Sitting of 11 November 1965

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

RHODESIA
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I should like to make a statement on Rhodesia.
The House will have heard with deep sadness of the illegal declaration of independence by the men who until that declaration constituted the Government of Rhodesia.
The House is aware from statements made in this Chamber by the previous British Government and the present one of the long record of discussions aimed at agreement on independence to be conferred by the only legal authority capable of granting independence, by this Parliament acting on legislation introduced by the British Government. I do not intend to retrace the course of those negotiations which have now continued over a period of three years, but I must repeat that at every point over those three years successive British Governments have warned the Rhodesians in the strongest terms that any so-called declaration of independence not carrying with it the authority of the British Parliament would be illegal and invalid.
Before informing the House of the consequences that follow this illegal act, I think that hon. Members will wish me to say something of the discussions between the British Government and the then Rhodesian Government since I last reported to the House on Tuesday.
On Tuesday, and again yesterday, my colleagues and I had a series of meetings with Sir Hugh Beadle, then and now Rhodesia's Chief Justice. In his capacity as Chairman-designate of the Royal Commission he discussed with us every aspect of the working of that Commission which could affect the issues still in dispute
350
between the two Governments. He returned to Rhodesia overnight authorised to explain to Mr. Smith and his colleagues the precise position of Her Majesty's Government on all these questions, including one to which the House attaches great importance, the effect on the working of the Royal Commission of the state of emergency and the steps that would have to be taken to ensure that the Royal Commission would still be in a position, despite the state of emergency and the regulations made under it, to see everyone it needed to see and to obtain the views of the Rhodesian people as a whole on the basis of a free expression of opinion, without restriction or intimidation from any quarter.
Yesterday afternoon I sent a detailed message to Mr. Smith explaining our position on all the outstanding items, but adding that Sir Hugh Beadle would be in a position to give further clarification on every point, including the problem of the interim report which I have referred to in earlier statements in this House. On the last outstanding point which held up agreement, namely, the extent to which each Government would give an assurance in advance that they would accept a unanimous report from the Commission, we made a proposal to the Rhodesian Government which would fully meet every demand they had made.
We asked them the following question, and I quote:
"If the United Kingdom Government undertook to commend to Parliament— whose sovereign rights must be reserved —a unanimous report by the Royal Commission to the effect that the 1961 Constitution was acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole as a basis for independence, would the Rhodesian Government give a corresponding undertaking that if the Royal Commission submitted a unanimous report to the effect that the 1961 Constitution was not acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole as a basis for independence they would abandon their claim in this respect and would agree that a Royal Commission should then proceed to devise a new constitution for Rhodesia which would give effect to the five principles enunciated by the United Kingdom Government in their statement of 9th October, 1965, and would be acceptable to the people of

351
Rhodesia as a whole as a basis for independence?"
I must tell the House that what was proposed in that message to Mr. Smith —which he was in a position to report to his Cabinet at 8 o'clock last night—met every requirement to which he had referred in messages, formal and informal, which I had received from him.
Evidence was nevertheless accumulating throughout yesterday that, despite this, the then Rhodesian Government were hell-bent on illegal and self-destroying action. So throughout the small hours I was in touch with Salisbury, with Her Majesty's High Commissioner, and I arranged an early morning telephone call to Mr. Smith himself which took place several hours before the illegal declaration. I began by telling him that there were no outstanding points between us, and I said that I was sending a senior Minister to Salisbury empowered to sign, on behalf of the British Government, an agreed minute recording the basis on which the Royal Commission could be set up this week and start its work.
I must tell the House that in that conversation I went through every single item of dispute between the two Governments concerning the establishment of the Royal Commission. I spelt out yet again our attitude on them. I proved beyond any possible reasonable doubt that every point they had made was fully dealt with on terms that must be satisfactory to them. Every point was discussed in that telephone conversation, and by the end of the conversation he had no further queries and no further points to raise. There was no suggestion that there was anything still in doubt. Yet after this he went on to say that the position of the two Governments was irreconcilable. This is what he said to me. I am bound to say that when I heard this I told him that if anybody could now say that this position was irreconcilable and justified illegal action I thought they wanted their heads examining, or they must have a death wish on them.
Mr. Smith, who gave me no indication that a decision to take illegal action had been taken, went on to say that his Government were then—while I was speaking to him—in the midst of discussing this, and he took it that it would not be right
352
of him if he did not tell me that the feeling seemed to be that it looked as though this thing had gone too far.
I will not at this stage inflict on the House the comments that I made on this statement, on Mr. Smith and on his colleagues. But I should add that Mr. Smith went on to say, in a perfectly frank and— if I may use the phrase in the circumstances—almost friendly conversation, that his Cabinet and he himself regretted that this had happened at this stage because, he said, "You find yourself"—that is me —" in the position that has gone too far not because of actions on your part." I am glad to feel that Mr. Smith, at any rate, agrees with the claim I made to the House on my return from Salisbury that I had done everything any man could do to avert this disaster. He was saying that the action they were taking was not being taken because of any action on my part.
I am bound to tell the House that I was speaking in the early hours of this morning to a confused and unhappy man. He has been, in these past weeks, under intolerable pressures from some of his colleagues and from the unreasoning extremists of the Rhodesian Front; but it must not be forgotten that it was Mr. Smith who called the Rhodesian Front into existence.
I ended the telephone conversation with a heavy heart feeling that reason had fled the scene and that emotions—unreasoning racialist emotions at that—had taken command regardless of the consequences for Rhodesia, for Africa and for the world.
The Government conceive it as their duty to publish all the exchanges that we and the previous Government have had with the Rhodesian Government over these past months and, indeed, longer. When these exchanges are published, I will call the House to witness that this Government—as did their predecessors— have done everything in our power to avert this disaster, and to witness that even as this day dawned—as today dawned less than four hours before this illegal declaration—we had created a situation settling every difference between the two Governments, providing for the immediate dispatch of a senior Minister to proceed to Salisbury, who, as I have said, was empowered to sign an agreed minute creating the conditions in which the Royal Commission could have been appointed in this very week.

353
I still find it incredible—and the House, when it reads the records, will find it incredible—that this action should have taken place this morning. But, as I have previously warned the House, the differences between us have not been differences of legal drafting; they have not been the differences of normal political interchange. They have represented a deep difference of philosophy—a gulf that we now know could never be bridged because it was a gulf covering all the differences between different worlds and different centuries. At every point when agreement was near we were told that our positions were irreconcilable. This was because there were men in the then Rhodesian Cabinet who were determined at all costs that agreement should not be reached. I challenged Mr. Smith today, as I did—and my right hon. Friends will confirm this—in my last meeting in Salisbury, with this fact, and to his credit Mr. Smith had the honesty to admit it in my telephone conversation this morning.
I felt the House was entitled to this frank assessment of the last stages of these discussions. Now I must inform the House of the action that has been taken, the action that is being taken, and,-that will be taken—some of it subject to the necessary powers being given by Parliament to the Government.
I repeat that the British Government condemn the purported declaration of Independence by the former Government of Rhodesia as an illegal act and one which is ineffective in law. It is an act of rebellion against the Crown and against the Constitution as by law established, and actions taken to give effect to it will be treasonable. The Governor, in pursuance of the authority vested in him by Her Majesty The Queen, has today informed the Prime Minister and other Ministers of the Rhodesian Government that they cease to hold office. They are now private persons and can exercise no legal authority in Rhodesia.
The British Government wish to make it clear that it is the duty of all British subjects in Rhodesia, including all citizens of Rhodesia, to remain loyal to The Queen and to the law of the land, and to recognise the continuing authority and responsibility for Rhodesia of the Government of the United Kingdom.
354
The British Government are in close touch with all other Commonwealth Governments about the consequences of this illegal act and about the measures we should take. The British Government will, of course, have no dealings with the rebel regime. The British High Commissioner is being withdrawn and the Southern Rhodesian High Commissioner in London has been asked to leave. Export of arms, including spares, have, of course, been stopped. All British aid will cease. Rhodesia has been removed from the sterling area. Special exchange control restrictions will be applied. Exports of United Kingdom capital to Rhodesia will not be allowed. Rhodesia will no longer be allowed access to the London capital market.
Our Export Credits Guarantee Department will give no further cover for exports to Rhodesia. The Ottawa Agreement of 1932 which governs our trading relations with Rhodesia is suspended. Rhodesia will be suspended forthwith from the Commonwealth Preference Area and her goods will no longer receive preferential treatment on entering the United Kingdom. There will be a ban on further purchases of tobacco from Southern Rhodesia. We propose to suspend the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement in its relation to Rhodesia and to ban further purchases of Rhodesian sugar. We shall not recognise passports issued or renewed by the illegal Southern Rhodesian regime. A further statement will be made on citizenship questions.
We shall bring before Parliament on Monday a general Enabling Bill to deal with this situation. It will, first of all, declare that Rhodesia remains part of Her Majesty's Dominions and that the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom continue to have responsibility for it. It will go on to give power to make Orders in Council, to enable us to carry through the policy I have stated, and there will be a Government statement tomorrow giving more details of the action we would propose if Parliament agrees to the Bill. I am sorry it is not ready at the moment, for reasons the House will understand.
Lord Caradon, British permanent representative of the United Nations, is asking the President of the Security Council to call an early meeting to consider the situation—
Hon. Members: Why?
The Prime Minister: Why? Because if we do not somebody else will. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear."]
Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: That is nonsense.
The Prime Minister: It is the duty of Her Majesty's Government—[Interruption.]
An Hon. Member: Loyal Opposition!
The Prime Minister: It is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to keep control of this situation. For that reason, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be leaving for New York this evening.
It is the duty of everyone owing allegiance to the Crown in Rhodesia or elsewhere to refrain from all acts which would assist the illegal régime to continue in their rebellion against the Crown. Members of the armed forces and the police in Southern Rhodesia should refrain from taking up arms in support of the illegal regime, and from doing anything which will help them to pursue their unlawful courses. Public servants in Rhodesia should not do any work for the illegal régime which would tend to further the success of the rebellion. It is the duty of all private citizens owing allegiance to the Crown, wherever they may be, in Rhodesia or outside, to refrain from acts which will give support to the illegal regime.
The House will have an opportunity of further debate when the Southern Rhodesia Bill comes before the House next week. But I understand also that discussions are proceeding through the usual channels about a possible special debate on Rhodesia tomorrow instead of the wider intended debate on defence and foreign affairs. For my part, I will reserve further comment until we debate these matters more fully.
But I cannot end this statement about a problem with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other colleagues and myself have been so intimately concerned for so long without expressing the deep sense of tragedy which each of us feels—personal tragedy, but not only personal tragedy. It is a tragedy affecting a great people, including
356
many thousands who have made their homes there and who are plunged into a maelstrom not of their own making, and of millions more who are denied the inalienable human right of self-expression and self-determination.
Heaven knows what crimes will be committed against the concept of the rule of law and of human freedom for which this House has always stood: this progressive unfolding of the regulations which have been signed under the state of emergency—and there are more to come—are an ominous warning.
The illegal régime which now claims power and authority in Rhodesia marked its usurpation of authority with a proclamation which borrowed for the purposes of small and frightened men the words of one of the historic documents of human freedom, even to the point of appropriating the historic reference to "a respect for the opinions of mankind".
I would repeat to them and to the Rhodesian people as a whole the words I used in my farewell statement on leaving Salisbury, which also quoted these words:
"When, nearly two centuries ago, the American States declared their independence from a British Government, which, to say the least, was remote, oppressive and unimaginative, they insisted that their actions be inspired by ' a proper respect for the opinions of mankind '. Nor were they alone in the world. Could anyone say that either of these things would be true of a Rhodesia which chose illegally to claim its independence?"
It would be unworthy of this Government, of any British Government, as it would be unworthy of this House, to allow this challenge, offensive as it is to all our cherished traditions, and to the wider aspirations of the whole of mankind, to go unanswered.
We did not seek this challenge. The House will concede that we did everything in our power to avoid it, but now it has been made, then, with whatever sadness, we shall face this challenge with resolution and determination. Whatever measures the Government, with the support of this House, judge are needed to restore Rhodesia to the rule of law, to allegiance to the Crown, these measures will be taken. And I am confident that we shall have not only the support of this House, not only the support of the nations of the world, but we shall have the clear and decisive verdict of history.
Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware how deeply we on this side of the House also deplore the unilateral declaration of independence by the former Government of Rhodesia today, with what distress we heard this news and with what feeling we share what he described as the tragedy of the present situation? I will not, nor I am sure will any right hon. or hon. Member of the House, today wish to say anything which could add to the dangers of the present situation.
We are grateful to the Prime Minister for the account he has given of the last stages of the discussions. This is not the time to go into them, but we would agree with him that, in view of the many questions which arise as a result of his statement and the possibility of the Enabling Bill, it would be convenient for the House to debate this matter before the Bill itself is debated. We would be prepared to offer to change the business of the House tomorrow from foreign affairs to a debate on Rhodesia, if that is convenient to the right hon. Gentleman, in the hope that we might discuss foreign affairs a little later.
May I put two or three major questions to the Prime Minister? It has been reported from Salisbury that the Governor, in addition to dismissing the Ministers, has also suspended the Constitution. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any truth in this matter? Secondly, by bringing the matter before the United Nations, could the Prime Minister say whether his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will continue to emphasise the position which has always been maintained so far—that this continues to be a British responsibility? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Thirdly, as far as the individual proposals are concerned for action which the Prime Minister has described in some detail, is he aware that we would wish to examine each of these on its merits? We understand, of course, that some flow from the present situation of an illegal Government and that some are the decision of the Government. In examining them on their merits, we would do so against the criterion—what is the purpose of the Government's policy in taking each of these actions and the extent to which—[Interruption.] It is essential in this critical situation that we in this House
358
should be clear what is the purpose of the policy being pursued. We hope that it will be possible for the Government to do this tomorrow and in the debate on the Enabling Bill.
Finally, is the Prime Minister aware —as I am sure the whole House is—of the importance at this time, in every action which is taken and every word which is spoken, of maintaining our own national unity and thus helping to maintain the unity of the Commonwealth, to which we hope that at some future date an independent Rhodesia will be able to return?
The Prime Minister: Although the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough not to mention this, I apologise for the fact that for the second time this week I was unable to observe the usual courtesies with this statement. He will understand why. I could not start dictating what I have just said until after 1.30 p.m., for reasons which he knows.
I welcome the fact that he has lent his voice and that of his party to deploring and condemning this illegal action. I agree with what he said about the paramount need to preserve national unity in dealing with this tragedy—it is a tragedy not only for Rhodesia but for all of us— as a first step towards a united Commonwealth in which—I absolutely agree with his words—we hope that a free Rhodesia will play a very important part.
We have certainly had no confirmation that the Constitution has been suspended. As far as I am aware, the Governor has no power whatever to suspend the Constitution. The Constitution was conferred on Rhodesia by an Act of this Parliament. It can be amended, so far as certain parts of it are concerned, only by further Acts of this Parliament, and certainly in the present situation that would be required. I hope to say a little more about the purpose of the Enabling Bill in relation to the Constitution when I make a fuller statement, I hope, tomorrow.
But while certain amendments may be necessary if we are to protect the necessary rights of the Crown in Rhodesia, and while we could take power to suspend the Constitution, I want to make it clear that it is not possible to take away the Constitution of Rhodesia and to replace it with a new Constitution except by separate and specific legislation passed by this Parliament. Indeed, the first

359
purpose of the Enabling Bill will not be to enable us to create a new Constitution for Rhodesia. I hope that that is clear.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the Foreign Secretary is going to New York. I can certainly confirm that my right hon. Friend will emphasise the position in the United Nations that Rhodesia is a British responsibility. Indeed, in one sense this is another part of the tragedy of the situation. It is more of a British responsibility today than it was yesterday, because now the responsibility lies directly on this country and on this House, as no other House and certainly no other Government will have any legal right to exercise power in Rhodesia. But the extent to which what has happened in Rhodesia will create a difficult situation in Africa and the Commonwealth makes it a matter of world concern, and those who deny this are burying their heads in the sand. It is only by our being able to prove to the United Nations that we are ourselves taking our responsibilities—and this will need the fullest support of the whole House—that we can stop other people from engaging on perhaps dangerous courses of action which we should all regret.
The right hon. Gentleman said that those measures which I have mentioned today and other measures which will follow should be examined on their merits and that the criterion in this examination should be the purpose which we all have in mind. That is absolutely right and absolutely fair. Our purpose is not punitive. We do not approach this tragic situation in a mood of recrimination. Our purpose is to restore a situation in Rhodesia in which there can be untrammelled loyalty and allegiance to the Crown and in which there can be, within whatever rules this House lays down, a free Government of Rhodesia acting in the interests of the people of Rhodesia as a whole. There may be different views about how that can be brought about in this difficult situation. There may be different views about the severity with which measures should be applied and how quickly to reach that situation. There will be no difference in the House, I am sure, about the fact that it is our duty, and that we have as a House to perform
360
that duty by discussing the basis on which we can restore the rule of law, legal Government and freedom in Rhodesia.
Mr. Grimond: May we express our deep regret at this deplorable and illegal act by the late Government of Rhodesia? May we also express our sympathy and support for the Governor and for all those who remain loyal to their oaths in Rhodesia? May we say that we fully support those measures which are proposed by Her Majesty's Government. We understand that many of them will come into operation forthwith and we understand that they are taken, as is the clear duty of the Government and the House, in defence of the rule of law and the ideals of a multi-racial Commonwealth. May I ask the Prime Minister two questions? Does he intend to take any specific steps about oil supplies? Secondly, while acknowledging that this is a British responsibility, if it is to be raised at the United Nations, as he said, will other nations be asked to support us in the economic steps which he has outlined?
The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the Governor, who is known to many of us in all parts of the House. He is one of the greatest of Rhodesians, and he has gone through a very critical time with great courage and great wisdom in these months. When my colleagues and I left Rhodesia I felt a very special touch of sadness in leaving His Excellency, and I hope that I am not betraying any personal secrets when I say that he was in tears when we left. I think that he at any rate knew what was coming, and I am sure that the thoughts and prayers of the whole House will be with the Governor and Lady Gibbs, not only in his capacity as representative of the Crown, but as a very great statesman who will go through a very, very difficult time.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about oil supplies. We have no proposals to make on this subject. As I have said before, I think that the solution of this problem is not one to be dealt with by military intervention unless, of course, our troops are asked for to preserve law and order and to avert a tragic action, subversion, murder and so on. But we do not contemplate, as I have made very clear, any national action, and may I say

361
any international action, for the purpose of coercing even the illegal Government of Rhodesia into a constitutional posture.
The right hon. Gentleman's question reminds me of something which I should have said about the United Nations. We intend to inform the United Nations of our responsibilities and of the measures which we are taking, and we shall ask for the support of other countries in those economic measures, because it is obvious that some of them could be frustrated if there were no general support for them. But it must be understood that it will not be necessary for us to ask. Indeed, anyone who has studied the attitude of the United Nations on the Rhodesian question and on the South African question will know that it will be a question —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I hope that hon. Members will try, however difficult, to be worthy of this situation which we face. If not, there are other places in the building to which they could repair while this debate is going on. I think that the problem will be to avert excessive action by the United Nations. As for the economic sanctions, I think that it will be right for us to concentrate on trying to get other nations to follow our lead rather than seeing them get too far ahead of us.
Mr. John Hynd: May I assure my right hon. Friend, on behalf of the constituents I represent, that they all regret the situation in which we find ourselves and applaud the action which has been taken by Her Majesty's Government? May I, therefore, ask two questions? First, in regard to the position of the Governor, what is his present statutory position in view of the present situation? Secondly, in the interests of the commercial concerns which are involved, what action is being taken in regard to the ships which are now on their way from Rhodesia to this country?
The Prime Minister: As to the position of the Governor, he is the Governor of Rhodesia, acting in the name of The Queen. I want to make it quite clear that we shall not recognise any orders which he has been forced to sign, conferring his powers on any other people, private persons or whoever they might be. As to the civil servants concerned, we all recognise the cruel dilemma which many people in Rhodesia will be facing.
362
It is our view—as I have said; and I believe that the Governor has made this statement in Rhodesia—that it is the duty of public servants to carry on with their jobs, to help to maintain law and order, certainly the judges and the police, at this critical time but that they must themselves be the judges of any possible action which they might be asked to take and which would be illegal in itself or illegal in the sense of furthering this rebellious act. I hope that those who are concerned with, say, hospital administration, education and the normal functioning of Government will feel able to carry on; unless and until they reach a point when their consciences tell them that they cannot.
To answer the question about ships on their way towards this country, I do not see that any problem arises there from the point of view of goods and cargoes due to be landed, but I think that we had better wait until after we have had a chance to debate some of the orders which have been or which will be made.
Mr. Henry Clark: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will take no action and will make no statement which would in any way encourage or be thought to encourage civil strife or hostilities in Rhodesia? [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I hope that it will be recognised that throughout this period of discussions our predecessors and ourselves have done everything in our power to avoid doing anything to exacerbate the situation in Rhodesia by civil strife or any action of this kind. I hope that the House will feel that the statement which I made in Rhodesia could have been regarded as a very salutary warning to both sides to avert from any action which was violent or illegal.
Mr. Taverne: Will the measures which Her Majesty's Government are having to bring forward include any offer of compensation to those public servants in Rhodesia who find themselves unable to support the rebellion, for the period during which the rebellion lasts?
The Prime Minister: This is a difficult problem. To do it by a kind of general blanket offer of compensation would, of

