their scales; but to pay more would seem to me to introduce an entirely new principle, and one which I think ought to be much more closely explored than it was in the course of the Second Reading debate. For that reason, I think that where a person who is obliged to maintain fails to make the payments at all, the right course is to limit the payments to the amounts that the Board are entitled to make under the 1948 Act. I am sorry that this is rather complicated to express, but I hope I have made it plain. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, leave out from ("may") to ("to") in line 21 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
9.10 p.m.
SUMMERSKILL: I fully appreciate the noble Lord's point. Of course, we are dealing now with administrative details. May I tell the noble Lord what social workers have told me about the position to-day? For instance, if a man observes the order and pays in full an amount which is higher than the National Assistance scales, that can be paid to the Board and they will pay that higher amount. The noble Lord is now saying that in the event of the man's failing to pay, the woman must return to the National Assistance scales.
I would put this point to him. Just for the sake of argument, let us say that

1255
the man concerned is a tic-tac man. I take such an illustration for reasons which will be obvious later. He is a rather irresponsible person who pays for the first few weeks and then fails to pay. During the first few weeks the woman gets the full amount, but then she gets only the National Assistance scale. Then the Derby comes along and the man makes a large sum of money. He says, "I have treated this girl badly and I must make some redress." So he takes £50 or £60 from the sum of money he may have made—who knows, it may be a few hundred pounds—and pays out a lump sum to the Board. I am told that at the end of the year, or within a few months, the girl may get this extra money as a bonus. I am wondering whether the noble Lord's Amendments will permit this practice to continue. His Amendment reads
"make to the other plaintiff such weekly payments as are ordered to be made"
and
"the Board shall not pay the other plaintiff more than they are empowered to pay in accordance with the provisions of the National Assistance Act 1948."
It is only a matter of administration. If the noble Lord can assure me that by amending it in such a way, that is to say,
"make to the other plaintiff such weekly payments as are ordered to be made"
still allows this practice of giving the girl a bonus or lump sum at any time, I am quite prepared to accept it. This is pure administration. I think that the way this provision is administered now is excellent, and I should like it to continue.
DRUMALBYN: When the noble Lady started, I thought she meant that the question whether the Exchequer should pay more than the 1948 Act permits was only a matter of minor administrative detail; but it seems to me to be a matter of rather major principle. From what she then said, it appears that she accepts that they should not pay more in the circumstances which I envisage. I am not absolutely certain whether my Amendment as drafted would permit of back payments being made by the Board (there was not any intention to stop that) where the amount is paid retrospectively. Obviously they
1256
would recoup themselves first for the back payments, and then anything over would be paid, as is done at present, in the form, as it were, of a bonus. It would in fact be the excess over the National Assistance payments which was still due. I should not have thought this Amendment prevented that from being done, but I shall certainly have another look at it to see whether or not it would. If the noble Lady would prefer me to withdraw the Amendment and to have another look at it, I will do so. If she prefers to accept it now, we can have another look at it together.
COLVILLE CULROSS: If I may add one point, I am a little worried about the major point of principle to which my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has drawn attention. As I understood the Bill in its original form, it seemed to me that it would have been possible for the National Assistance Board, under the then drafting, to depart in two ways from the principle of the National Assistance Act, 1948. In the first place, they would have been able, at their discretion, to pay more than the scale to a woman as a result of the court's ordering that a certain sum should be paid to them in turn, but despite the fact that it was not paid by the man who was required by the court to pay it. That was the first principle. The second principle which I thought was embodied in the Bill was that the Board would be entitled to pay that money to the woman at their discretion, whether or not she was in full-time employment.
I should imagine that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn would object to both of those principles. He has not at the moment said—and I do not know whether or not it is the case—that he envisages the situation being simply that the same system as is now in operation would go on: that the woman would get her money from the National Assistance Board only if she was not in full-time employment, and that even if she did get that money she would then get only so much of the bonuses as might be paid in. Therefore, both the principles which I thought were in the Bill seem to have been abandoned, and the noble Lady seems content that they should be so abandoned. In case this is ever followed up later, I should be grateful if the noble Lady could give her view on both those subjects. Perhaps