363
course, create difficulties for this House; there is the control of the public purse and so on. I will be quite frank in saying that the Governor has our authority in that where any public servant feels that he is being asked to take action which affronts his conscience or which, in his view, is contrary to his allegiance to The Queen, then where that public servant suffers financially or in any other way from the exercise of that discretion or conscience, I am certain that the whole House will feel that we have a responsibility to him at the end of the day, when order is restored. The case will have to be made. We have to control Government expenditure in this matter with proper rules, but the Governor has our authority to give that indication to those who approach him.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of his sternest opponents respect very much a great deal of what he has said and done during these recent terrible weeks but that, at the same time, not all of us are entirely convinced—[Interruption.]—just because he said so, that he has done everything possible to avert this situation, which we deeply deplore? May I further ask him whether, despite the emotional feelings which we all may have at this present moment, he does not agree that ultimately it is along the lines of conciliation rather than coercion that the solution, in the interests of Her Majesty's subjects in Rhodesia—African more than European —must be found?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening words, but, as to what he said after that, if he feels that there is anything more we could have done to avert this situation I hope that when he studies the full record he will tell us, because I am only too ready to be instructed in this matter. I believe that we have done everything we possibly could.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Why did the right hon. Gentleman not leave a Minister in Salisbury?
Hon. Members: Answer.
The Prime Minister: I will be glad to answer the hon. Gentleman further in the debate. At dawn this morning I offered to Mr. Smith to send a senior Minister to sign an agreed minute providing the conditions to recommend to The Queen the establishment of a Royal Commission. At every stage when we have been in touch we have met every point outstanding, as the hon. Gentleman will see when he studies the full record.
On his final point, I think that I agree when he uses the word "conciliation ". Our aim must be, first, to make this illegal action impossible and then to create among the great mass of the Rhodesian people, who I believe want to see this, independence on a reasonable basis and to create a situation in which we can have ordered Government. However, if by conciliation the hon. Gentleman means appeasement of those who have committed this illegal, unnecessary and irrational act, then that is not my definition of "conciliation".
Mr. Snow: Is there any evidence at the disposal of the Prime Minister that either the Government of the Union of South Africa or the Portuguese Government are lending aid to this rebellion?
The Prime Minister: I have no such evidence. We have been in touch in the last few weeks with very many Governments, not only Commonwealth Governments but the particular Governments to which my hon. Friend has referred. Certainly I have no reason at all to suppose that either of them have encouraged the Rhodesian Government in this course or are lending any form of financial or other support to the action that has been taken.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a grave and important matter, but I gather from what the Prime Minister said and from the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition that we shall be debating this question tomorrow and that we shall also be debating it on Monday. I think, therefore, that we must now move on to the next business.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): In view of the Prime Minister's statement, the business for next week will be as follows:
The debate on the Gracious Speech which was to have been continued on MONDAY, 15TH NOVEMBER, will be postponed until TUESDAY and brought to a conclusion on WEDNESDAY, 17TH NOVEMBER.
MONDAY, 15TH NOVEMBER—The House will be asked to approve the stages of the Rhodesia Enabling Bill and, if there is time, Second Reading of the Housing (Slum Clearance Compensation) Bill.
At the end of the debate on TUESDAY, 16TH NOVEMBER, Motion on the London Transport Board (Borrowing Powers) Order.
At the end of the debate on WEDNESDAY, 17TH NOVEMBER, Motions on the Census of Distribution (1967) (Restriction on Disclosure) Order and on the Anti-Dumping Order.
THURSDAY, 18TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Pensions (Increase) Bill and of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
FRIDAY, 19TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Teachers' Superannuation Bill and of the Workmen's Compensation and Benefit (Amendment) Bill.
MONDAY, 22ND NOVEMBER—The business proposed is Second Reading of the Air Corporations Bill.
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether, in the statement which the Attorney-General will make tomorrow, the House will be given as full an explanation as possible of the existing legal situation as a result of U.D.I., as well as the actions which Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the Rhodesia Enabling Bill? As we are to debate Rhodesia tomorrow, would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that at a future date—not next week but, perhaps, the week after that—we will have a debate on foreign affairs?
Mr. Bowden: To answer the right hon. Gentleman's first question, the Attorney-General will be making a statement tomorrow and he will make it as full as
366
possible to meet the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. To answer his second question, about a foreign affairs debate, we will certainly have a full discussion of foreign affairs. I cannot promise it for the week following, but it will be as early as possible before the Christmas Recess.
Mr. Thorpe: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is necessary to wait four days before an Enabling Bill in respect of Rhodesia is brought before the House? Are we not to assume that legislation had already been prepared, well in advance, against the possibility of this event? Bearing in mind the determination of the Government, which I applaud, to show that we are anxious to take swift and effective action, would it not be better to have the Rhodesia Enabling Bill introduced on Saturday, rather than to allow the English weekend to take priority?
Mr. Bowden: Whilst it is perfectly true that some of the provisions of the Bill have been arranged for some time, on the other hand certain of its provisions have been agreed only this morning. The Bill will be presented, I hope, tomorrow and the Government feel that the House should have an opportunity of looking at it over the weekend. It is for that reason that the Government feel that it would be in keeping with the suggestion of the Opposition that we debate Rhodesia tomorrow on the Gracious Speech and come to the Enabling Bill on Monday, having had a background debate beforehand.
Mr. Ronald Bell: The Leader of the House has said that the Bill will be presented tomorrow. Can he say when it will be printed and published and, therefore, available to hon. Members? Will they get it before the weekend? Secondly, will its terms be in any way restrictive of Monday's debate? If they will be, so that Monday's debate will not be of a general character, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that throughout these long and momentous negotiations this House had no opportunity of discussing them? Will he, therefore, consider suspending the rule for an hour tomorrow?
Mr. Bowden: No, Sir. I think that tomorrow's debate should take place in

367
the normal way on the Gracious Speech on a Friday and finish at the ordinary time. Everything possible is being done to get the Bill ready for presentation to the House. It is almost certain that it will be ready in the morning for hon. Members to see it over the weekend.
As to the debate on Monday, it is hoped that the House will agree to reach a conclusion on the Bill at a reasonable hour so that another place can have the Bill and the Royal Assent can be given on the same day, which, as the House will appreciate, is absolutely essential with a Bill of this sort.
It must be remembered that it is only an Enabling Bill, after which Orders have to be laid before the House which will require the affirmative approval of both Houses of Parliament before they become operative.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the Leader of the House aware that many hon. Members on the back benches will want to speak on this subject? While I appreciate the need to send the Bill to another place, may I ask whether it is not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to consider at least extending the time by an hour on Monday evening so that further hon. Members may offer their views? This is a matter of great importance and I cannot believe that an hour would not be vouchsafed by the Government.
Mr. Bowden: I am anxious to help the House in this matter. I think that the major debate will be the general debate tomorrow rather than the debate on the enabling Bill. [Interruption.] If It is the wish of the House, we might discuss this through the usual channels; we could probably have an hour's suspension for the general debate. It is, however, important that the Enabling Bill on Monday should get to another place at a reasonable hour.
Mr. Heath: So that there should not be any misunderstanding on this important matter, may I ask whether I heard the right hon. Gentleman aright in saying that the Orders would require affirmative approval before they became operative?
Mr. Bowden: If I said that, I am sorry; that is not the position. The Orders become operative at once, but there will be an opportunity within 28 days during
368
which time both Houses are required to approve them.
Mr. Peter Emery: Can the Leader of the House assure us that one of the Ministers who speaks tomorrow will spell out exactly some of the consequences of the exchange control position? The House will obviously want to know the position concerning British citizens—presumably, all those people who are still in Rhodesia—who have balances in this country and the effect of the financial regulations upon them.
Mr. Bowden: Yes, that is the intention of the Minister.
Mr. William Hamilton: Will details of the negotiations to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has referred be available tomorrow in time for the debate?
Mr. Bowden: My latest information is that there is doubt whether this information will be available tomorrow. Again, it is a question of printing. Much of the material has already been set up. As soon as possible, however, a White Paper will be laid containing the full exchanges of the present Government and of Her Majesty's former Administration with Rhodesia.

NEW MEMBER SWORN
John Lindsay Eric Smith, esquire, for the Cities of London and Westminster.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That—

(1) Public Bills other than Governmen: Bills shall have precedence over Government Business on 28th January, 11th February, 25th February, 11th March, 25th March, 22nd April, 6th May, 20th May, 24th June, and 15th July;

(2) private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence over Government Business on 10th December, 4th February, 18th February, 4th March, 18th March, 1st April, 29th April, 13th May, 17th June, and 8th July; and ballots for these Notices shall be held after Questions on 24th November, 26th January, 2nd February, 16th February. 2nd March, 16th March, 20th April, 27th April, 25th May, and 22nd June, respectively;

(3) on Wednesday, 1st December, Thursday, 17th March, Wednesday, 25th May, and

369
Thursday, 16th June, private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence until Seven o'clock, and ballots for these Notices shall be held after Questions on Monday, 15th November, Tuesday, 1st March, Monday, 9th May, and Thursday, 26th May, respectively;

(4) no Notices of Motions shall be handed in for any of the days on which private Members' Notices have precedence under this Order in anticipation of those ballots.—[Mr. Bowden.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  QUEEN'S SPEECH

    DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS
    [THIRD DAY]
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [9th November]:
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
    Question again proposed.

    LAND COMMISSION AND HOUSING
    3.30 p.m.
    Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: It involves a certain effort on the part of hon. Members to turn from that matter which the Prime Minister has so rightly described as a tragedy, and which we have been briefly discussing and return to our consideration of the Government's legislative proposals for the Session as set out in the Gracious Speech. As we are to debate that matter tomorrow, as I understand it, and as I think most hon. Members will feel that we are wise not to try to debate it immediately, I think the House will regard it as right that we should continue today our examination of the contents of the Gracious Speech.
    If I may indulge in an Irishism, what is perhaps most significant in the Gracious Speech is what is not in it. There is the significant omission of steel, to which some reference was made in the course of yesterday's debate. There is the extraordinary situation thereby created under which a great industry, vital to the nation's economy, is left under some kind of suspended sentence with those responsible for managing it uncertain as to their future and protected by no better assurance than the Prime Minister's statement that they are unlikely to be penalised for actions taken in good faith.

    371
    There is the failure, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) mentioned yesterday, to make any reference to progress with hospital building, for no doubt the good and sufficient reason that there will be no progress to which to make reference. There is the significant omission of any reference whatever to the Government's intentions to redeem their pledges in respect of cheaper rates of mortgage interest for home buyers, to which the Prime Minister made some reference in the course of Tuesday's debate.
    Therefore, as we deal with the mass of Measures, some of them of importance, some of them of relevance, which are contained in the Gracious Speech, I think we ought to have clearly in our minds that these present a very partial picture of any conceivable legislative plan for dealing with the problems of the nation in this day and age.
    At the head of the picture of irrele-vancies there is the Land Commission. During business statements from Easter onwards we were promised by the Leader of the House that a White Paper would be presented. It finally appeared well into the Recess. This is all we have on which to debate this matter now. I mean no offence to those who have taken part in the drafting of this document when I say that there can rarely have been a public document on an important matter which conveys less. It is, perhaps, a vivid illustration of the truth of the old advertising slogan that "There is no substitute for wool". We have, none the less, under that disadvantage to debate this White Paper as embodying the only statement that we so far have of what the Government really mean on this matter of the Land Commission and on land.
    There seem to be two issues—the levy and the setting up of the Land Commission. I will not take up very much time on the levy because, though I think there are many differences between us on practice, there is probably not so much difference on the general principle that where the value of land is increased as a result of planning permission, and that increased value is realised, the State is entitled to levy a contribution on that increased value. Indeed, the House may recall that the Government come in this
    372
    matter some six or seven months behind the Opposition, since the Opposition made this point clear as long ago as last March. [Laughter.] I apologise to the House. I agree that to be only seven months ahead of this Government does submit one to criticism.
    It is not the principle of the matter that gives rise to difficulty. It is the practical problems. Indeed, the White Paper gives a very wholesome warning when it reminds us that attempts to deal with this matter have been made, beginning in the year 1427. I congratulate the Minister of Land and Natural Resources on having an historian among his rapidly increasing staff.
    It is the practical application that poses the problem. It was the practical application that made the Labour Party's last essay in this direction—the Act of 1947—the failure that it was. The lesson to be learned from the ill-starred 1947 Act is the fatal result in these matters of trying to take too much, of being too greedy, because it has the effect, as the 1947 Act demonstrated, that if an effort is made to take too great a share of enhanced value the result is both to discourage people from bringing forward land for development at all, and, just as with Purchase Tax, to inflate the price.
    The Minister of Land and Natural Resources did not fully understand me when I put a supplementary question to him last week. He told the House that he hoped to get a revenue of some £80 million a year from the levy. I asked him how much of that would be passed on. All he could say was that it was the intention that this provision should reduce the price of land. Of course that is the intention, but will it be the effect? Has the right hon. Gentleman studied the effect of taxation, because this is taxation, in inflating the price of the commodity to the ultimate consumer? It is not enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that this is the intention when he produces a Measure which on the face of it is far more likely to inflate the price of land than to diminish it.
    If this tax is to be levied, it should not be mixed up with a body indulging in dealings with land. It should be collected by the taxation authorities. If

    373
    the right hon. Gentleman wants a good practical example of how a tax of this kind can be handled, let him investigate the way in which monopoly value under the Licensing Acts was very efficiently dealt with before the war by the taxation authorities and not by setting up any commission separate from them.
    There is a further point which I must put to the right hon. Gentleman. As I have said, there is a very strong case socially and in equity that, where State action increases the value of land—where there is betterment—the State should be entitled to collect some share of that increased value by way of taxation. If the State is so doing, surely what one might call "worsenment" also demands further attention. That is where land is not taken but is affected by State action elsewhere and the value of the citizen's land is diminished. I should have thought that the same principle called for some compensation to be paid to the citizen.
    The classic and obvious example is where a flyover on a motorway is built, not on somebody's land with that land being taken and paid for at market value but adjoining somebody's land. The land is left. There are now motor cars travelling on a level with and close to that person's bedroom window. The value of the house is very much diminished. The House may say that that is academic since the Minister of Transport halted the road programme, but we cannot assume that that state of affairs will go on forever. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he has an effective method of collecting a tax on betterment—I do not think that his method is effective, but if he thinks it is—surely one of the first charges on the revenue that he hopes to get should be by way of making provision for what I have ventured to call "worsenment".
    I am glad that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has decided to do what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition suggested to him a few days ago and introduce a Measure to deal with slum-clearance compensation. We shall no doubt want to consider the wider issues of compensation. This issue—this is no doubt why the right hon. Gentleman has introduced it—is, as I told him from this Dispatch Box last April, extremely urgent in view of the
    374
    present provisions running out on 13lh December. This does not prevent us from looking at the wider proposition that, if a levy is to be imposed on betterment, we must look again at damage to land caused by State action not involving actually taking over the land.
    There is the further very urgent, point, while I am on this issue, of the effect on what is called "planning blight", of the standstill on the purchase of land by local authorities imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement on 27th July.
    The House knows that in every one of our constituencies there are people whose house or plot of land is required by a local authority, which has been marked on the map for some town centre redevelopment scheme or some road scheme and which the local authority is perfectly willing to purchase, but nobody else is willing to buy, and yet the local authority is inhibited from doing that because the Government will not allow it, under the Chancellor's statement, to buy land in advance. There are, therefore, a number of people who are tied to a house or plot of land in which their savings are invested, who are unable to get a local authority, willing to buy, to do so and whose property is totally unsaleable to anybody else. Some steps should be taken to deal with this great hardship.
    Then there is the proposed Land Commission with its objectives, so impeccable, to secure an adequate supply of land and to alleviate the burden of the cost of land required for public purposes. I suggest to the House that the Commission itself is wholly unnecessary. It is not required for the purposes of imposing a levy. The levy is a wholly separate concept and could perfectly well be handled by way of taxation. The Commission is a separate and wholly unnecessary body. It is interesting to note from The Times of today that three of the professional bodies, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Chartered Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' Institute, and the Chartered Land Agents' Society, have sent a memorandum to the Minister in which they make exactly the same point as I seek to make.
    According to the report in The Times they make it so effectively that I should

    375
    like to quote it. They say that the working party of the three institutions
    "do not see why a Land Commission is necessary. 'Our experience', they say, 'suggests that a sufficient supply of land for essential development does in fact exist within the limits imposed by town planning control and we do not see how a Land Commission could increase the supply.'"
    They also make the very pertinent point that since the White Paper was published the supply of land has shown signs of drying up.
    The remedy for the problem of the supply of land is not to be found in the setting up of a Commission. It is to be found, as the professional bodies suggest, in an improvement of the planning system. It is not the supply of land that we are strictly concerned with, but the supply of land with planning permission. The Minister of Housing, by speeding up the planning system, both at the original stage where sub-delegation under small authorities sometimes involves delay, at local authority level, and above all, when an appeal comes to his Department, has it in his power to increase the supply of land—and not just the supply of land but of land with planning permission which is needed for the housing programme.
    I am glad to see the professional bodies taking the view that the remedy is to be found there and not in the pretentious concept of a Land Commission. What is the purpose of the Land Commission? Is it to give increased powers of compulsory purchase? The House knows that the local authorities already have considerable powers of compulsory purchase for necessary public purposes, and so have the central Government, the new town corporations and other bodies. This Land Commission will only cut across those powers, and I suggest that it is an unsuitable body to exercise the power because, unlike local authorities, it is not a planning body. It has no planning authority. As I understand, it has to follow the planning permission of the local authorities. This is merely adding a further body with compulsory purchase powers to a system in which the central body and the local bodies already have considerable powers.
    The setting up of the Commission involves a new administration, which I
    376
    suppose ultimately will be a charge on land for the payment of salaries and so on. It involves a further demand on the crucial supply of valuers who, as the Minister knows perfectly well, are already extremely scarce. What is the explanation? I believe that the explanation is frankly political. The Land Commission is intended as a form of creeping land nationalisation, respectfully laid by the right hon. Gentleman at the feet of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot as a small consolation prize. This is confirmed by the hints throughout the White Paper that the Commission will begin on a modest scale and will grow and grow in power as time goes on.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Before the right hon. Gentleman departs from his attack on the setting up of a Land Commission—and he appears to be in favour of these professional bodies doing the work which the Commission would be set up to do—may I ask whether he does not realise that the difference between those two tribunals, if I may so call them, is that the Land Commission will be acting in the public interest while the professional bodies would be acting in their own interests and the interests of their clients?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has been following me with his usual courteous attention. He and I, as members of the same profession, have, I hope, a respectful regard for the members of other professions. These are professional men advising on a subject on which they happen to be more knowledgeable perhaps than most, qualified as a result of professional work and study. They are not, as the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think, tribunals. These are bodies of professional men practising in the field. They do not take the place of the Land Commission. I am only suggesting that the House would be singularly ill-advised to ignore the considered views worked out in a working party of those who, with great respect, have more knowledge of this matter than either the hon. and learned Gentleman or myself.
    I am sure that the explanation is political. I suggest to the House that there is not the slightest reason for thinking that the Commission will diminish the price of

    377
    land. How can it? The proposal is that the Commission should pay the market price, and then deduct the levy, and, as the White Paper states specifically, hand over the profits to the Exchequer. How does that reduce the price of land? It is perfectly true that the Commission is empowered to sell land at a price below the price paid for it, but there is no need of a Commission to allow the subsidised resale of publicly owned land. It can be done under existing powers. All that the Commission does is to set up another body, which must be paid for, to buy land at the market price.
    We shall listen with interest to the Minister. The view suggested outside the House is that far from reducing the price of land the Commission will send it up and that there is every likelihood that a levy at this level will further inflate the price of land. I said last March that we thought that the levy should be at a moderate level. Anyone with experience of taxation knows that the higher one imposes a charge of this sort on an article which is in popular demand, the more certain it is that the charge will be passed on to the consumer. We have already seen that people contemplating selling land are going to look at the price which they will ask with a different attitude altogether, because they will consider that at a certain date they will have to pay an additional charge. Therefore, this tax, like Purchase Tax, will, at this level, inflate the price further.
    The Minister is seeking to mitigate the fear of professional bodies who say that this proposal is already having the effect of drying up the supply of land. In two Parliamentary Answers he has said that no levy was payable on any transaction taking place, or on any development starting, before the appointed day under the Bill. But he also said that if one obtained planning permission during that period that could expose one to a compulsory purchase order after the appointed day. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that will encourage people voluntarily to bring forward land for development and to get planning permission for that purpose, he had better reflect again. As I say, it is my information that the mere publication of the White Paper has made land more scarce and therefore will make it more expensive.
    378
    There are various very curious aspects of this matter. There is the provision that if the Commission transfers land to private citizens, it is likely to do so, not freehold, but what is called somewhat unfortunately Crownhold. As I understand it, the freehold will not be conveyed, but the Minister or the Commission will retain the power to repurchase compulsorily, and in any event when the house built on that land is demolished or redeveloped the land will revert to the Commission. There is a certain happy mad inconsistency about providing that when land is let—because this is what it comes to—on a long lease by the Commission, the landlord shall have the right to repurchase compulsorily whereas in the case of leasehold enfranchisement where a private citizen has granted a lease to a leaseholder it shall be the leaseholder who shall have that right. The right hon. Gentleman, when he handles these two Bills, must be careful to ensure that he gets the right brief in the right position.
    That brings me to the question of leasehold enfranchisement, for which I understand the Minister of Land and Natural Resources is also responsible. It was in the Gracious Speech this year. It was in the Gracious Speech last year. It will probably be in the Gracious Speech next year.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): Assuming that we have a Labour Government.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. That is a very bold hypothesis indeed. I make it for this purpose and to alleviate the sensibilities of the hon. Gentleman's Minister, who is rather touchy on the matter. It was the Minister of Housing and Local Government who followed up the reference in the Gracious Speech last year by a statement which I should like to recall to him and to the House. He said on 8th December, 1964:
    "The Government have already announced their intention to introduce legislation to enable householders with an original lease of more than 21 years to purchase the reversion of their leasehold interest. By giving this matter priority in their legislative plans they have shown the importance they attach to it." —[OFFICIAL REPORT. 8th December, 1964; Vol. 703, c. 1324.]

    379
    The priority did not appear to work out very satisfactorily. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman, having said in reply to one of my hon. Friends that he expected to introduce the legislation last Session, then gave an undertaking to leaseholders of leases which had expired that if they were able to remain in the premises after 8th December, 1964, they would get the advantages of his Measure.
    I should like to know whether the undertaking about the importance which the Government attach to this matter by giving it priority in their legislative programme still stands.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Governmen (Mr. Richard Crossman): Of course it still stands, and it will be honoured in full when the Bill is introduced.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No doubt that undertaking is given with the same optimism with which the undertaking that it would be introduced last Session was given. The Bill has been transferred from the right hon. Gentleman to his right hon. Friend—no doubt to give it a better chance and a more dynamic start. It is well perhaps that it has, because the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has expressed views on this subject which may have made it more difficult for him to handle it. What the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said was—I am sorry; I cannot find it at the moment. I will not tantalise the hon. Gentleman too long. The hon. Gentleman said that his hon. Friends had an emotive feeling about this discarded Liberal notion. It is agreeable to find that he will not have to handle the matter now.
    A number of other major issues arise and they come into the Minister of Housing's own field—at least I suppose that it is still his own field. The most conspicuous omission in this respect from the Gracious Speech concerns cheaper rates of mortgage interest. I do not need to weary the House by repeating the clear and specific assurances given by the Labour Party of cheaper rates of interest for home buyers. They appear, not in casual speeches or off-the-cuff statements at public meetings, but in considered statements in election addresses of the Prime
    380
    Minister, the First Secretary of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord President of the Council. The Minister of Housing, being a shrewd hand, was a little more cagey, but his right hon. Friends committed themselves absolutely explicitly to lower mortgage interest rates.
    As the House knows, this has been followed by a rise in the rate of mortgage interest to the highest level known for very many years—6¾ per cent. from building societies and ¼ per cent., if one can get it, from local authorities. The Prime Minister mentioned this matter the day before yesterday, but he was very imprecise, and I think that we should not finish today's debate without hearing a good deal more about the Government's intentions and timetable in this matter. The Prime Minister said that we could expect the Government's plans
    "to be laid before the House in this Session and we shall legislate on them at the earliest possible date."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1965; Vol. 720, c. 47.]
    Is that, or is it not, a promise to legislate in the matter this Session? Is the fact that this promise does not appear in the Gracious Speech an indication that the legislation will not take place this Session? It is important to know the answer, because not only is this a matter in which the personal honour of Ministers is involved, but because the First Secretary of State went to the Erith by-election and, according to the report in this morning's Daily Express, said:
    "Some clever johnnies may want to ask me, what about mortgage rates? I say, 'brother, don't you worry. This will be done and we shall publish this year our proposals for doing it'."
    I want to know whether that is true, or whether that was just the First Secretary of State in electioneering mood.
    It is important that the Minister should make the Government's position clear on another aspect. He refused to do so when I asked him a Question some months ago. If and when the Government come forward with these proposals, will they be retrospective? Will they relate back to the period of the pledge to cover those who are buying their houses now? If not, this is the best possible discouragement to people to take out a mortgage now if they can get it because

    381
    they may feel that it would be wise to hang back until a less penal rate of interest would have to be paid. It is important that the right hon. Gentleman should make this clear.
    The Government are only too willing to take retrospective action when it penalises the citizen, whether in respect of steel or office development. Let them, therefore, be prepared to take, and to say that they will take, retrospective action, not only when some of the best of our citizens are involved and they can help them, but when their own reputation for abiding by their pledges is very directly involved. I hope that we shall hear more about this matter before the debate is concluded.
    I am suspicious of the Government's attitude to this and to the whole problem of home ownership. I remember what the late Aneurin Bevan said in the House on 4th December, 1951:
    "Inside the Labour Party, there has always been argument as to whether we ought to have allowed any private building for sale at all." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 2256.]
    If the House wants a more recent statement of the Labour Party's views, let me draw attention to what Councillor Mrs. Denington, Chairman of the Greater London Council Housing Committee and directly involved in this matter, said only a few days ago:
    "What terrifies me is the thought of a property-owning democracy."
    In the face of that statement, it is not surprising that some of us have some doubt about the Government's sincerity in this matter.
    I come now to the Government's housing record. I agree entirely with what the Prime Minister said on Tuesday, when he said that what really matters is the number of houses built. It is true that the population explosion, immigration, higher standards of life and younger marriage have created a greater demand for housing than was expected even a few years ago and that, as a result, despite the heaviest house-building programme in our history, there is still a crying demand for more housing.
    The Prime Minister told the House that the Government's performance had been good in this difficult year. Whatever difficulties the Government may have
    382
    manufactured for themselves in other directions, their inheritance in the housing field was nothing but good. Let me remind the House of the facts. In 1964 we completed 373,000 houses, and we left a programme of 400,000 houses for this year. What is more significant, we left 433,000 houses actually under construction.
    If the right hon. Gentleman challenges the practicality of the 400,000 target for this year, let me remind him that his party's election manifesto contained the statement:
    "While we regard 400,000 houses as a reasonable target …"
    But it is not a target they have hit, because the right hon. Gentleman's own Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), told the House last week that they would miss it by something between 10,000 and 20,000 houses; that only between 380,000 and 390,000 houses would be completed this year. For all the splendid plans for the future, the right hon. Gentleman has failed to achieve even 400,000 houses for this year, which casts considerable doubt on his capacity to plan a programme for 500,000 houses even five years ahead.
    On Tuesday, the Prime Minister—and here I would say, if I may, that in the circumstances I fully understand the reason for his absence this afternoon, and we all sympathise with him in it—thought that he was demonstrating his right hon. Friend's proficiency when he stated that at the end of September 23,000 more houses were under construction than at the same period in the previous year. I do not know what the Prime Minister expected because, as I have already told the House, he and his right hon. Friend were bequeathed an expanding programme. What is, perhaps, more interesting is that this figure of 23,000 for end of September, 1965, over end of September, 1964, is less than half the increase for the end of September, 1964, against the end of September, 1963, when the increase was 56,000.
    Therefore, the Prime Minister's own figures establish my point that, bequeathed a rising house-building programme, what the right hon. Gentleman has been successful in doing has been in checking its growth—
    Mr. Frank Allaun: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted a figure achieved by his Government in the previous year, but that was the election year. Is it not the fact that for the 12 years before that year, the total has been nothing like that, but only something around the 300,000 figure?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman speaks disparagingly of somewhere around the 300,000 mark, but if he likes to cast his mind back to the beginning of our tenure of power, he will recollect that we were told that our 300,000 target was impossibly high and that we would never achieve it. His own right hon. Friends had never passed two-thirds of that figure.
    This check to the development of that building programme is confirmed in a number of ways: by the right hon. Gentleman himself at Blackpool, when he referred to the falling off in the starts of private enterprise houses; by the very grave statement by the Royal Institute of British Architects which referred to the fact that since the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement of 27th July over £500 million worth of building work had been cancelled or suspended, and that, of that sum, £76 million was housing. That is between 27th July and mid-September. At an average price of £5,000, that represents about 15,000 houses.
    The right hon. Gentleman has only to consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works to learn that the upward housing surge which was bequeathed has been checked by the measures of his Government. That, of course, is having its effect on the building industry. The credit squeeze, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's measures in July, the ban on office building, the ban, by statement, on certain other large buildings, are all having the effect of undermining the confidence of the building industry.
    This is a curious industry. It probably employs more people than any other, and it is capable of very great expansion of output if confidence is maintained. If builders and their employees think that they will not work themselves out of a job, that there is another job when the present one is finished, that they have a steady programme forward, they can ex-
    384
    pand production far more than any planner in Whitehall can believe. There is no doubt that the manufacturers of components, bricks and other ancillary equipment responded magnificently to the exhortations of the Minister of Public Building and Works that, as the housing programme and other building work was to expand, they must increase their capacity. They now have surplus stocks in hand, and accumulating.
    On top of that, this Government are now coming forward with further threats of building licensing—further restrictions. They have checked the private-enterprise housing programme, they have failed to achieve the target for total output of houses set by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), they are applying licensing, and can hardly be surprising, if an industry that has been trying to co-operate with them and increase its capacity now finds itself left down, if they do not finally get the output we all want to see.
    It is the more discouraging when one reflects on the ham-handedness with which these controls are applied. I gave notice to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that I should this afternoon be mentioning his own action in a matter affecting my own constituency which I think illustrates this general point. It is the case of a firm which had been encouraged by Government action to move from the Greater London area—of which, of course, Kingston is now part—to a new town, Crawley, where it had built, with every help and encouragement from the Government, a warehouse. It desired to build offices adjoining this warehouse, not least because the Government themselves required its existing premises in Kingston for their own purposes. For months following the Government's statement on office building policy it was impossible to get the right hon. Gentleman to deal with applications for a permit. The effect on the company has been disastrous. It cannot have its office adjoining its warehouse and, understandably, feels that it has been let down by the Government.
    This is a very good example of the way in which these controls are being administered, and why those in the building industry, and many outside it, are very apprehensive of further extension of controls—
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: In the case quoted by my right hon. Friend, did the Minister give reasons for rejection, or announce that it was just general policy not to allow office building? Were there special reasons in my right hon. Friend's constituency why the application should not have been granted?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman's objection was to moving the office premises to Crawley—a rather interesting ground for objection because, until recently, it had been the policy of the Government to move their installations —the Paymaster-General's office is a case in point—to that town, and build it up as a counter-magnet to London. Whether the right hon. Gentleman knows about that, it would be indelicate to ask.
    I want now to turn to the Minister's dealings with the building societies. He told me the other day that he thought it stupid to ask him to tell the House of Commons what these discussions amounted to. I do not think so. I think that the House is entitled to be informed when a Minister of the Crown, with all the authority that office gives, starts dealing with bodies of this kind.
    Mr. Crossman: The right hon. Gentleman should not misquote me. I thought that it was stupid for him to ask me to tell him in advance about the discussions. I said that I should report when we had completed the discussions, and I shall be reporting today.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am delighted to know that the right hon. Gentleman will be reporting today, but I disagree entirely that the House of Commons is not entitled to be informed of discussions of this kind so that views may be expressed upon them at a time when they may have some relevance and significance. The right hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well.
    He was much more expansive on this subject at his party's conference in Blackpool, when he made that epic remark, which I noted with pleasure at the time,
    "But now the tide has turned and the time has come to tell the real truth".
    I do not know what the state of the tide is today, but the right hon. Gentleman did not tell the whole story. No doubt, in the ordinary way, he used a formula agreed with the building societies, but
    386
    he did not tell the conference or the country that the societies had told him that they saw practical difficulties in his scheme.
    Mr. Crossman: I certainly did.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It does not appear so.
    Mr. Crossman: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the text of my speech, he will see that I said that there were, in fact, a number of practical difficulties and we had set up a working party to deal with them.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is not what the societies themselves said—I quote from their own document—
    … the Council has told the Minister that it has some misgivings about the practicability of his scheme ".
    I have the right hon. Gentleman's speech here, and he did not say that. On the same subject, will he confirm or deny that the building societies subsequently protested about his speech? Does he wish to intervene about that?
    Mr. Crossman: I have had absolutely no protest from the societies about my speech—none whatever. it may be true that individuals have gone to the right hon. Gentleman, who belongs to a political party which they happen to support; but that is very different.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that, in his discussions with the chairman of the council of the Building Societies Association, he received unqualified praise for his speech at Blackpool?
    Mr. Crossman: I received from the societies no strictures upon my speech at Blackpool. That is what I said.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is very care-, fully not answering the question which I put.[Interruption.] It was because of what the building societies said to him that he altered his tune when he spoke to the International Congress of Building Societies a little later.[Interruption.] He knows that perfectly well, too.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will allow the two protagonists to fight it out. Neither needs any help.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is grateful too. We look forward with interest to what he will tell us today. This is a matter of great seriousness for the building societies and the country as a whole. These bodies have grown up as bodies to encourage thrift and home ownership. As far as I know, what the right hon. Gentleman has been trying to suggest is that they should become his agents for rationing mortgages and allocations of funds to prospective home purchasers if the total of those seems likely to exceed the total for private enterprise building which the right hon. Gentleman, under his policy, thinks right. He has already committed himself in public to the belief that local authority building should be half the total of building, a complete variation of the proportions of today and of many years past.
    If it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to interfere with the level of private enterprise building, he should realise that the right thing to do is to come out into the open and do it himself, not shelter behind the building societies. This is building licensing by the purse, building licensing through the societies. That is what the right hon. Gentleman is contemplating, and whatever he may tell us about the attitude of the societies, such a policy is wholly wrong. If he wants to license private enterprise building, let him come out into the open and do it.
    Has he realised the effect of what he is doing? If he lines up the building societies, and, for that matter, the banks and insurance companies, to ration advances, how are they to do it? How are they to differentiate between one borrower and another? But, apart from that, he will not at all affect the man who can build a house out of his own savings. The right hon. Gentleman's rationing will fall on those who require a mortgage, hurting, like so many of his measures, the young couple and the struggling person who needs a mortgage, while leaving the rich man with capital wholly untouched.
    Mr. T. W. Urwin: Did the right hon. Gentleman's Government come out into the open when they set about their policy of reducing the number of houses to let some years
    388
    ago, and did not they heavily increase the financial problems of young people wanting a home who were thereby compelled to undertake mortgages which they could not afford?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am happy to debate the previous Government's record with the hon. Gentleman till the cows come home, but on that point I say only that whatever steps we took we took openly and by ourselves. We did not try to hide behind other bodies.
    On this point, the right hon. Gentleman was most indignant when I suggested that certain pressure had been put on the building societies. Has he seen the document which the building societies put out immediately after his Blackpool speech—Circular 1217A they call it— which contains the statement:
    "The alternative to the operation of the voluntary scheme by the builders and the lending institutions would be licensing controls, which Mr. Crossman is anxious to avoid ".
    Did the building societies think of that for themselves? Does the right hon. Gentleman say that he never had suggested to them the possibility of setting up a national mortgage corporation if they would not co-operate? He ought to tell us a good deal more about this whole matter.
    Mr. Crossman: I certainly shall.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The House will listen with interest because this is a matter of the highest concern.
    On housing and on land, all the proposals in the Gracious Speech have this one feature in common, that none of them will provide a single additional house. We shall consider and discuss the measures on their merits when they come before us, and we shall seek to analyse the motives for the proposals; but the fact remains that the right hon. Gentleman, inheriting the biggest expansion of housing that this country has seen, has failed to achieve the targets for 1965, and the Gracious Speech contains no proposals whatever which will increase the total provision of housing. That is the cool reality of the matter.
    If the right hon. Gentleman persists in his determination to shift the balance from the private enterprise to the local authority sector, he will continue to fail

    389
    to get the full total of houses which we need. There is a limit to what the local authorities can do. It is a fact that they take some months longer to build. If the faster ship is held back, as in a convoy, by the slower, the progress made by the convoy as a whole will be a great deal slower than it need be.
    It is important that people outside should realise that, for all the national plans and all the right hon. Gentleman's grandiloquent speeches, his first year shows nothing but failure, and for the future there is the prospect of a diminishing output of houses. When people outside understand that, they will prefer the expansion of building which they saw under Conservative Governments to a policy of planned stagnation.
    4.18 p.m.
    The Minister of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Frederick Willey): The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has run true to form. He has been mildly entertaining. If there be any policy opposite on this subject, he has carefully concealed it from us. He has been purely destructive. We are talking about the human problems of housing, building and the rest, but we have had no constructive proposals from him. As for the inheritance to which he referred in his peroration, we inherited, in fact, a shortage of building materials when we took office. That was one problem left to us, but, in spite of it, as the right hon. Gentleman himself concedes, there were 23,000 more houses under construction this September than there was a year ago.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will be speaking later about the building societies. Listening to the speech of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, it struck me that he seemed to have very little experience of how building societies work.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government inherited a shortage of materials. Is it not a fact that, led by bricks, the output of material for building houses was at a higher level when they took over than it had been in the past?
    Mr. Willey: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar NichoIIs). I knew that sooner or later I would have to do it, and I am glad to have done it now. But I have already dealt with that point, and what I intend to deal with today is the problem of land, because it is essential to housing and building, which is what we have been talking about.
    The supply of land on fair terms is essential to what we have been talking about. What we are going to do this Session is introduce a Bill, which right hon. Gentlemen will soon have an opportunity of seeing, to establish a Land Commission with power to acquire land for the community and to recover part of the development value realised in land transactions. We intend also to introduce legislation to reform the leasehold system for residential property in England and Wales, including provision for leasehold enfranchisement. To take those together seems to me to be both logical and right.
    What the two Measures will deal with are the long established social inequities which derive from land ownership, and it is basic to any programme of social reform that we get a just relationship between the community and that most basic of all commodities, land. We are therefore legislating to strip away the anomalies that so often blight the proper and reasonable expectation of occupying leaseholders. It seems to us manifestly unjust that householders who have built and fully paid for the houses that they live in should, for reasons which are little more than fortuitous, be obliged to surrender the reversion of the buildings at the expiry of the lease.
    What interested me particularly a week or two ago was that when I attended the annual conference of the Town and Country Planning Association, I was told what Mr. John Eccles said about the leasehold system. He is not from the Welsh valleys. He has a very distinguished record and was formerly managing director of the Welwyn Garden City Corporation and chairman of the Hampstead Garden Suburb. Mr. Eccles said that
    "the fundamental defect of the leasehold system is … the inequitable principle that at the end of a given lease the land-owner is