1257
it is also relevant to the next Amendment which stands in her name.
SUMMERSKILL: The noble Viscount knows that if I could have persuaded the Board to pay the full amount of the order to a woman, irrespective of the amount, although it is much more than the Assistance rate, I should have been only too pleased. But I know the world I am dealing with very well, and to me it seemed impracticable in a case such as that of a tic-tac man. At the time when the order is made he may appear to be very prosperous and the court may decide that he could pay her, say, for the sake of argument, £15 a week. But if the amount is paid for two weeks, and he then disappears, according to what the noble Lord has said, and according to what might be ideal, the Board would be expected to continue that £15 a week irrespective of the fact that they could not find him or get a return. Then, let us say that next door in a block of flats there is another woman who is separated, and whose maintenance has been fixed at a little above the National Assistance Rate, but where, again, the man has disappeared. It seemed to me grossly unfair that one woman should be getting £15 a week from the National Assistance Board, while the woman next door was getting only just above the National Assistance rate.
I am fully aware that in introducing legislation there is one principle which must always be observed, and that is that it must be enforceable. Legislation is not good legislation if it cannot be applied to the circumstances which are envisaged, and I thought that conditions of that kind were something which the public could not accept. Therefore, I am quite prepared at this stage to get some bite of the cherry but not all of it. If the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment we can discuss it together.
DRUMALBYN: If that is the noble Lady's wish, I willingly beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
9.22 p.m.
SUMMERSKILL SUMMERSKILL moved, after Clause 1, to insert as a new clause:
Payments for children of persons fully employed 1948, c. 29
". Notwithstanding anything in section 9 of the National Assistance Act 1948 (which prohibits the Board from paying assistance grants to persons in full-time employment) section 1 of this Act shall apply to any case in which the other plaintiff is in full-time employment, with the substitution, in subsection (1) of the said section 1, for the words 'the equivalent of which or of part of which the Board thinks itself likely, if such proceedings were not brought, to have to pay to the other plaintiff' of the words ' for the support of any child affected by any such proceeding as is mentioned in the next following subsection'."
The noble Baroness said: I have dared to put a new clause down on the Order Paper for this reason. It seemed to me during the Second Reading of the Bill that the whole House was sympathetic with the lot of the child. Noble Lords may not necessarily have been sympathetic with the lot of the unmarried mother, the divorced wife or the separated wife, but I think there was no doubt that (he whole House felt that the child, whatever its background, should be cared for.
The position to-day, in the case of the unmarried mother, is that if she has a full-time job (and I would remind your Lordships that women's jobs are not very well paid, whatever they may be), and the affiliation order which she has had made in her favour is not honoured, she finds herself having to support two, herself and her child, on the one wage. When the affiliation order was being honoured she managed. For herself and her baby she had her wage and the amount which she obtained from the affiliation order—and I would remind your Lordships that the maximum amount is £2 10s. But if the affiliation order is no longer observed by the man, the girl is left with a small wage for two. She knows that if she goes to the National Assistance Board she can get more for herself and her child than she is earning. Therefore, her advisers and friends say, "Go to the National Assistance Board".
But in order to get that adequate sum she has to give up her full-time job. This seems to me quite stupid, and not in the interests of the community; because, having given up her full-time job, she

1259
then has to establish her right to National Assistance. This takes time but, finally, she gets her National Assistance for herself and her child. Then she says to herself, "Why trouble to go back to a full time job? I will stay on National Assistance indefinitely. Why trouble to get another job?" But if she had tried she might have got a job at a rate of pay higher than the amount that she was getting from the National Assistance Board. But our rules and regulations say to her, "No, you can sit back and take National Assistance. Do not trouble." That seems to me rather absurd.
I am not asking that this woman should be given National Assistance for herself and her child in addition to the wages she is earning. What I am asking is that we should allow her to keep her full-time job but that the National Assistance Board should pay her so much for the child. In the end, of course, this would certainly be in the interests of the Treasury, because this would encourage the woman to work in her own job for herself, though at the same time her wage would be supplemented by the amount of the Assistance Board scale. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Baroness Summerskill.)
DRUMALBYN: I think the noble Lady has made her intention quite clear, although I am not absolutely certain on one point. Her last words were that the National Assistance Board would pay the amount of the National Assistance Board scale for the child; but, if the court order was lower than that, I take it that the amount the National Assistance Board would then pay would be the court order and not the National Assistance Board scale.
SUMMERSKILL: Yes.
DRUMALBYN: There is a very difficult question of principle here, and I should have thought that the better way to deal with this would be to get the Board to make regulations to cover the point. Under Section 5 of the National Assistance Act, the Board are empowered to make different provisions for different classes of persons. This is
1260
the section which deals with the scales for the assessment of need. If the Board find or believe that there is a real need for this, then I should have thought that the correct course would be for them to make regulations to meet that need, treating mothers of illegitimate children, or the illegitimate children themselves, as special cases.
At the moment I believe the only cases that are treated specially are those of blind and tuberculous persons. These, again, are cases where needs are assessed differently. But at the present time it seems quite clear under Section 9 that a person who is in full-time employment cannot get assistance from the Board; and the noble Lady says, as I understand the Amendment, that, notwithstanding anything in that section, the illegitimate child is to get the amount of the court order.
SUMMERSKILL: Yes.
DRUMALBYN: Again, this is in a sense rather odd, because the court order, I understand, is assessed not only in relation to the applicant's need but also in relation to what the defendant is able to pay. So that there is here a departure from uniformity in the assessment of need. It means, in a sense, that the National Assistance Board will be making discretionary payments of varying amounts not related to need but related to the court order. I think this is a difficult question of principle. I personally consider that the House has expressed its view on the general principle here, and that this was an essential part of it; but I am bound to express my view once again that I do not think this is the right way to do it.
COLVILLE CULROSS: I hope that the noble Lady will not take the course my noble friend has suggested, because I cannot conceive that the National Assistance Board have powers under Section 5 of the 1948 Act to make regulations which would allow the Board to pay any sum to anybody who was in full-time employment—because, if they did so, it would be in direct contravention of the provisions of Section 9.
As I understand the noble Lady's new clause, the Board, despite the anomalies which would occur, and which my noble friend has pointed out, would be able, for the very good reason, with which I

1261
heartily agree, given by the noble Lady, to depart from the restriction in Section 9 of the 1948 Act. They would be able to give that little boost to the mother's earnings which would enable her to stay independent and keep her child and not to fall a complete charge on the community and on the Treasury. I do not believe this could be done under the 1948 Act; and, as I understand it, it is the essence of the noble Lady's Amendment that there should be a new departure from the principles of this Act. I believe that this House has already agreed that this is so; and I hope the noble Lady will persevere with her Amendment, which I heartily support.
IDDESLEIGH: May I point out another complexity which has not been mentioned? Under the 1963 Children and Young Persons Act, a children's committee is entitled to spend public money to keep a family together. It is not only a question of what the National Assistance Board does or what the woman earns. The question comes up at the case committee of a children's committee as to whether it is worth our while—we have the power to do it—to pay money to the mother in order that she may keep her child with her; and that introduces another complexity into the question. I am beginning to feel that there is a great deal to be said for the Longford Report, which proposes that there should be a Family Service devoted entirely to the welfare of the family. I use this opportunity to call attention to that great need. I am quite at sea with the modern 1963 Act casework. I never know whether I am doing the work of a children's committee or a National Assistance Committee or what. I think
1262
the sooner the whole thing is thought out and clarified, the better.
SUMMERSKILL: May I make a final point to the noble Lord? He said it would be rather curious that the amount we shall be giving to the unmarried mother may vary, because the amount depends on the father's income and the amount which the court originally ordered. She had managed with that amount. If you are earning only £7 or £8 a week the extra £1 or 25s. (and the maximum is £2 10s.) means a great deal. I do not think we can argue, therefore, that the amount which a woman might have would vary. My point is that in order to get the National Assistance grant she has been compelled to give up her job; and if we can so arrange matters that she can keep her job and, by so doing, help to keep herself and her child, with the little extra help for the child which the National Assistance Board gives her, I think it would be socially desirable, not to mention very much in the interests of the Treasury; and I hope the noble Lord will accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

BARCLAYS BANK D.C.O. BILL [H.L.] WALTON AND WEYBRIDGE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
Reported, without Amendment.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before ten o'clock.