    391
    entitled to assume possession, free of charge, of all buildings and improvements created wholly by and at the cost of the succession of lessees, irrespective of the real residual value of those buildings and improvements. Moreover the principle itself creates a strong incentive to neglect the maintenance of the property during the last few years of the lease, with a direct tendency towards the creation of slum conditions."
    That is a view that I share, but the interesting thing is that it is a view expressed by someone who has had enormous experience of the leasehold system, in the best sense of the word.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: I understand that my right hon. Friend was referring to the Land Commission Bill when he said that it would be available shortly. Can he give hon. Members any idea when the Bill on leasehold enfranchisement will be available, and can he say whether it will be on the lines of the Ungoed-Thomas-Hale Report with reference to all long leaseholders with a certain term of years to run, and without exceptions to certain landlords?
    Mr. Willey: I must ask my hon. Friend for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) to await the Bill. It will be introduced, when we can introduce it, this Session.
    Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: I understood that part of the function of the debate on the Gracious Address was to elicit information on Bills mentioned in the Address, but we shall not get very much information during the debate if we are not to hear more about the details of leasehold enfranchisement.
    Mr. Willey: That is not so at all. The purpose of the Gracious Address is to indicate the Measures that we shall be introducing this Session, and the Measure to which the hon. Lady refers is one which will be introduced during the Session.
    Mr. Arthur Jones rose—
    Mr. Willey: No, I will not give way. I really must get on.
    I have been asked about the intentions of the Government on leasehold enfranchisement. I have said that we will introduce a Measure this Session, and I am indicating the lines that it will follow.
    392
    What we are faced with in leasehold is that the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, did not go nearly far enough. It succeeded remarkably in achieving two objectives, because it prejudiced both the freeholder and the leaseholder at the same time. It did not tackle the fundamental injustice of the system. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, that the Government are determined to deal with the inequities in the system once and for all.
    Mr. Hale: That is the second time that the right hon. Gentleman has used the expression "once and for all". If it is to be once and for all, presumably it is dealing with all leaseholds with a certain time to run. If he is excluding certain landlords, it certainly is not once and for all, and I doubt whether he will get it through once.
    Mr. Willey: I have taken note of what my hon. Friend has said. I can assure him that we have paid the fullest regard to the Ungoed-Thomas-Hale Report, but we have to tackle the problem in a more radical sense than they did in their minority Report.
    Mr. Arthur Jones: Would you give way and deal with my question now?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order to appeal to the Chair to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to give way. The right hon. Gentleman has refused to give way, and the hon. Gentleman must be seated.
    Mr. Willey: Now I turn to the Land Commission. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames has opened what is bound to be a prolonged debate. He has had time to study the White Paper, but has has not told us what are the views of the Opposition.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have spent a considerable time doing just that. If the right hon. Gentleman would like me to do it again, although Mr. Speaker will no doubt rebuke me for tedious repetition, briefly I said that there is no disagreement with the levy in principle, and that the Land Commission is wholly unnecessary. Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with that?
    Mr. Willey: Certainly. But what the right hon. Gentleman has not done is to say what the views of the Opposition are

    393
    about the problem that we face. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman appears in a new cloak. There has been and continues to be a very stark division between the two Front Benches, though it was obscured for a few minutes two years ago when we had a similar debate on the Address in 1963.
    I should like to remind the House of what the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) said in that debate, because it is something with which the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames has not dealt at all. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East, when Minister of Housing said:
    "It is in relation to the bringing of new land into development that the question of betterment becomes really important, for it will entail public expenditure on services and roads to bring it into development, and this expenditure will create an immediate increase in value. It does seem right that that increase should be collected by the public. We do it in the new towns, where the land is bought in advance and, when it is developed, or is ripe for development, is leased or sold at current market value, so that the new town corporation recoups itself for earlier expenditure."
    Then he added:
    "It is a corollary of regional planning and development that land planned for major development should be bought well in advance by a public authority for disposal to private enterprise or to public enterprise as required, both to control and phase the development and to help in meeting the cost of bringing it into development. We may well have to devise new machinery for the purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1963; Vol. 684, c 655–6.]
    That was not impromptu eloquence. In fact, HANSARD records that when hon. Members said "Oh" the right hon. Gentleman commented:
    "I have written this passage out because it is important and I should like to get it right."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1963; Vol. 684, c. 656.]
    Now that was a statement refuting what the right hon. Gentleman was saying today. That was an argument for an authority to purchase and provide land in advance of development.
    Mr. Graham Page rose—
    Mr. Willey: No.
    Mr. Graham Page: Please.
    Mr. Willey: I have quoted the right hon. Gentleman at length and not out of
    394
    context. Before the debate was over the right hon. Gentleman had been abandoned. Mr. Geoffrey Rippon wound up the debate and we got no further proposals from the Government nor from the Conservative Party about dealing with the question of development value. It was not, in fact, until March this year that the right hon. Gentleman then said that
    "it would be reasonable to impose a charge related to the increased value realised for development."
    But the right hon. Gentleman today— and this is why I complained about his dealing with the White Paper—has not told us what he regards as moderate. He has told us—this is a new conversion— that he at any rate is now converted to the idea that the community is entitled to recoup part of the development value which itself has created.
    When the White Paper was published the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) said:
    "The difference between What the Conservatives had in mind and the Government's proposal of 40 per cent. levy could perhaps be dismissed as a matter of opinion."
    How authoritative that judgment was I do not know because it seems to me that he has been dismissed, and I regret to see him sitting now on the back benches.
    I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) here. He expressed views which, I think, he would rather bury now. Certainly I prefer the views expressed by the Liberal conference.
    This is the position we face, that—
    Mr. Eric Lubbock: Just in case there is any doubt about this, my view is still the same as it always has been, that a development levy is quite fair and reasonable, but we shall seek to modify the Land Commission proposals.
    Mr. Willey: This is what I am dealing with, the relevance of the Land Commission to the question of the levy, but I think I am entitled to know what the right hon. Gentleman means when he himself refers to a moderate level. We have put forward our own proposals about it.
    What the right hon. Gentleman cannot avoid, what he has to face up to, is that

    395
    whilst his own party was in office it took no steps whatsoever to deal with the question of development values and the scandal of land prices. The right hon. Gentleman talked about people being greedy. Well, he should think of some examples which have repeatedly been given in the House, and since we have had to discuss that question of land values our debates have been punctuated by illustrations. We had Sir Frank Markham, whom most of us remember with some affection, who told us that he paid £36,000 for land now worth £1 million. We have had cases like this which did not arouse any interest in the Conservative Party until we took office.
    What we have got to do is face the problem and we have to recognise that we in this country accept that there ought to be public control of land use. That we recognise on both sides of the House. What the Opposition have not recognised, what they still do not recognise, is that if one accepts the use of land being determined by the State, by the community, then it follows that that land ought to be provided on fair terms. The objectives which we have set ourselves, therefore, the objectives of the Government on land values are
    "to secure that the right land is available at the right time for the implementation of national, regional and local plans; to secure that a substantial part of the development value created by the community returns to the community and that the burden of the cost of land for essential purposes is reduced."
    It is this which is at the basis of our proposals for a Land Commission.
    The Land Commission
    "will be able to buy by agreement any land which they have reason to think may be needed for development."
    The Commission will have widespread powers to acquire land compulsorily and, as we say in the White Paper
    "will do so on a basis which will give the owner the value of the land for its current use and an amount sufficient to cover any of his contingent losses plus a further amount— a part of the value arising from the prospects of development—to encourage the willing sale of land for development."
    That is what we set out to do.
    Upon this I would make three qualifications, all of which, I am sure, will have the wholehearted support of the right hon. Gentleman. First, that the Government recognise, and frankly recognise, that it
    396
    would be administratively impracticable for the Land Commission to buy all the land needed for the start of its operations.
    Mr. F. V. Corfield: Does the right hon. Gentleman imply by that that it is the intention that the Commission will eventually buy all the land to be developed, and if he does, can he explain this to me? As I understand it, the Government have in fact switched from existing use plus to market value minus. If we get to the stage at which we have all the land acquired by the Land Commission, can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how on earth we decide what the market value will be?
    Mr. Willey: No. What I have said is that if we concede that use is determined by the State, by the community, then it is right that acquisition should be on fair terms. To provide that acquisition should be on fair terms we have the Land Commission, and the basis of the success of land acquisition is that we should give a current use value plus contingencies, plus an amount sufficient to bring the land forward for development.
    Mr. Corfield: With due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he is wrong. His own White Paper in paragraph 10 says:
    "The Land Commission themselves, when buying land, will collect the levy … from the price they pay, so that the net payment made to the owner will in effect be the current use value of the land plus a part of its development value. Subject to this"—
    and this is the crux—
    "the market value basis of compensation for compulsory purchase at present in existence will continue unchanged …"
    Market value is the basis. What I am saying is that if we have disrupted the market by compulsory purchase throughout the area, how do we assess the market value?
    Mr. Willey: We do not do this at all. What we have to do is to provide that the Commission will buy at existing use value and give a sufficient inducement to bring land into development. As I have said, first, we frankly recognise that it would be administratively impracticable for the Land Commission to buy all the land needed for development at the start of its operations. Secondly, we recognise that, as we are concerned with the

    397
    supply of land for development and in advance of development, the Commission should not displace any of the present means of acquiring and bringing forward land but should supplement them. Thirdly —I am sure that this is essential if we are to attain an effective, lasting and fair solution—having established the Land Commission, the extension of its operations will be tested in the light of its experience. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
    Once we accept this approach, clearly we must avoid a two-price system for land. That is why we propose a levy on development values realised on all land transactions, whether public or private. When the Commission buys, it in effect deducts the levy from the price it pays. In all other transactions, the Commission collects the levy.
    The general issue—if we isolate for a moment die question of the levy, and I gather that there is now no dispute in principle between us on that—is whether our judgment about the levy is correct or whether the levy is too low or too high. It is about this that we have not heard from the right hon. Gentleman. I would remind those who think it is too low of what we say in the White Paper:
    "The rate of levy can thus be determined independently in the light of the requirements of land for development and the need to recover betterment for the community. It will be prescribed by order at an initial rate of 40 per cent. which in the Government's view is a modest rate leaving ample incentive to owners to offer their land for development. But it is the Government's intention to increase the rate progressively to 45 per cent. and then to 50 per cent. at reasonably short intervals. The question of increasing the rate further will be examined as acquisitions by the Commission, and thus their ability to provide land for development, increase."
    This treatment of development value, if it is accepted, is itself a justification for the Land Commission if we are concerned about the development and the bringing forward of land for development. This is the consideration that one has to bear in mind if one is concerned about the supply of land. This in itself is an argument for having a Land Commission.
    There are, on the other hand, others—possibly including the right hon. Gentleman, although he has been coy and obscure about it—who think that the
    398
    rate that we are proposing is too high. I do not accept this. I think it is fair. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I think it must be fair if development is to go ahead smoothly. I think that the balance of opinion has been that the levy we are proposing is fair. I do not always have the pleasure of calling in aid the Financial Times, but this is what it said:
    "Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives will find it easy to oppose a betterment tax on principle. They may have some criticism to offer of the rates suggested, but 40 per cent. is not high in relation to the long-term gains tax, and the warning that it will rise is plainly intended to get land quickly on to the market."
    Those who are concerned about the levy being too high are concerned about two things, first, the price—this is the question that the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with—and, second, the supply of land. On price, the right hon. Gentleman has not even the support of the arch-critic of the Commission, Dr. Denman. Dr. Denman said in an article that he wrote for the Daily Telegraph:
    "If prices remain steady a 40 per cent. development deduction could cut back the 1964 land price to the 1959 level—a 30 per cent. reduction—but house costs would drop no more than 3· per cent."
    He is arguing that if we translate the levy into terms of the price of new houses in London and the South-East, the cost of a new house would be cut by only £200. His argument is that one has to look to the house prices, and if one does that a levy of 40 per cent. will affect house prices by only £200. I do not for a moment accept Dr. Denman's figure, but if there is anything in his argument it is surely an argument for a higher rate of levy.
    If we are concerned about price we must be realistic about land prices. The plain fact is that today the landowner whose land is developed is exacting the highest price he can get for his land, and this will not be affected by the levy. Having heard the right hon. Gentleman in particular, we cannot afford to take any risks. It is possible that the levy may be used by some landowners to create an artificial market value prejudicial against a private developer. This, again, is an argument for the Land Commission. If this happens, the Commission must step in to buy at the true market

    399
    value. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with price and he also mentioned supply, and apart from price, there is also the question of the effect on the supply of land. What do all these statements that are made about supply amount to? They amount to an indictment of the landowners. They imply that if landowners are denied a part of their profits, denied a modest measure, they will withhold their land however much it may be needed for development which is essential to the well-being of the country. I have rather a better opinion of landowners in general than the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends seem to have. I am sure that landowners will accept that our proposals are proposals made in moderation.
    I should be failing in my duty if I paid no heed at all to the warnings that have been uttered, and uttered in profusion, about the possibility that landowners might withhold their land. I therefore propose that the Land Commission should have adequate powers to ensure that in this eventuality the needs of the community shall prevail and land shall be available not only for development by public authorities but for development privately. I emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman that what I am concerned about mainly here is private development. The Land Commission is really necessary if there is any threat of this kind, because the local authorities have neither the means nor the will to help. We have to ensure that private development, private housing, is not thwarted and frustrated.
    So we have a Land Commission with two main powers, a power to buy land, compulsorily if necessary, and a power to impose a levy on development value. The Opposition apparently attack one and not the other because they fail to see, or will not see, the essential relationship between the two, a relationship which works both ways.
    Recognising that local government finance is not suited to holding land extensively in advance of development, recognising that unified ownership is needed before comprehensive development can be achieved, and recognising also the powerful case that has been made out by the right hon. Member for Leeds,
    400
    North-East, we want the Land Commission to be able to buy land in order to ensure that our regional and national planning can be implemented.
    But if we are to operate fairly and not disrupt the land market, we need the levy on all transactions in order to avoid the two-price system. Conversely, if we impose the levy on all land transactions, we need compulsory purchase powers in order to ensure that that development is not frustrated by landowners, on account of the levy, withholding their land. The Opposition are deluding themselves if they think that they could introduce a scheme for a levy alone without having a new body similar to the Land Commission and armed with similar powers.
    The right hon. Gentleman expressed concern about compulsory powers. We too are concerned about them. What we propose, therefore, is limited powers for the Commission in the first instance and then more extensive powers. But if we examine those limited powers one by one, they establish the case for the Land Commission.
    First, the Commission will be able to buy land in order to secure its early development or redevelopment. That is primarily the compulsory power necessary to support the levy. It is the power which must rest with the Land Commission if landowners should refuse to bring land forward for development when it is ripe for development. As I have said, this is designed primarily to help the private developers who would otherwise be frustrated.
    Mr. A. P. Costain: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the new towns got their land if the powers to be given to the Commission are not in existence?
    Mr. Willey: They got their land in a similar way but as specific instances. We have to deal now with other cases apart from them. It is not only in the new towns where land is required in advance.
    The second of the powers is that the Commission will be able to buy land which needs to be acquired for development or redevelopment as a whole. This power the Commission will use when it wants to buy land in advance of need—a role which it will play to an increasing

    401
    extent as it develops the scope of its activities. Indeed, as I have said, some hon. Members opposite for some time have recognised the need for such powers.
    Thirdly, the Commission will be able to buy compulsorily land required by a public authority, possessing compulsory purchase power for the performance of its functions. I do not think that this power is so fundamental but it is not unnecessary. We must recognise that, in many cases, the Commission will be better placed than some local authorities to acquire land. It would be foolish to hamper the programme that local authorities will have to face by not ensuring that they are able to take advantage of the powers to be exercised by the Commission.
    Finally, the Commission will have power to buy compulsorily land for disposal to housing associations or local authorities or directly on concessionary terms for private housing. The right hon. Gentleman expressed his concern about price. In fact, we affect the price by taking the levy and in the case of housing we intend to make available more cheaply for private housing land provided by the Commission.
    I should have thought that, in each of these cases, the right hon. Gentleman would have conceded that there is a case for the Land Commission to reinforce the levy and to bring land forward for development. I assure him that we intend to proceed by stages practically and pragmatically. It has certainly been a great encouragement for those who have been at work on translating these proposals into legislation that they have been favourably received. For example, the Town and Country Planning Association has given its judgment that the White Paper
    "…lays out a very sound and practical approach to a complicated problem. It should command the widest support because it is workable and it is also fair to landowners and to the public."
    I conclude by calling in aid Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley who was a Conservative Member of Parliament for 25 years and who speaks with great authority on the subject. After expressing the hope, which I share, that the Commission will be reasonably and fairly operated, he concludes that it
    402
    "could fulfil a task, and create an image, which would ensure its acceptance as a necessary part of our planning machinery ".
    That is my view. What we are renewing and restoring sensibly is the work of Lord Silkin.
    Mr. Lubbock: I must have misheard that quotation. What planning functions will the Land Commission have?
    Mr. Willey: It will not have planning functions but, of course, it will be a necessary part of the planning machinery. Surely the hon. Gentleman would accept that. It is absolutely fundamental. If we provide, by planning, for the determination of land use, it is a corollary that we should provide the instrument to ensure that the land is available, where wanted and on fair terms.
    It was the responsibility of the Conservative Party that the free market was restored in land, a situation in which we have suffered the scandal of land prices and the distortion and frustration of planning. It is now our responsibility to ensure that we restore that which Lord Silkin began.
    4.58 p.m.
    Mr. Reginald Eyre: After eleven months of preparation by the Government, I was surprised to find that the White Paper dealing with the Land Commission consisted of only eight printed pages. When one thinks of the complexity of the land problem and of the thousands of pages that have been written about it, it is astonishing to find that what is described as the solution should be put in three short paragraphs in the document.
    The White Paper is more significant for its omissions, for it fails utterly to deal with practical details which are necessary if we are to know how the policy outlined is to be carried into effect. I want to examine the terms of the White Paper entirely from the point of view of would-be home buyers. I believe that this is of tremendous importance because of the kind of society which we on this side of the House want to see developed.
    True home ownership has three important aspects. First, it is the only form of tenure under which an individual feels it really worth his while to improve the standards of his home himself. I thought that this was illustrated by the Minister's condemnation of the leasehold

    403
    system when he claimed that under that system a man had no interest in looking after and maintaining the property as it came towards the end of the lease.
    The second aspect of home ownership is that it offers real freedom in the way a person develops his home. The third and most important aspect is that it offers the best security of tenure, and is thus the best guarantee of individual liberty against increasingly powerful public authorities. Thus, true home ownership encourages individual responsibility and self-improvement, principles of great importance to the new generation which is strongly attracted by these qualities. The survey conducted in Birmingham about four years ago, showing that no fewer than 84 per cent. of young couples, from all ranges of income and occupation, were emphatically in favour of home ownership, illustrated the tremendous importance of home ownership in these times.
    Under the terms of the White Paper, even in its initial stages the Land Commission is to have massive powers of compulsory purchase and it is envisaged that the Commission will be able to dispose of land on concessionary terms for private housing and to local authorities which are prepared to build houses for sale. How will the Minister allocate land for private housing on concessionary terms as the land becomes available? How will he decide which builder is to undertake the development and on what terms?
    I want to examine the terms of disposal very carefully, because I believe that would-be home buyers are in danger of being seriously misled about the nature and quality of the ownership to be offered to them. The Minister should therefore say quite clearly what the terms of disposals are to be. In the early days of discussion of the Land Commission, the form of tenure on disposal was confined almost entirely to Crownhold, but in recent times—as in the White Paper—in accordance with the best traditions of psychological warfare, there has been an improvement on this with disarming references to three kinds of disposal.
    The first is the most attractive to those who believe in home ownership and is sale by way of freehold.We would wel-
    404
    come sales of freehold by way of an unencumbered fee simple and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make it clear whether that is to be the case. The implication of the White Paper is that disposal of land for freehold housing will be very unusual—to judge from the implication of the wording which is specifically used.
    Mr. Willey: If the hon. Gentleman has come to that conclusion, he is mistaken. This will be a matter for the discretion of the Commission, but where a disposal is made on concessionary terms it will be necessary to provide, as simply as possible, that the person receiving the concession should not immediately take advantage of it.
    Mr. Eyre: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I would have thought that the implication of the wording of paragraph 22 of the White Paper was that sale of land for housing freehold was unlikely, because the word "housing" is not mentioned in the sentence dealing with the disposal of freehold, whereas the final sentence of the paragraph directly refers to the Commission's granting leases for houses.
    Mr. Willey: I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman about this. The reference to houses in the last sentence is necessary to clarity, because there has been a reference to leases. The sentence says that if leases are granted,
    "they will normally be very long—say 999 years."
    I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for calling attention to this point, but the sentence is added merely to make it quite clear that if leases are granted, they would normally be for very long periods.
    Mr. Eyre: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I must admit that I thought there was great significance in the precise wording about disposal and I will try to explain my reason for that suspicion. If there are to be sales at the unencumbered fee simple, I believe that they will be accompanied by a disadvantage to the owner-occupier, which I will explain in a moment.
    The next form of disposal mentioned is that by way of leasehold and it is said that the leases would normally be very long. Quite casually, at the end of the sentence, there is added the phrase:
    "— say 999 years."

    405
    Although the home purchaser would probably welcome a very long term of that kind, I find it extraordinary that such a term should be suggested. The right hon. Gentleman himself referred to the need for public control of land use, and yet the granting of leases of this extraordinary length is one of the ways of surrendering the very principle which I have understood the right hon. Gentleman to be advocating. I would have thought that all the arguments of good estate management were in favour of leases more or less according with the life of the property, and the probable life of housing is regarded as 99 years, which is why so many leases have been granted for that period. If one wanted to be absolutely sure of taking the probable life of the property into account, one would have a lease for, say, 140 years.
    On careful consideration, I feel that the reference to 999 years is an imaginative touch of deception, because I take it to mean that in most cases the freehold is not to be available. The reference is therefore to 999 years because it would be difficult for the Minister who is to bring forward legislation to enfranchise certain forms of leasehold homes simultaneously to make it clear that he intends to deal primarily with housing development on a Crownhold basis, with all the disadvantages relating to leaseholds which he had mentioned earlier. The reference to 999 years seems to be a sort of psychological counterblast to the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty in reconciling the two kinds of Bills which he will have to introduce. Leases of this length, which would otherwise be welcome, contradict the principle of community control he advocates.
    In paragraph 23 of the White Paper one comes to the real meat of the proposed policy, which is of particular significance to the would-be home owner. This deals with the disposal of private housing, if any—and I must admit that my suspicion is that there will not be much—which will really be affected mainly by way of Crownhold. This, says the White Paper, will be granted
    "… subject to restrictions which will reserve to the Commission all future development value."
    In addition, provisions for the control of assignments will be added to the Crown-
    406
    hold, to the form of lease. It is specifically provided in the White Paper that properties will always be valued for reacquisition, that is, for taking back by the Land Commission, subject to these restrictions. It is clear that reacquisition is contemplated, is within the ambit of the Land Commission, and that the properties are to be taken back at a valuation subject to the restrictions which have been imposed.
    I would have hoped that the Minister would have given us helpful detail which is not set out in the White Paper and that he would tell us, and all prospective purchasers of properties, precisely what those restrictions will be. They will never understand the nature and quality of the ownership offered until they know what those restrictions are. I have been trying to discover what the basic philosophy and policy of the White Paper is in order to get some clue as to how the practical details will develop. I feel that the vital wording here is
    "… reserve to the Commission all future development value."
    Assuming that to be so, and assuming the Minister to have a sustained purpose in this respect, I ask him to think of this policy on the lines of all future value coming to the community. And then I ask him to tell us, in pursuance of this logic, that any sales of freehold for private houses must, in those circumstances, be subject to a perpetual rent, charged in the nature of a chief rent, since the future value is to come back to the community. If there is to be any application of paragraph 22 of the White Paper, I would further suggest that in the interests of taking over future value of the land for the purposes of the community, it would be necessary for that rent charged on the freehold, if any, and to be adjustable in amount, according to a formula laid down by the Land Commission. In the light of the logic of the White Paper, I would therefore confidently expect that there must be some kind of annual payment. Any sales of private houses by granting leases for 999 years would, I suggest, be subject to a ground rent, which would be calculated in accordance with a formula laid down by the Land Commission. This would be necessary to effect the purpose and the underlying principles set out in the White

    407
    Paper of seeing that future values come back and are retained by the community.
    The object in both cases would be to deprive the so-called owner, in accordance with the doctrine specifically laid out in the White Paper, of any enhanced value which might accrue to the property as the years pass.
    Mr. Willey: If I may allay the hon. Gentleman's suspicions. He has asked about philosophy. The purpose of this is to provide land for housing at cheaper than market prices. One can do this in two ways, both of which are dealt with in this paragraph. One can retain the development value, in which the householder probably has not an interest, and so cheapen the cost of the land for housing. One can also provide that the price will be less than the market price. But if one provides for a concessionary disposal, one has to provide a safeguard, so that the person who receives the concession does not immediately take advantage of it. These paragraphs have no more in mind than that.
    Mr. Eyre: I am very happy to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that, but I cannot reconcile his statement with the wording, that the land may be disposed of
    "for housing subject to restrictions which will reserve to the Commission all future development value."
    Mr. S. C. Silkin: It is perfectly plain what is meant. It is perfectly clear that this only operates as and when redevelopment takes place in the future. In other words, if one has a plot of land which at the moment has a single house upon it, and in future that piece of land is going to be redeveloped, through the house being demolished and half a dozen houses or a block of flats being put upon it, or some changing of use to industrial premises, then the enhanced value of the land in those circumstances will accrue to the community, and not from year to year in accordance with the cost of living, as the hon. Member has suggested.
    Mr. Eyre: I would like to know if the Minister agrees with the statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, because I find it difficult to reconcile that statement with the restrictions that
    408
    are referred to in the White Paper, which have the object of seeing that future value goes to the community, and, which, furthermore, contemplate reacquisition. I would like the Minister to indicate whether he would agree with the hon. and learned Member's interpretation.
    Mr. Willey: Of course I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. I am sorry to be called on to intervene again because I cannot, for the life of me, see what the hon. Gentleman is worried about. The White Paper is clear enough
    "… restrictions which will reserve to the Commission all future development value."
    This is something for which we have to make provision.
    Mr. Eyre: I am sorry to be persistent on this, but it is very important if one is to determine exactly what kind of ownership is to be available under Crownhold. I would have thought that the Minister, since he is going to use Crownhold widely, judging from the public announcements that have been made, would give us details of the new kind of tenure which is to be created.
    Quite clearly it is different, it is not freehold, it is not 999 years, which was mentioned in the throw-away line in paragraph 23. It is to be Crownhold and it is to be tied in with this idea of taking future development. I would welcome the Minister making it absolutely clear to us what kind of ownership will be available under Crownhold. There have been many comments, indeed speculations, as to what this form of ownership might be.
    Mr. Archie Manuel: Speculations! I have no doubt about that.
    Mr. Eyre: These have been very widely canvassed in well-known journals. There have been speculations as to how the Socialist purpose of the policy, that is, taking the future development values for the community, is to be effected. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of this. This is a problem, and all I am seeking to find out is how the purpose will be effected. Before the General Election the Prime Minister described Crownhold houses as:
    "The property of the owner-occupier and his heirs as long as the house stands."

    409
    This is an unknown form of tenure in English land law. It is a new development. It has unusual qualities which are not known to other forms of tenure, and it is necessary that we should speculate on it and find out exactly what Crown-hold will be.
    The explanations which I have sought to bring forward accord with the wording of the White Paper. They certainly fit into that important sentence which I regard as determining the basic philosophy and purpose of the Land Commission, namely, that land for housing will be sold
    "subject to restrictions which will reserve to the Commission all future development value."
    This is not the same as saying that when the person who owns the house—it having changed hands several times—seeks to sell the property and go off, and the Commission says that with the passage of time it will be necessary to take back this property for redevelopment, the Commission will come along and take it. It is much stronger and deeper in its implications, and therefore I ask the Minister to answer a number of practical question which necessarily arise from this purpose and policy.
    First, assuming that concessionary terms are offered for private houses, how will the first purchasers be chosen? I hope that when he replies the Minister will bear in mind the need for social justice to be seen to be done, because I can give him an example of a practical problem in this respect. The Labour-controlled council in Birmingham could be helped by the Minister's answer, because it is wrestling with a similar problem. At Castle Vale on the outskirts of Birmingham, which was formerly Castle Bromwich Aerodrome, 450 houses, which represent a small proportion of the vast Castle Vale estate which is to be developed, are being offered for sale for the corporation in an exercise which is rather like that contemplated by the Land Commission as I understood the Minister to be explaining it. There have been about five applications from would-be purchasers for each house and flat.
    The last time this kind of situation arose in Birmingham was about four years ago when a concession was made
    410
    to the desire of young couples to be home-owners and the corporation allocated 108 houses at Rednal for private purchase. On that occasion nearly 3,000 people applied to buy them. Priority was settled by lottery to decide who was going to be lucky. The method of selection at Castle Vale is not yet known, but does the Minister think that a lottery is a suitable way of dealing with this matter? If he disapproves of it, will he tell us the method by which he will make allocations when he has to deal with a similar practical problem?
    This is important, and it affects the Minister of Housing and Local Government who will be faced with a similar difficulty, because, as I understand it, in place of the Socialist doctrine of direct control of private building, he is substituting a requirement that the building societies should limit the total amount of private housing to be developed by the rationing of mortgages over the year. I think that the Minister of Housing and Local Government must explain to us in detail how, and under what system, the building societies will apply that rationing to see that it is done fairly. For example, who will be chosen for the mortgages, and, in particular, will there be a detailed allocation of those mortgages throughout the regions of the country to ensure that there is a regional fairness in their allocation?
    Looking ahead, after we have got over the difficulty of the sale to the original purchaser at the concessionary price, and dealing with this concept of the Land Commission granting an unusual kind of tenure with copyhold, if there is to be re-acquisition, and the owner is not going to be permitted to sell his lease of the land, or the house on it, to anyone other than the Commission, which is the only way of avoiding a black market in concessionary priced houses, there must be some restriction. The Government clearly intend to impose some restriction. How is it going to be imposed? I should like to know what it is in practical terms, because, if a house is sold at less than market value, and, for good reasons, the man who buys it wants to move soon after that, he will be able to cash in on the benefit which has been given to him if he has a freely assignable lease. As the Minister would not want that to be the

    411
    consequence—he would not want the individual to take the benefit—he would impose some kind of restriction to ensure that that did not happen. It has been suggested that the individual will be required to sell the property back to the Land Commission at a fixed price because, according to the Minister's philosophy, the enhanced value of the property must pass to the community and not to the individual. It follows, therefore, that the individual will have to assign the house back to the Commission at the price fixed by the Commission.
    In that event, if a man who has taken a house on the outskirts of Birmingham and then has to move to Manchester to take up a new job, wants to sell the house, it will go back to the Commission. If there are a number of applicants for that house on resale by the Commission, how will it be decided who is to be the fortunate purchaser of it? Clearly one cannot allow an individual to get an advantage out of this system. He will, therefore, have to sell back to the Commission, and if the Commission then has to deal with the property, again at a concessionary price, and there are a large number of applicants for the house, how will the Commission decide who is to be favoured? Again, if the house is to be sold back to the Land Commission at a fixed price when the man moves, what incentive will there be for him to improve the property, or even to maintain it in good order?
    If the Commission is to control this interest in the community by insisting on this kind of transaction taking place, I suggest that if a man has improved his property and kept it in good order it will be essential to compensate him, but this will mean bringing in valuers and experts, which, in turn, will mean increasing the staff of the Commission and the increasing operation of valuers outside the Commission.
    If I am right in saying that, as was set out at one time, there is to be a limitation to the occupier and his heirs, which assumes a restriction and not a right to sell generally in the market, then, if the occupier is a widower without children, and he wishes, on his death, to have the house passed on to his best friend, will this be permitted?
    Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman should not make any of those assumptions. There is no basis for them at all.
    Mr. Eyre: I have read a great deal about the operation of the Land Commission, and I have looked at its basic principles. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) has the reputation in Birmingham of being knowledgeable in land matters, particularly with regard to Socialist policy. He and I have debated matters of this sort in public, and he has answered questions that I have put to him about the form of ownership that must exist under Crownhold. I found his answers to be not acceptable politically, but to be practical for dealing with the problems of ownership which will arise under the form of Crownhold that is to be granted. However, I am glad to have the Minister's assurance that he is not contemplating this, and I therefore ask him to say how he will see to it that future benefits do in fact come to the community.
    1 would have thought that the concept of ownership under Crownhold which I have set out would be unacceptable to the great mass of would-be home owners because it would mean that a new form of unacceptable tenure had been created, and having to hand the property back at a fixed price when a person moved from one district to another would be a deprivation of the real owner's rights of property which exist now.
    If this policy were to develop along those lines it would undermine the rights of ownership and would be very much against the principles of freedom and liberty. True ownership increases personal liberty and personal freedom, and interference by a powerful State authority in this way would be very much against its interests and purposes, and its desire to stimulate personal responsibility. It would certainly be rejected by the great mass of the people as a very inferior form of ownership.
    If the Minister explains to us today exactly what Crownhold is, and exactly how it will operate—how he will get over the practical difficulties of the allocation of concession-priced houses, and see that the future benefit of land comes back to the community without the imposition

    413
    of restrictions of the kind that I have mentioned—I shall be very much obliged.
    Mr. Willey: I am sorry to interrupt so much, but the hon. Member keeps putting rhetorical questions to me. He has raised the question of the difficulty of allocation. This is not a new difficulty. It faces housing associations, corporate groups and local authorities—
    Mr. Julius Silverman: And private builders.
    Mr. Willey: —and private builders. As for concessionary disposal, I made it quite clear that our sole concern is to ensure—and I should like to know whether the hon. Member accepts this as right and proper—that if a concession is made steps should be taken to prevent the person who receives the concession immediately taking advantage of it by disposing of the property.
    Mr. Eyre: I have looked at the White Paper. The conclusions that I have drawn have been in accord with many articles written in journals and suggesting that there was a development of Socialist policy along these lines. If the Minister can assure us that this is not so, and can define exactly what Crownhold is and how it differs from the forms of lease that I have mentioned, I shall be happy to listen to him.
    5.33 p.m.
    Mr. Dennis Hobden: I want to widen the scope of today's debate, which so far has been concerned mainly with the question of the Land Commission. I welcome the proposals contained in the Gracious Speech because to me they represent a fulfilment of the remaining half of the promises made in the manifesto on which the Labour Party fought the last election, and so take us through practically all the promises made in that Manifesto—the proposals for the Land Commission, which we have already heard about this afternoon; steps to increase the number of teachers; further steps towards comprehensive schools; steps towards wage-related insurance benefits, and pension schemes for teachers' widows. This afternoon I want to deal particularly with three matters. The first concerns public service pensions, the second, rating and the third, housing.
    414
    Before dealing with these, however, I want to say something about the deferment of the public ownership of the steel industry. Like many of my hon. Friends I believe that the question of public ownership is basic to Socialist faith. I believe, however, that it is equally true that the question of priorities, as laid down by the Prime Minister, is pertinent to the range of the programme that we have set down in the Gracious Speech. I should have the greatest difficulty in getting some of my constituents to accept that the question of the public ownership of the steel industry—which would involve us in long debates lasting for many months—should corne before such subjects as the question of an increase in public service pensions or the reform of the rating system.
    Mr. James Allason: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that the whole matter could be settled in one Second Reading debate?
    Mr. Hobden: I do not know whether the hon. Member is referring to the nationalisation of the steel industry—
    Mr. Allason: Yes.
    Mr. Hobden: In that case, what he has just said is not strictly accurate. If attempts were made to bring the steel industry into public ownership it would involve many days of debate. If he really believes that what he says is true I can only suggest that he passes the message to the Leader of the Opposition and persuades him to avail himself of the offer made by the Prime Minister this week, to the effect that if hon. Members opposite would withdraw their objections to the nationalisation of steel we would bring it forward as we said we would. From the way the Conservatives keep twitting us about the public ownership of steel one would think that they were all disappointed that we are not bringing it forward. They give the impression that they are in favour of the nationalisation Measure being brought forward. I would have thought that in the circumstances, knowing what hon. Members on this side of the House feel about the matter, they would have kept quiet and allowed some of us to get on with our private grief on this issue.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I appreciate the hon. Member's difficulty in trying to justify the exclusion of any mention of steel from the Gracious Speech this year. Can he tell us how he managed to explain to his constituents last year the fact that it was in the Gracious Speech?
    Mr. Hobden: As I have said, my conscience is quite clear. This is a question of priority. I am certain that my constituents would prefer me to do something about increasing public service pensions and reforming the rating system.
    I welcome the increases made in recent days in public service pensions, because in July of this year I had the honour to initiate an Adjournment debate in respect of Armed Forces pensioners. Under the rules of the House I was not allowed to deal with the whole subject of Service pensioners, owing to the fact that one group is dealt with by legislation and the other by Order, but I welcome these proposals because they are another demonstration that this Government at least are going along the road to the fulfilment of their election promises.
    Mr. Anthony Royle: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that before the last election his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) pledged the then Opposition to bring in parity for public service pensions? How can he explain that away to his constituents?
    Mr. Hobden: I am satisfied that even public service pensioners' organisations understand that in the light of current events and the economic situation that we inherited from the party opposite it is not possible to obtain parity at this stage. Neither would it have been possible for the party opposite to implement parity if they had been returned to power at the last election. I am grateful that these proposals for increases have come forward. I believe that we shall now slowly move towards parity over a number of years.
    I have never believed that it was possible to implement parity in one go, in view of the huge financial amount required to introduce the principle, but we should take serious steps to see if we
    416
    can agree to work towards parity over a certain period. Public service pensioners have been having a very hard time. It may be true, of course, that they have shared in the general increase of benefits given by the Government since they reached office, but I am disappointed most by the fact that there is still no attempt to make the reviews completely automatic.
    For instance, I believe it is essential that public service pensioners should not have to continue lobbying their Members of Parliament or sending petitions to the House in order to draw attention to the difficulties they suffer because of inflation. As I said during the Adjournment debate in July, I should like to see the subject of public service pensioners of all kinds taken out of the realm of party politics.
    I want to speak today about the reform of the rating system. In the Gracious Speech, it is stated that we are going to:
    "…lessen the injustices of the rating system and to limit the burden of rates."
    We are not quite certain how these proposals will be worked out in detail, but I welcome them because they represent a long overdue reform. I listened with some amusement when the Leader of the Opposition said that he and his hon. and right hon. Friends would examine with care the proposal to deal with the rates.
    This brings up the Conservative record over rating. Revaluation came in about 1962–63 and, in many parts of the country, placed great hardship on many ratepayers. I am obliged to a report in the Brighton Argus of 20th February, 1965, which drew attention to the position in Brighton. The figures I give are for the whole town, although my constituency represents only half of Brighton. After the 1963 revaluation, the average householder in the country paid another 2·9 per cent. in rates, but in Brighton the increase was as high as 9 per cent. Whereas, on average, householders over the whole country paid 48 per cent. of the town's rates, in Brighton the figure was 62 per cent.
    Another report in the same newspaper said that after the 1963 revaluation, 5,000 ratepayers in Brighton lodged appeals. In February of this year, 2,300 of those appeals were still outstanding. But

    417
    the agitation caused by revaluation was not as a result of revaluation itself. The faults in the rating system were already apparent, but the effect of revaluation was to aggravate them, particularly in certain towns and particularly in seaside resorts.
    Members of the Opposition have criticised our record since we came to office, but they had ample opportunity to get to grips with the rating system and bring about some relief, particularly to the problems of those on small fixed incomes. The Government of that time set their faces against any consideration of the rating system and flatly refused to do anything about problems which were being brought to their attention by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by members of different constituency parties.
    Then, the Minister of Housing, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North East (Sir K. Joseph), was reported, in the Sunday Pictorial of 3rd March, 1963, as saying:
    "I feel I have no evidence that an inquiry could produce the answer here."
    He went on to say that he wished he could be convinced.
    However, the uproar continued throughout the country and, after a while, the Government of the day were forced to bring forward the Rating (Interim Relief) Bill. The Times had some very scathing remarks to make about that Bill. On 26th August, 1964, they described it as "misdirected as well as misconceived", and, on another occasion, they said:
    "It has, however, been impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Government's sudden change of mind about immediate rate relief, its decision to act before the facts on which action should be based have been investigated by the Allen Committee, was prompted by electoral calculations. The resulting Measure is just what might be expected: it is ill-prepared, introduces at least one objectionable principle and threatens to breed as much discontent as it is supposed to remove."
    When we examine the Rating (Interim Relief) Bill and its effects on Brighton, we can see whether it is true—as the right hon. Member for Leeds, North East, said on 18th December, 1963, when he was Minister of Housing—that it was a Measure to mitigate and cushion hardship.
    There were, in Brighton, 1,223 applications for relief by 17th July, 1964. The local authority had dealt with 752 of
    418
    those applications. A total of 364 were rejected, and, the remaining 388 were given rate relief of less than Is. lld. a week. So much for the statement by the then Minister of Housing that that Act was designed to mitigate and cushion hardship.
    All this time, the then Government had plenty of opportunity to deal with all the problems, the suffering and hardship, which revaluation had caused and which had aggravated the problem of the existing rating system. Yet they have been blaming this Government because we have not done in twelve months what they failed to do in 13 years—bring about a complete reform of the rating system. Revaluation merely aggravated a system which was already there.
    The rating system had begun to get out of hand for other reasons. In the first place, local authorities had been forced by the then Conservative Government to borrow their money on the open money market at extremely high rates of interest. At the same time, the Government had cancelled the percentage block grants which were a feature of Government grants and replaced them with block grants.
    Land prices reached astronomical proportions during that period. I thought what a cheek hon. Members of the Opposition had today when, speaking about the Land Commission, they criticised this Government's attempts to deal with this very thorny problem. At least we have got to grips with the problems and are trying to do something about them.
    Another reason for the further aggravation of the rating system was that, with the inflationary increases in wages and salaries, the increases in pensions, further burdens were placed on local ratepayers. One can condemn the Conservative Party because at that time, in 1962, a local conference composed of members of the Conservative Party had turned down an inquiry into the present rating system. However, the increase in agitation eventually meant that the Allen Committee was set up and went into these problems.
    I know that the Allen Committee did not report during the period of office of the previous Government, but when we examine the task of the Allen Committee,

    419
    we can see how we had gone down the slippery slope of rating. We found, from their Report—I will not go into all the figures in the Report—that the higher one's income, the less one pays in rates. A man with an income of £30 a week pays an average of 2 per cent. in rates, while the man in the lower income group of £6 a week—which includes a tremendous number of pensioners—pays as high a proportion as 8 per cent. of his weekly income in rates.
    The Gracious Speech shows that we are now at last to get to grips with the problem. As I said, I do not know yet what principles the Minister will apply to the problem, but the Minister of Housing and Local Government is reported in The Guardian of 13th June this year as saying:
    "I am looking very hard to see if we could not get the local authority to have a share of the tax on vehicles."
    I hope that that idea is no longer on. As the periodical, British Industry, stated on 11th June, 1965, if we introduce that system:
    "The Exchequer will have to be compensated, and unless local authorities are allowed to vary the rate from area to area they might just as well have it distributed in the form of a grant."
    I have all along believed that the answer to the local rating problem is a form of local Income Tax. I have never necessarily been opposed to the taxation of land values that the Liberal Party has put forward. The Liberal Party has at least made a contribution to the argument in that it has put forward an alternative to the existing system. But I believe that local Income Tax is the best method of getting to grips with the situation because it brings in a great many more people who can make a contribution to local revenue.' It would also be based on the ability to pay. One of the failures of the existing rating system is that it does not take into consideration the ability of the ratepayer to pay the assessment.
    I know that the question of local Income Tax brings its own problems. A problem in my constituency is that a tremendously high proportion of the population commutes to London. There would have to be some system of repaying to the local authority money assessed on a payroll in, say, London.I
    420
    do not think that that is exactly practicable, although I do not believe that any of the difficulties are insurmountable.
    As I understand it, we are to transfer to the Exchequer a large amount of the existing local expenditure. There is something to be said for that. By transferring it to the national Exchequer the amount will be paid by the taxpayers, and there are 24 million taxpayers as against 15 million ratepayers. So we shall be going some way towards payment based on the ability to pay, and shall be spreading it out over a greater number of people.
    Let us look at what the Conservative Party says about this question in its manifesto or propaganda booklet, "Putting Britain Right Ahead". On page 16 under the heading "Fresh Approach"—incidentally, it is not a fresh approach—it says that part of the burden of rates should be transferred to the Exchequer, and hardship arising from rates should be relieved by a system which will take account of the problems of people with low incomes, particularly old people. That statement is extremely vague. One wonders whether the Conservatives are speaking about taking some of the cost of local education away from the ratepayers and putting it on to the taxpayers.
    I do not want to rub this in to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). In recent weeks he has had to put up with a tremendous amount of criticism of the viewpoint which he holds, on which he varies from his party. It was reported in the Press this morning that he was in trouble yesterday with his party over his views. In The Times of 3rd February he was reported as saying about the question of removing a large proportion of the cost of education from the rates:
    "This is a heresy I want to repudiate—and I hope the Conservative Party will repudiate".
    It does not look as though in its policy leaflet the Conservative Party has supported that statement.
    I am anxious that something should be done about rates as soon as possible. My constituency has a large proportion of old-age pensioners and people on small fixed incomes. It also has a very large number of self-builders who have spent two or three years building their own

    421
    houses under the guidance of professional people after their working day. Some of them have extremely limited incomes, and some have been terribly hit by the rates levied on their new properties. One scheme finished last week after two or three years' work, and it was found that the rates assessed on the new properties would be as high as £2 a week. Many of those people have seriously to consider whether they can accept the load of the mortgage and the rates in order to obtain the accommodation they need so badly.
    I now switch from rates to housing, because a speech was made yesterday about subsidised council tenants and some sneering remarks were made about the statement by the Minister of Housing and Local Government that he is to have another look at subsidies. We were told that this was another threat to home ownership. Earlier this year a Question was answered about who was getting subsidy, whether it was the council house tenant or the person who was buying his own property. Some very interesting figures were given. We found that the mortgage interest relief in 1964–65 for the average house purchaser was £31·1 per year, whereas the council house tenant who was fortunate enough to have both a rate subsidy and an Exchequer subsidy had a total subsidy on average of £26·6 a year, which is considerably less than the so-called subsidy for those buying their own houses. So it will be seen that one section of the population is getting unfair treatment in comparison with another. This appears to be another instance of the Conservative Party wanting to turn half the people against the other half.
    I was concerned about some of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) about housing. He maintained that the Conservative Party had a good housing record. However, it is well known that that record is among the worst in the civilised world. Germany has been regularly building twice as many dwellings as we have since the end of the war, and the U.S.S.R. has also been building many more.
    I also wonder about some of the promises that the Opposition accuse the newly-elected Labour Government of breaking. They seem to want their arguments both ways. In the constituency
    422
    in which I live there was a conference in October at which the Conservatives were in full attendance. Every lamp-post had a photograph of the new Leader of the Opposition suitably ringed around with a blue halo. There were other posters in the town, and also full page advertisements in the local evening newspaper which I understand cost £130 a time. They were accusing us of breaking our promises, one of them being that fewer houses were being built. The Conservatives want it both ways. If more houses are built it is because of the Tory inheritance, but if the situation is vice versa we are breaking our promises.
    One need only consider the situation in Brighton to prove that the Conservatives' housing record has not been a good one. Using the basis which the Conservative Party demands, in 1952, the year after the Labour Government had left office— and had left the plans ready for houses to be built—Brighton achieved its highest rate of council house completions. A total of 750 council house dwellings were completed. In 1964, after 13 years of Conservative affluence, the figure of completions was 91. This is a remarkable indictment of Conservative policy on council house building.
    Many hon. Members opposite sneer at us because we intend to alter the ratio of private and council house building. After the Milner Holland Report, after their long years in office and after the shortage of rented accommodation, the Conservatives have the cheek to complain because we intend to alter the proportion as between council and private house building.
    I welcome the Labour Party's policy on council housing and the altered ratio between private and council house building. I am sure that this will result in a tremendous upsurge of council house property being made available to rent. This subject is extremely relevant to my constituency and I am sure that my constituents will welcome my having made these remarks on their behalf.
    6.2 p.m.
    Mr. F. V. Corfield: I hope that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) will forgive me if I do not comment on his remarks in detail. I have a number of other subjects to deal with, although I

    423
    am tempted to correct him on much of his history about the rating system. I will content myself with making a small bet with him, if he is a betting man, that he will not get a local Income Tax system out of his Government.
    I can safely advise the hon. Gentleman—and I am sure that the Minister will agree with this in his heart of hearts, if he will not do so publicly—that the problem of rates, with all its implications affecting the independence of local authorities, is probably one of the most tricky and difficult that even his right hon. Friend has had on his plate. I would therefore advise the hon. Member for Kemptown not to be too sure that he will find the easy solution which he expects his right hon. Friend to produce.
    I had not intended to go into great detail on the Land Commission White Paper. I am afraid that I had assumed, perhaps wrongly, that the words used in paragraph 14:
    "…powers will be made available to the Commission in their entirety only on a date to be fixed by the Ministers and they will not do this until their proposals have been approved by the House …"
    implied that we would have a full day's debate on the White Paper before a Bill was introduced. I hope that that is true. However, in view of the way the debate has gone today, that may not be the case, and I hope that the Minister will enlighten us on this subject.
    I come immediately to the question of compensation. As I read the relevant paragraphs of the White Paper, it is clear that compensation is to be based on the existing code of compensation, which is market value, and that the levy will no doubt be worked out on the difference between the existing use value and the development value, and be deducted from the market value. Therefore, the ascertainment of the market value is crucial to the exercise.
    Bearing this in mind, my question has still not been answered. The Minister does not appear to understand the position, and if his White Paper means anything, he must tell me what will happen if in a particular area the great bulk of the land coming forward for development is acquired compulsorily by the Commission—in which case there will be no market; so how can one ascertain the
    424
    market value? This is the important point.
    My impression at the end of the Minister's speech was that he had left confusion worst confounded. I would be the first to admit that this is a vague White Paper and that it is silent on many important details, but I at least was convinced that I understood fairly well what was in it. However, I am now faced with the alternative that either I do not understand it or that the Minister does not. The mere fact that I am on the back benches while he is on the front does not appear to be conclusive in his favour. There are occasions when in individual cases U.D.Is. are sometimes legitimate and desirable.
    Mr. S. C. Silkin: Further to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about market value, is he suggesting that while the Commission will acquire land and will in many cases dispose of it to private developers —so that, ultimately, it will find its way into the hands of private people who will pay money for it—none the less there will be no market at all? Surely there must be a market at the end of the day, and surely it is perfectly consistent with ordinary principles that exist today that one works back from that ultimate market price.
    Mr. Corfield: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows enough about the law to know that we do not buy and sell land as such but interests in land. As I understand it, the interest to be sold by the Commission will be different from the interest which it has bought. That raises difficulties in assessing the market value of the interests to be purchased.
    The next point which the House should remember is that the whole Land Commission idea was being sold before and during the election, primarily on the basis that it would offer lower prices to the householder. It is interesting to read paragraph 7 of the White Paper and to find that the two main objectives set out are stated to be:
    "(1) to secure that the right land is available at the right time for the implementation of national, regional and local plans;"
    and:
    "(2) to secure that a substantial part of the development value created by the community returns to the community and that the burden of the cost of land for essential purposes is reduced."

    425
    I will come to that in a moment. But, it should be remembered that the only provisions in the White Paper which refer to anything which could produce a reduction in the price of land are the concessionary provisions in paragraphs 23 and 24. Before dealing with those, there are some general points which I must make. The background information in the first part of the White Paper states, in paragraph 3:
    "The main recommendations of the Uthwatt Committee were implemented by the Labour Government in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 …"
    That is not true. The Uthwatt Committee made recommendations by which the development value, or "betterment", was to be assessed in two different ways, according to whether it was developed or undeveloped land. In discussing the developed land system, which was based on a species of site valuation, the Committee was at pains to say that on no account should one assess the total tax on the increase of the site value at more than 75 per cent. because it was essential to leave an incentive to the landowner to improve his property and so on.
    When, however, the Government came to apply;:he development charge system, which was recommended by the Uthwatt Committee only for undeveloped and not for developed land, and the Government of the day applied it throughout the country, they insisted upon ignoring the arguments with regard to the 75 per cent.: they insisted upon 100 per cent. They did this because they were advised by their valuers that any figure under 100 per cent. would result in the tax gradually becoming incorporated in the price and leading to a quicker rise in the price of land than would otherwise happen. That was the reason. That was why Lord Silkin accepted that advice.
    What the Government must answer is why, having accepted that advice and insisted on 100 per cent. in 1947, they now think that a 40 per cent. levy can have any effect upon the price of land other than to raise the price. I happen for a long time to have held the view that this is something that we should tax, but I have not tried to delude my constituents into believing that it would bring down the price of land, because a tax on any commodity invariably puts prices up.
    426
    Another matter which is of some interest arises from paragraph 5 of the White Paper. The Government refer to the 1953 Act and the 1954 Act and say that a two-tier system was thereby created. That is only a half truth. What happened was that the 100 per cent. development charge itself created the two-tier system, because, at least in relation to the purchase of agricultural land for building, no farmer in his senses would sell a bit of his land for building unless he got more for it than the agricultural value.
    I can tell the House a story to illustrate that. I happened at one time to farm a farm which was entirely surrounded by the married quarters of a Royal Air Force camp. On more than one occasion I came back to find that my cows had been driven on to the concrete yard during the afternoon because the good ladies considered that they made rather a mess of the field in which their children wanted to play. I assure hon. Members that cows do not make a lot of milk on concrete. Therefore, any farmer or landowner who is prepared to have that kind of thing on his boundary and to sell land for that purpose will clearly demand something over and above the existing use value.
    The result was that developers had to give landowners a sweetener, so to speak, over and above existing use value and to pay the full development charge on top. A two-tier system thus developed right from the start. It is true that the abolition of the development charge of 1953 consolidated the position, but it did not start then.
    Mr. Julius Silverman: Surely, the two-tier system means one tier for land for public authorities and one tier for the private buyer. Is it not correct that the 1954–1959 Acts demolished the system in two stages and that between those years there was a two-tier system?
    Mr. Corfield: But there was a two-tier system before that. When land was required prior to that for public acquisition and was acquired on a basis of compensation related to existing use value, it fetched a lower value than it would have obtained in the open market, where the vendor received a sweetener, as I have explained; otherwise he would not have parted with it.

    427
    There is another point which fascinates me. I am sorry that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—to whom, for the purposes of distinction, I will refer as the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl)—has left the Chamber, because I see that the Government are now convinced that a two-tier system is wrong. My contribution in so far as I made one to the 1959 Act was to abolish the two-tier system. In speech after speech, I made it clear that the question of taxing the development value was another matter. There is, however, no case whatever for a system by which somebody who happens to have land which is acquired by a local authority gets for it only about half the price that he would have obtained in the open market, and, what is much more important, as sometimes happens, half the price he gave for it.
    I am delighted to see that the Government accept that the two-tier system is wrong. I recall that the hon. Member for Widnes shouted at me at the end of the debate in the last Parliament that I was the nigger in the woodpile because I did quite a lot to get rid of the two-tier system. However, conversions sometimes surprise even the most optimistic of us.
    Let me look for a moment at the concessionary rates in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the White Paper. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) has rightly said, this represents a difficult problem of selecting the people who are to get the concession. It was pointless for whoever it was on the benches opposite to get up and say that this happens already. It does indeed, but it does not follow that it is beneficial to extend it more widely over the community. The hon. Member gave examples of the way in which this had been done in areas in and around his constituency.
    I am very much reminded of a delegation which I received when Parliamentary Secretary from the town of Slough, where a lot of angry young women had been specifically told by the housing manager that they had no hope of ever getting anywhere near the top of the housing list unless they had at least three children. That means that the much more responsible couple who decide not to start a family until they have a house always go to the bottom of the queue.
    428
    If that is a sensible procedure in a country which is suffering from over- rather than under-population, I cannot think that it has any purpose which is in line with any intents expressed by the Government.
    Mr. Manuel: Is not the hon. Member inflating all this far too much? What a local authority does in the instance which he has quoted is to say that families with three children, who are already on the housing list and have their children, have to be rehoused before those with smaller families.
    Mr. Corfield: I agree. I do not blame the authority. I do not think that it could do anything about it. It has to accept that some people's housing need is greater. What I am complaining of is that if this procedure is extended over a wider field of practically every owner-occupier—or what will be a substitute for what we now know as an owner-occupier—we will have a situation in which the much more deserving citizen who deliberately refrains from starting a family until he can provide a home is always at the bottom of every queue. This is thoroughly undesirable.
    Let me pass to one or two of the other problems arising from these concessionary rates. As one of my hon. Friends has pointed out, the corollary of a concession is that there must be some control over subsequent assignment, otherwise the first purchaser merely puts in his pocket the difference in price between market value and the concession instead of it accruing to the community, as the words of the White Paper have it. It is important that at the time when the occupier—I hesitate to call him the owner-occupier, because he will have a very different status to the owner-occupier as we know him today, though for this purpose I will refer to him as the owner-occupier—enters into occupation he should know what will happen to him when he moves—if, for example, he has to move to take up another job. I understand from the White Paper that either he surrenders his Crownhold interest, in which case the Crown Commission buys back the value of the concession, or the Crown Commission can agree that he passes it on to a named nominee, presumably at a market price less the value of the concession. What it is essential to know

    429
    is how the concession will be valued at that time of assignment.
    If it is valued at its value when originally created, it is true that any subsequent increase in value will have accrued to the community. The unfortunate owner-occupier, however, will be left to carry the whole burden of any increase in values or any inflationary effect which has occurred meanwhile. Therefore, if he has to purchase precisely the same type of accommodation elsewhere in the country, he must do so at a very enhanced price over and above what he gets on realisation of his Crownhold interest. If, on the other hand, the concession is valued as at the date of the actual assignment, the vendor would get the whole benefit and nothing would accrue to the community, which, we are told, is the main object of the exercise. It is important that we should know this.
    Following on from this, it is also of the utmost importance that we know how one is supposed to value a Crown-hold interest at all, because the time will come when they will begin to run out. We all know that in the early years of a long lease the price of the freehold or the price of the long leasehold is precisely the same, separated only by capitalisation of any ground rent attached to the leasehold. As one gets towards the end of the leasehold the essential thing is to know how long it will run.
    In the case of Crownhold this is wholly indeterminate, because the only thing that determines the end of the Crownhold lease will be somebody in the Crown Commission saying that it is time that the property was redeveloped. That will be the determination. Anybody faced with the task of valuing the Crownhold, because, for instance, a road is to go through it or because it is nearing the end of its life, will have an almost impossible problem. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, who is perhaps the only Member opposite who begins to understand this, will tell us, either in this debate or at some other time, how he expects that valuation to be done. This may appear to be a matter which will only affect future generations. Even so, have we any right to clutter up the Statute Book with these insoluble problems?
    430
    I am sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will know of houses built since the war which have already had to be demolished to make way for developments which nobody could have foreseen at the time that the houses were built. It is very likely that some houses built under Crownhold in the next few years will be in the way of developments in twenty years' time which nobody can now foresee. Therefore, it will not be a problem which will be entirely confined to the far distant future.
    I very much hope that we shall have a full debate on the Land Commission. There are many other matters which I should like to raise. At a more technical meeting over the weekend I endeavoured to discuss the problems that it raises. I regret to say that I found it wholly impossible to do so in under an hour. I shall not inflict such a speech on the House today, but I hope that there will be an opportunity for some of the answers to be given.
    I want to raise two other questions this afternoon which do not appear in the Gracious Speech. The first is very much the concern—I hope the personal concern—of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I refer to his proposals for introducing safeguards for purchasers of houses which turn out to have been jerry-built. I am particularly concerned about this, because inevitably when one comes across a case on one's own doorstep it brings home to one the very serious results that this can have for the unfortunate people concerned. I do not claim that this happens very often, but it is no consolation to victims of this misfortune that it does not happen very often.
    A small terrace of three houses was built on top of an old quarry. The quarry was marked on the Ordnance Survey maps. The older residents in the area remember the quarry being worked. They even remember the builder taking part in filling it up. Nevertheless, the houses were built on top of it. No provision was made, either by the local authority or by the builder, by which the foundations were either piled or rafted. This was about five years ago.
    Today these houses are completely split asunder. In the daylight one can see

    431
    through the cracks. I did not have a pencil with me, but I have no doubt that I could have put a pencil through from one side of the wall to the other. The middle house had cracks right down each side of the window. I should think that with the next wind the window will fall out. In one house the side posts carrying the main lintel across the front door were so splayed outwards that the lintel was held on by a fraction of an inch, with an enormous weight above it. I should have thought it was extremely dangerous.
    What I am particularly perturbed about is that, when the owners had a private survey carried out, involving boring holes and looking at the foundations, it was found, not only that there had been no special provision because of the quarry, but that the requirements of the byelaws in regard to foundations had not been carried out. I think I am right in saying that the minimum requirement in the byelaws is 11 in. of concrete. I think these foundations were 8 in. or may be 7 in. Again, the byelaws specify cavity walls. On putting one's finger through the cracks one found that in many cases there was no cavity at all.
    This raises the question whether, when a house like this has been passed for byelaw purposes by a local authority, the local authority ought not to have some liability. When all is said and done, had there been no inspection for byelaw purposes and this had been known by purchasers, they would have been put on their guard. I know that they are wrong in law, but they inevitably accept that, if a house is passed on an inspection for byelaw purposes, there is a degree of guarantee that the house is soundly built. This gives them a false sense of security.
    This proposition should at least be thought about. I know that there are endless difficulties. I am not underestimating the Minister's difficulties in introducing a form of liability, but surely there ought to be some penalty on a local authority which neglects its duty in this regard. I know that the National House Builders Registration Council has made great improvements to its scheme. I welcome this. But it is extremely unlikely that this scheme can cover every builder throughout the country immediately. Houses will be built by unregis-
    432
    tered builders. The proposition that a wretched purchaser should be told, "If you buy from an unregistered builder, it is your own fault. You take your own risk ", implies that in every area there is a choice between registered and unregistered builders. It is very unlikely that there will be such a choice in every area. I do not believe that there always will be such a choice. Whether builders join the N.H.B.R.C. scheme or not, I hope that the Minister will introduce legislation to insist on a warranty running with the house against these major structural defects.
    Mr. Crossman: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is advocating. Does he not feel that, before we move to legislation—I am certainly prepared to consider it—we ought to try to persuade the building societies and the building industry to move together on this and at least to have an arrangement under which no mortgages are granted by building societies except in respect of houses subject to certificate from the N.H.B.R.C.? Once this was done, it would enormously increase both the number of builders who join the Council and the number of houses which receive the Council's certificate. This is the direction in which my mind has been moving, to seek for a self-disciplining of the industry and the building societies before we talk about legislation, which I agree with the hon. Gentleman is the last resort, if voluntary methods fail.
    Mr. Corfield: I appreciate that. I would certainly not in normal circumstances press the right hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member opposite to introduce compulsion if it was thought that this could be done voluntarily, but the Minister must bear in mind that if legislation were introduced purely in connection with warranty of the basic structure, to cope with cases where houses break their back—I have quoted the case of these three terrace houses—it could operate at once and any house completed and sold after the passing of the Act would have such a warranty. Under the N.H.B.R.C. system, this cannot happen unless the builder joined the scheme sufficiently far ahead for the house to have undergone inspection.
    Mr. Crossman: A decision by the Building Societies Association to introduce such a procedure would take no

    433
    longer than legislation and would, in its good sense, if one believes in the principle of self-regulation, be a more satisfactory solution.
    Mr. Corfield: I appreciate that a decision by the Building Societies Association would meet the point. We may have to consider, however, what would happen to houses nearing completion and which could not be covered by such a scheme. Clearly the nation cannot afford for such houses to be scrapped. They must be used. We may have to consider some other means of financing their purchase while at the same time giving safeguards.
    Mr. Costain: Does not my hon. Friend remember that last Session one of my hon. Friend's introduced a Bill to cover this point? Did not we have an assurance from the Government that if my hon. Friend would withdraw his Bill they would introduce legislation?
    Mr. Corfield rose—
    Mr. Crossman: No.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow threefold interventions.
    Mr. Corfield: It was certainly agreed to discuss the matter with one of my hon. Friends and myself. We discussed it with the Parliamentary Secretary, and I would not accuse the Minister of any breach of faith in this matter.
    Another matter on which I want to dwell arises again from something not in the Queen's Speech but which involves the proposed Housing (Slum Clearance) Bill. As I understand the proposals, whereas the existing provisions resulting from the 1957 Act give a guaranteed period of 10 years, provided that the house was bought before the introduction of the Act, for either beneficial occupation or full compensation, the right hon. Gentleman has now made it a period of 15 years. I would not cavil at that, and, in fact, I think that I am probably the author of the idea, but I make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, taking the long-term view, and I am sure that he will agree that the present proposed provision is temporary in that it covers only the next five years.
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at this problem. Section 4 of the Housing
    434
    Act, 1957. lays down the criteria whereby one decides whether a house is fit or unfit. It is possible to condemn a house which is in no way a menace to health but, when all is said and done, it is danger to health which has always been the basis for condemnation and also the justification for acquiring on site value only. The basis is that a house which is a danger to health is not in a sense a marketable house and is only bricks and mortar. I have always accepted this. I do not think that one should have a basis of compensation above site value for a real slum, but as we move to the clearance of areas of higher standards I believe that we should have an absolute assurance before a house is valued at site value for compensation that it really is such that it is a danger to health.
    I suggest that the permanent way in which we should try to tackle this problem is to try to get a definition—if necessary an ad hoc definition from a medical officer—of what is danger to health and have compensation for the value of the house less what it costs to put right any defect which causes it to be damaging to health. It is about time that we had that definition and that there should be provision whereby following the similar provisions of Parts I and II of the Housing Act there could be application to the county court to determine whether the house can be put right at a reasonable price. I do not think that the present is a satisfactory way of determining something which can be immensely important to the individual, namely, that the determination whether or not the house is a danger to health should be the decision, in theory of the Minister, in practice of his inspector and that that decision should be final.
    Had I not been encouraged to stray from my original lines of thought by the Minister of Land and Natural Resources, I had hoped to entertain the House with remarks about the ombudsman, but I think that my time has run out and I will spare the House that unfortunate experience. I hope, however, that when we come to discuss the Parliamentary Commissioner it will be realised by hon. Members how greatly this appointment may undermine the position of hon. Members in their constituency capacity in righting wrongs.

    435
    I have always taken the view that it is right to go into these questions in great detail and to assess for oneself whether there is a prima facie case. In many of these cases where one has a complaint and allegations of injustice, the complaint arises from misunderstanding. Where I have been convinced that that is what has happened I have gone into the explanation very thoroughly. But where I have been convinced that that is not the case and I have approached the Department I have always been satisfied that the traditions of the Civil Service are such that civil servants are immensely jealous of their reputation and one always has a thorough investigation. But one will never get any further if the complaint concerns a local authority or a nationalised industry where the answer comes back that there is no Ministerial responsiblity.
    This is the major weakness. A second weakness is that, however conscientious one may be, if one turns down a constituent's complaint under an ombudsman system there will always be another hon. Member who will say, "What, Mr. Snooks will not do this! I will do it" and eventually we shall all be forced to become the post office to the Parliamentary Commissioner. This will be a great tragedy. It is hard work but a most rewarding work for hon. Members to investigate constituents' complaints. It is one of the vital links in our capacity as constituency Members as opposed to being general Members of Parliament. I hope that the House will consider this matter before rushing forward too eagerly to take steps which will undermine the "jurisdiction "of a Member in his relationship both to his constituents and to the House.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next Speaker, I must point out that every back-bench speech so far has been over half an hour long and every half-hour speech precludes someone else from having the opportunity to catch my eye. I hope that hon. Members will be fair to each other.
    6.37 p.m.
    Mr. R. W. Brown: I shall be as brief as I can, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with your Ruling.
    436
    The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said that he was twelve months in advance in his thinking on the points which he was making, but one would have thought from what he said that he was twelve years late in coming round to these thoughts. The whole point of the Opposition argument today and previously is that we have been in Government for twelve months and, therefore, we should have solved all the problems which the Opposition failed to be seized of for 13 years. I have heard in the debate figures bandied about on housing and rating. It is about time that we heard the correct figures. The right hon. Gentleman made the point that taxation inflates the price of land. That is perfectly true, but I draw the attention of the House to the fact that inflation has been going on for a long time and my right hon. Friend is now faced with a situation which has been allowed to come about over the years.
    The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) mentioned, though not with that purpose, legislation passed in 1959 which has actually helped to bring about this situation.
    Mr. Corfield indicated dissent.
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I will repeat figures which he has had from me before when we discussed this very problem. I do not think that he understood the matter then.
    Mr. Corfield: The hon. Member must not confuse cause and effect. It does not follow that because prices have risen since 1959, which was precisely the time when we experienced an enormously increased demand for houses, that this was the result of legislation passed at that time.
    Mr. Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for coming in, but I am not dealing with the housing side yet. At the moment, I am talking about land.
    Prior to the Act, the valuation of land was based on a number of factors. One was its existing use value and another consideration was whether or not it was a charity. A number of items determined the value of land and the price paid for it. After the 1959 Act that basis of valuation was wiped out and it was

    437
    made retrospective to 1958, which complicated the whole thing even more.
    The effect in my own area was that we could have paid £6,000 an acre in 1955, under the previous legislation, but after 1958 and in the ensuing years up to and including 1965 we have had to pay something like £25,000 an acre for exactly the same land. That is the inflation which has to be curbed, and it shows how prices are going up. That is the problem that local authorities are experiencing and which the hon. Gentleman and I have talked about at such length.
    Mr. Corfield rose—
    Mr. Brown: Perhaps I might be allowed to deploy my argument a little more fully. Some of my hon. Friends wanted to come in during the course of the hon. Gentleman's speech and he was not very co-operative.
    The situation facing local authorities today results from the action of the previous Administration which assisted the increase in costs and did nothing to ameliorate them. Therefore, my right hon. Friend is faced today with the task of having to take action on it, which we said in 1964 we would do. What I rather resent is that hon. Gentlemen opposite are now giving the impression that they agree that it is a right and proper thing to do and that it is a problem which has arisen in the last 12 months. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South knows quite well that it has been going on for many years, and many of us have worn ourselves out trying to explain what the trouble is.
    My right hon. Friend is now going to deal with the problem, though not as something which is new. He has the courage to take it into his hands and do something about it.
    Mr. Corfield: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would do me the honour of reading some of my very old speeches, where I put forward the idea that I believed that a tax was quite legitimate. In so far as his local authority was buying land cheaper, there was an element of confiscation, because so often it involved buying land at a price less than that which the unfortunate people had paid for it in good faith. If there is to be subsidisa-
    438
    tion, it should be by the State all round, out of taxation.
    Mr. Speaker: I hope that when hon. Members intervene during the course of other hon. Members' speeches they will not themselves make second speeches.
    Mr. Brown: What the hon. Gentleman says is not in confirmation of the facts. In a previous speech in the House, I referred to a particular piece of land which had changed hands at £12,000. The owner never got on to it, because we applied a compulsory purchase order to stop it. It took two and a half years to go through the hon. Gentleman's Department, and during that time the land was lying fallow because he would not get on with the job. By the time our compulsory purchase order was confirmed, we had to pay £29,000 for it, and there was neither stick nor stone put on the land. That is what the hon. Gentleman has to understand, and that is only a typical example, and there are many of them. I have experienced a string of them, as the hon. Gentleman knows quite well.
    Turning to the point about houses, from 1955 to 1965 it is interesting to note the inflation and how it has gone on. Do not let us think that the high prices started only 12 months ago. In my own area, in 1955, houses were worh £1,400 to £1,700. At the end of the previous Administration's period in office in 1964 those very same houses were fetching £4,500. Not a thing has happened to those houses. They are exactly the same. When the right hon. Member for Kings-ton-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) talks about poor young couples who are trying to find places to live in, it was that that tripled values. When they came to me in my local authority pleading for help, I told them just what the right hon. Gentleman said. I told them to go to a building society to see if they would help. But they had to be earning £25 or £30 a week before they could provide collateral for a loan and, as a result, these young people could not get anywhere.
    The fact is that prices went on rising, and what I get so angry about is that we were explaining all the way along the line that that was happening.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would explain to me how and

    439
    why he thinks that the proposals to set up a Land Commission plus a levy of between 40 and 50 per cent. will reduce prices?
    Mr. Brown: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will permit me to deploy the arguments that I want to advance, including my argument in favour of the Land Commission, otherwise Mr. Speaker will rebuke me for exceeding his rules.
    The right hon. Gentleman gave the impression that it has all happened in 12 months, but he knew all about it, as did his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and, before him, the noble Lord, Lord Hill, and before him, his right hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke). I saw all of them so frequently that eventually they became personal friends of mine and we exchanged information. I gave them the information, but none of them did a thing about it.
    The Milner Holland Report came as no surprise, because I have given evidence to something like five different commissions. When the previous Minister of Housing said to me, "Wait until Milner Holland reports and we will then understand it", I said,"I have given information to Milner Holland, just as I have to other inquiries." It was the same information, so we knew what the result would be. These problems have been in existence for a long time, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite must face the situation.
    I want at least to take up the point about the house building figures. The hon. Gentleman knows quite well the arguments that I had with his Department under the previous Administration about the building of homes. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hampstead will remember the fights that I have had with him over his refusal of our compulsory purchase order because we had no land. It was not that we were not building. We wanted to build more. He kept us back because he wanted to increase private building in our area and keep local authority building down, knowing quite well that we had a housing list which never fell below 6,500 families. He did that quite deliberately.
    We built those houses eventually, and our programme was as good as any
    440
    authority's in London or in England and Wales per head of our population, and we built them in spite of the Government. In spite of the policies of the present Opposition Front Bench, we went on building. They tried to stop us getting money, they tried to stop us getting loan sanction. They tried everything they could to stop us, but we built those houses in spite of their efforts. In 1958 we built a block of 403 flats, which is our monument. When the Minister of the day tried to stop us we said, "No. We go on." It cost us a great deal of money and resulted in a huge capital debt, but, in spite of that, we went ahead.
    A lot has been said about the housing record of the previous Administration, but I have yet to see a government-built house. The local authorities build houses. When the right hon. Gentleman says that building is going down, let me inform him that my own local authority's programme has gone up 112 per cent. this year, and that is to continue for the next seven years. My right hon. Friend is encouraging us to do that, and to try to advance the argument that we are not going to get the houses this year or in future years is nonsense.
    I wanted also to talk about slums and the argument about the definition of slums. I hope that this will be a point my right hon. Friend will take. I have been arguing for years that the definition of slums should include more properties than it does, because there are places which I would declare to be slums and would have declared years ago to be slums but for the fact that they cannot be so declared because they do not satisfy the criteria demanded by the Act. They are disgraceful places. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means when he talks about whether or not health is affected. Perhaps he was using the argument he used when he was Parliamentary Secretary. I could understand his using it then because of the definition. Indeed, nobody could accept a definition such as, would they attract a medical certificate? One could drive a coach and horses through so wide a definition as that. He knows the problem very well, and he knows that there were areas which ought to have been declared slums but which could not be declared slums, and that we had to take them in as twilight areas in ordinary development and have had to

    441
    pay far loo much for them. They were really rubbish and the ratepayers had to pay for it.
    This, quite naturally, brings me to the rates. It is made very clear in the Queen's Speech that my right hon. Friend is going to try to help the ratepayers by lifting the burden of rates from them. There is one thing I should like him to bear in mind, if he would, and it affects my own constituency which is in juxtaposition to the City. Under the revaluation in 1963, due to the technique of ensuring that there should be no sharp difference in valuation on one side and the other of a local area boundary, people living in my area but adjacent to the City are now paying a tremendous price in rates because the rateable values are in excess of what they ought to be, and they are excessive because they were influenced so much by the City. They not only pay extra rates on those high rateable values but at the same time they have to pay a higher water rate. There is very clear evidence that for comparable properties at opposite ends of the constituency there is something like a 50 per cent. difference in valuations. This is quite wrong an inequitable, and I would urge my right hon. Friend to have regard to this when he sets out to lessen the injustices of the rating system. I hope that, besides taking account of rates in the financial sense, he will look at rating with the idea of seeing whether he can conceivably find a way of determining a rateable value which is fair and just.
    Finally, I would ask him to consider, in helping local authorities to save money, to look at the problem of road closing. This may seem a minor issue, but it becomes quite large when one realises what happens. At the moment any road closing is mainly done under the town and Country Plannnig Act, and yet it comes under the Minister of Transport, so that at any time one has first of all to get permission for the area to come under compulsory purchase arrangements, then one has to get the compulsory purchase order, then one has to obtain planning consent, and one cannot even start the work of getting the road closing done till after planning consent is received— and this goes to the Ministry of Transport. From that point on it is quite indeterminate how long it will take, but ex-
    442
    perience shows that it will take seven months at least before a reply is obtained. Of course, if there is an objection it goes to a public inquiry, so it could conceivably go on much longer, for probably two years or more. Even taking a seven months' time it means, for instance, running right into a contract period for the work to be started on the site before we have actually got the order for closing the road. We have had a lot of experience of very near misses in starting the work on the site without an order to close the road. I would urge my right hon. Friend to see if he himself could deal with the whole of the problem since the initiation of the work comes under the Town and Country Planning Act which he has to operate.
    To keep within the limits you have suggested, Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude now by welcoming the Gracious Speech. I think it shows a term's work which is in the best interests of the people, and I am quite sure that it will commend itself to everybody, and if we achieve it, as I am sure we shall, it will show the interest of our Government in the people's needs.
    6.55 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Jones: I followed the hon. Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown) with great interest. I can tell from what he said that he has had immense experience with housing, and I can well understand the clashes he will have had from time to time over the tremendous housing problem in his part of London. I take it that he still serves on a local authority in that area.
    The hon. Member has given me an introduction to that housing question with which I wish to deal, and that is the question of housing subsidies and the degree to which housing subsidies are tied up with rate fund contributions made by many local authorities through housing revenue accounts. I think there is widespread concern that housing subsidies are not getting to the people for whom they were really intended. I welcome the reference in the Gracious Speech to the review which is to take place of housing subsidies, and it is with that in view that I wish to try to show some of the anomalies of which I am sure all of us

    443
    on both sides of the House are aware. I wish to relate the suggestion which the Government are making on rate subsidies to the question of housing subsidies because it seems from what is being said on the question of rate subsidies that these will be selective and go to those in need—needy families—to help with their rates, rather than as assistance right across the board such as, in the main, we see with housing subsidies at present.
    It is in the knowledge of all of us that the Exchequer subsidy first of all is applied to the housing revenue accounts and that tenants fortunate enough to be in council housing enjoy that subsidy and in very many cases as well a second subsidy which is found as a rate fund contribution by the local authority. If these two matters are not to be dealt with as one problem as a whole, then we are going to find the extraordinary situation of ratepayers who are not in local authority housing having to be helped partially because of the rate fund contribution which is being made on their behalf to tenants of council properties.
    The incidence of this rate fund assistance to housing revenue accounts is really very substantial indeed. Although I am an advocate of independence for the local authorities in the way they raise their money and, to a substantial extent, to the way in which they direct it, of course they have authority without limit to direct rateborne subsidy into housing revenue accounts, and there are examples—and I think the Minister cannot deny this—where the matter is being abused.
    I have a list here which shows a substantial number of authorities who make these contributions. Birmingham, for example, makes a contribution of nearly £1·2 million from the rate fund into the housing account, a rate fund product of l0d.
    Liverpool makes no rate fund contribution, but the adjoining authority of Bootle makes a contribution of no less than 1s. 7d. from the rate fund to the housing revenue account. I do not know Liverpool and Bootle well, but they are closely adjoining county borough authorities and I should have thought that each had the same type of problem. Why is there this great difference in the management of the two housing accounts. One
    444
    might take also the position at Salford, where a contribution of more than £292,000, or a Is. 4d. rate, is made, and that at Bermondsey—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, is not here; I had hoped to make the remark in his presence—where a l0d. rate is contributed.
    The sum total of all this is that whereas the Exchequer subsidy for housing is about £60 million—I take my figures from the booklet issued by the muncipal treasurers, figures for 1963–64; I have every reason to believe that they have substantially increased in the last three years—the rate subsidy totals £20 million, a third as much as the Exchequer subsidy.
    Mr. Crossman: Has the hon. Gentleman been able to analyse how much of this is done by boroughs in the great conurbations and how much outside? Are these instances mostly from the great conurbations?
    Mr. Jones: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is correct. I have an analysis of the figures. The percentage of rate fund contribution to the total revenue of the housing account is 5·8 for county boroughs in the country as a whole. In the Metropolitan boroughs and the City the percentage is 20·7. So the highest proportion is in London and not in the conurbations. There is a very clear contrast of management. I emphasised this in the contrast between Liverpool and Bootle. For the whole of the London County Council there was a 13·5 per cent. rate-borne contribution to the housing revenue account. The contribution drops substantially for the smaller authorities —non-county boroughs 4T, urban district councils 3·7 and rural district councils 2·5.
    We all recognise—this is the point that I made to the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury—that there are great problems in the conurbations and particularly in London. There is widespread concern about the rate fund subsidy and the extent of housing subsidies as a whole. The Government may say that the rate fund subsidy must continue, but what will they do to ensure that the subsidies go to those who need them? This concern is widely expressed in the country and is recognised by us all.

    445
    I do not want to draw the elementary comparison that one does when driving through housing estates, and so on, but we all know from experience the dreadful circumstances of substantial subsidies going to people who do not need them, many of whom would prefer to be without them. If we water down the subsidies, Exchequer or rate fund, by spreading them across the majority of housing tenants, that prevents us helping to a far greater degree those who are in most need. There may be a substantial case to be made for some limit being placed on local authorities in order to make housing funds available out of the rate fund.
    There are rate rebate schemes and differential rent schemes to ensure more equality in the distribution of housing subsidies. I do not think it is an unfair comment that Socialist-controlled authorities have resisted these schemes. I cannot think why. The Greater London Council is the most recent convert to this principle. I do not know whether at County Hall it has been the triumph of reason over prejudice or sanity over stupidity, or recognition of the cold hard facts of local government finance in the past 12 months. This will be known to the Minister. The fact that local authorities have had to pay so dearly for so long for their housing finance—the rate has been quoted to the House—has led almost every housing authority to run into the red on its housing revenue account. Many authorities started with a very healthy balance last year, but many are having to put up their rents twice in the current financial year. This is evidence of the situation into which housing revenue accounts are getting because of the difficulties that the Government ran into—some of their own making —in regard to high interest charges.
    Mr. R. W. Brown: Perhaps I might set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. The deficit of my local authority has been growing since 1952. We were building throughout the whole time that the Conservative Government were in power, from 1952 to 1964, and the deficit grew from £50,000 to £50 million when I left the authority, and it is continuing to rise at the rate of £250,000 a year.
    Mr. Jones: I am in no position to question the soundness of the management of the housing revenue account to
    446
    which the hon. Gentleman refers, but he will know the content of the Report of the Working Party on local authority housing finance. It contains substantial evidence that housing rents have been kept artificially low.
    Mr. Brown: Sometimes.
    Mr. Jones: In the circumstances "sometimes" is indeed a concession from the hon. Member. According to the Report the evidence is widespread throughout the country. The recommendation of that ministerial document was that the only sensible method which had come to light was that rents should be related to the gross value and that they should be 0·9 or 1 times the gross value. This would have clone away with the necessity for housing subsidies altogether, whether Exchequer or rate fund, and then the Government could, if they wished, have applied both to the relief of really needy tenants instead of having "across the board" subsidies, which I grant both the previous Government and the present Government have accepted.
    Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Bermondsey just now. Is he really telling me that Bermondsey could build houses today by the simple device of fixing the rent by his formula and raising the money out of that? Is he really saying that there would have to be no subsidy from the Government or the rates if that formula were applied?
    Mr. Jones: I am quoting from the Report of the Working Party, and my comment was made in the context of the point raised by the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury, that a certain housing revenue account had been running into the red since the early fifties. If throughout the country—not merely in the case of a single authority such as Bermondsey—housing rents were related to 0·9 times gross values, there would be adequate revenue without Exchequer and rate fund subsidies. This is the recommendation of the Working Party.
    I now turn to the position that rules in Southwark, for example. I have been dealing with Bermondsey. I understand that Southwark and Bermondsey are now together under the new arrangements in London. Bermondsey has a rate fund contribution of £190,000, Camberwell a contribution of £481,000 and Southwark a

    447
    contribution of £81,000. The whole district will need a rate fund contribution to cover its debt for the current year— and debts must be covered each year— of no less than a 2s. Id. rate. Here again is confirmation of the difficulties in which housing authorities have found themselves during the past twelve months.
    Mr. Crossman: On the present rate of subsidy.
    Mr. Jones: Now the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the Exchequer subsidy. I am not. I am referring to the 2s. Id. rate subsidy. The Exchequer subsidy is £60 million. The rate fund subsidy is £20 million.
    The great constituent of the housing revenue account is rents. The fact is not that so many people need housing subsidies but that there should be a better relationship between rents, Exchequer subsidy and the rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account. The Government must turn their attention shortly to seeing that Exchequer and rate fund subsidies go to those who need them.
    It has been said that the Minister is proposing an increase of 50 per cent. in housing subsidies. Indeed, the figure of 100 per cent. has been heard. I have no idea what the ultimate figure will be. But is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that, over the country as a whole, an increase of subsidy of that sort is required? Do we not, in fact, need to see a much more enlightened approach to the whole question of housing subsidies?
    I am sure that it was mainly Socialist-controlled housing authorities which refused to implement rent rebate schemes, but they have been forced into doing it in the past year, however, and the degree to which they have been forced into it is evidenced in the so-called "blazing row" which followed Southwark council's decision to introduce a rent rebate scheme. This led to the resignation of the leader of the Socialist member of the council. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who is not present, was at that meeting and questioned the council's desire to go ahead with rent increases. He asked the council to delay the implementation of the rent increases until the
    448
    Government's White Paper on housing and interest rates was published.
    It will be a matter of great interest to see the proposals which will follow the mention in the Gracious Speech. We have been promised more council houses and more subsidies to more people and the suspicion is that the Government's aim is to ensure that there are more Socialists.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. T. W. Urwin: I have no intention of following the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) in his intricate arguments. However, I got the impression that he was somewhat befogged by his material. I want to address myself to remarks made by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who said that people outside should know that the Government have failed in housing compared with the continuous progress of the Conservative Government. That is a wild statement for anyone to make about any policy after one year of a Government, whether Labour or any other.
    The right hon. Gentleman also said that, during their period of office, the Conservatives consistently increased housing output. A glance at the early 1960s contradicts that. In 1961, the total was 303,000 houses; in 1962, it was 314,000, and in 1963, it was 308,000. That was a backward step rather than progress towards the ultimate objective of 400,000 houses a year. But in 1964, in one of the most blatant pieces of electioneering propaganda that could possibly be found, the total increased to 383,00.
    The Conservative approach to housing while in Government has always been the unplanned way. There is direct evidence in their record of lack of planning. It is a significant and further indictment of their policy that, in an almost indecent attempt to achieve the target in 1964, brick stockpiles were drastically reduced. In 1963 there were 236 million bricks in reserve. By the end of 1964, because of the sudden and remarkable impetus in housing by the Conservative Government, the stockpiles had diminished to less than half that quantity. "Unplanned" is the appropriate word to use about their attitude both to the construction industry and to housing.

    449
    By contrast, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works, almost immediately on taking office, undertook discussions with the brick manufacturers and received assurances from them that about £25 million would be invested in 1965 in the industry, that the estimated production would increase considerably and that, by the end of 1968, they would achieve approximately a 20 pei cent. increase in order to meet the additional demands placed by the Government upon the material supply industries as well as the construction industry for housing and other buildings.
    Whatever we politicians may say, and whatever the statisticians and lawyers may say, about rating and other aspects of housing, there are occasions when we should consider the other problems which are involved. I am particularly concerned about the constitution of the construction industry and the necessity to harness its full resources if we are to succeed in fulfilling our responsibilities to the people who sent us here. The resources of the industry are by no means as fully used as they might be.
    Building maintenance is one example. In all sections of maintenance, including housing, the cost to the country is £900 million per annum. This section of the industry employs 600,000 men, or 40 per cent. of the total labour force available to the industry. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works has drawn attention to the need to investigate this section of the industry and I am pleased to hear that he is to set up a committee to do so. There is no doubt that if we are to do everything we ought to be doing, this kind of thing will have to be examined very closely. If we could achieve only a 5 per cent, saving in maintenance we would release very valuable resources of manpower, capital and materials for the provision of new houses.
    I want also to consider the structure of the building industry. It is very easy for people, who are sometimes, unfortunately, adventurers, to enter the industry. They merely have to satisfy the Company Acts and can then enter the industry, often without knowledge or ability. This is often a gamble, what is sometimes called a business gamble, but there are
    450
    often disastrous social results, not least to the people in the industry.
    In this context I want to refer to a specific example in the new town of Peterlee. I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who represents that area, for raising this matter in his absence, but he is fully aware of the circumstances of this case. A relatively small firm came into the new town and, by some means or other, received huge contracts for the provision of houses. Within two years it had gone into liquidation, leaving behind liabilities of about £500,000. This is a fantastic story which seems to come out of fiction, but it is fact. The most unfortunate people, apart from the new town corporation, were several hundred building workers who, under the stamp system, were left without holiday pay for the ensuing year and who have not yet been reimbursed. This is just one of the largest defaults in the construction industry, but it is to be hoped that it is an example which will not be repeated. However, there are many minor examples of this kind. The rate of bankruptcies in the construction industry is the highest for any industry and that in itself is a severe criticism of the ridiculously easy way in which entry into the industry can be effected.
    I want now to deal with the industry's competency and ability to meet the target of 400,000 houses a year now and, according to the National Plan, 500,000 houses a year by 1970. There are as many as 85,000 employers in the industry, but 80 per cent. of them employ only one to 10 operatives. These are very small firms indeed. Only 2 per cent. of all the firms employ 50 per cent. of all the operatives. While many of them are involved in maintenance, a simple calculation shows that 400,000 houses to be built by 85,000 contractors is an average of one contractor building just over four houses a year. Even in the United States, which is not the best example of construction industry organisation, there is a higher ratio, 15 houses per contractor.
    There are 20,000 employers who are so small that they cannot contribute to the industrial training levy because they employ fewer than five men, or have an annual wage bill of less than £5,000. I must confess that I personally know that many of these small firms are extremely

    451
    efficient, but one is not entitled to suggest that all of them are as efficient as they should be. They do not keep pace with modern developments in the industry. They do not have the facilities to recruit and, more important, to train apprentices. Those which recruit and attempt to train do not have the resources of skilled craftsmen necessary to provide the training. The consumers' interests alone demand that builders should employ first-class craftsmen.
    All this leads to more waste of very valuable financial resources on administration. When there is splintering of this sort, repetitive expenditure is incurred far too frequently. There are many firms throughout the industry to whom I am pleased and proud to pay tribute, but the present situation nevertheless needs much more investigation than it appears to have had.
    Among these many firms there are some dealing in labour-only subcontracting exclusively. These are perhaps the worse offenders. Not only do they fail to pay their contributions to the industrial training board but too often they have, and take, the opportunity to evade their responsibility for stamping insurance cards. This leads to perhaps the most pernicious system in the whole of the industry.
    I am sorry to say that it is a system encouraged by employers and operatives alike. Bands of men gang together and travel from job to job, having no responsibility to anybody. The situation encourages deplorable practices, even to a form of blackmail when there is such a high demand for labour that industrial agreements are superseded by private bargaining between operatives and employers. Employers often find themselves conceding wages or bonuses far in excess of trade union agreements. This is not to the advantage or benefit of the employer or the industry generally, and certainly not of the consumer, because in the final analysis the consumer inevitably suffers. This system operates largely, if not entirely, in the private sector of the industry where it is easy—much easier than it should be—for these people to get away with shoddy workmanship, because in the private sector there is not the kind of supervision which is to be found in the public sector.
    452
    The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) referred to the issue of a certificate of habitation by the local authority. He was talking about an instance which happened some time ago, I presume, not a current one. He said that fissures had appeared in the wall, but that the local authority issued a certificate of habitation. Under existing legislation the local authority has no other responsibility. It has to provide a certificate saying that the byelaws have been complied with. No matter how disgusted they feel about inferior buildings, and as a member of a local authority I know that this often happens, they have no right to interfere and to withhold the certificate because of any structural defect.
    The "labour only" system is another unfortunate travesty. Many firms either by choice, but more often because of the circumstances prevailing, are driven to implement this system. This means that they are only giving their name to the particular project. It is so easy for them to evade their responsibility.
    I turn to the Gracious Speech. At the top of page 3 it says:
    "In implementing the National Plan My Government will extend the range of the Economic Development Committees and encourage British industry to achieve greater competitive efficiency by reorganisation, the more general use of advanced technology, and better use of manpower."
    The Amalgamated Union of Building Trade Workers, of which I am a member, recently asked the Prime Minister to set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the construction industry. I can think of no better example, and no better ground upon which the Commission could work in order to ensure greater efficiency in the construction industry, especially bearing in mind their responsibility towards the housing drive. Despite adverse comments that one hears from time to time from the Opposition benches about restrictive practices, I am sure that it would be a pleasure to Members to hear that this industry, with all its difficulties, differences and inhibitions, placed upon it by varying circumstances, achieved an 8 per cent. increase in production in 1964. This is despite the fact that no increase was possible in the third quarter because of bad weather conditions. No doubt technological development will produce

    453
    better methods of building to ensure continuity of employment during the bad winter months. The industry has proved its adaptability to change but is yet apprehensive of it because of the intensification of industrialised building, despite the assurances that have been given that this industrialisation will only increase by a maximum of 20 per cent. in the next 20 years.
    I remember some time ago, during Question Time, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. A. P. Costain) said that we must get away from traditional building. This is not true. It is inherent in our housing policy and it ought to be remembered by all concerned. We have to use, and we ought to be considering the fullest possible use of, the resources available in the construction industry. While both sides of the industry accept the fact that the programmes must be supplemented by industrialised building, we can never do without the quantity building which can be provided by traditional means. The industry has accepted my right hon. Friend's appointment of Mr. Lederer, I understand from the hon. Member's firm, to assist in planning the industrialisation. There ought not to be any cosseting of system building. There is a danger in the setting up of the consortium so far established in different parts of the country that this might happen, to the detriment of traditional building.
    Both sections of the industry must be fully competitive with each other, as must one system compete against another. I suggest finally that if the problems, or even some of the problems, to which I have referred within the construction industry can be successfully resolved, together with the humanising of the industry, then this Government will be well on the way to achieving a target of 500,000 houses a year—and this will be a stepping stone to much greater productivity in the future.
    7.35 p.m.
    Mr. William Roots: There must be many of us who on hearing that the Minister would be one of the opening speakers in the debate hoped to have a further elaboration of how he and his colleagues have confidence in the Land Commission and a fuller explanation of the provisions of the contents of the White Paper. All
    454
    of us must have been struck by the fact that his lack of confidence in the provisions of the White Paper were matched by what appeared to be his lack of knowledge and interest in them. I am very surprised that after that speech he has not been a little more generous in his time and shown a greater interest in this debate.
    I think that the probable answer is that he may have been confounded by the opening passages of his own White Paper which seeks to support the case for a Land Commission by saying that it is backed by centuries of failure. We are then referred to the 1947 Act. Admittedly the provisions were different, but these stem from it, and one's only comment on that is that Lord Silkin, who was, I seem to recollect, a protagonist of the Act, was later quick to admit that the particular provisions of the value of development charge had proved a total failure and must be repealed. There is also reference to the powers of the Central Land Board. Those of us with experience of their exercise of that power remember well that it turned out to be inept but also that it was bitterly resented by local authorities, and by members of the public, because it was ineptly used.
    The final thing which is brought in, and it is so often brought in, is the Uthwatt Report. One often wonders how many people who refer to that Report have read it. What is never referred to is that there was a minority report by the one member who had practical experience of land dealings, namely, the President of the Estate Agents Institute. He said there and then that however good the scheme was technically, and I think it was technically good, it would not work, and he proved to be right. It took something like ten years to prove him right, but he was so proved.
    The two objectives of the White Paper are said to be to secure the right land at the right time for implementing national, regional and local plans. On the face of it, that is simply a sweeping condemnation of both central and local authorities. Local authorities make the development plans. They make development plans with a programme map and they have compulsory powers. A programme map, as anyone who has experience of these cases knows, is overrun time and again. It is not a problem to get people

    455
    to bring forward land in accordance with the development plan. The fact is that they are seeking to bring it forward in advance and they are having to appeal to the Minister, first of all, to get the land permitted for development in advance of the programme map and, secondly, to get more land released for development. This has been the real problem and is the problem—the release of land for development.
    That, basically, stems from the need to amend and extend the development plan. To attempt to cure the alleged incompetence of one Ministry and a number of local authorities by setting up a fresh Ministry is surely a poor way of setting about it. I had hoped that the Minister would explain the cases he has in mind in which a local authority, or the Minister, who has default powers, cannot act, and therefore there must be some other body. If there be some small gap so that it cannot be mended by giving extended powers to an authority, at least one would have expected the Minister to give some explanation of why a new Ministry had to be set up.
    It is also relevant to ask how he will judge what is the right land and what is the right time. For example, why should he know better than the people of Burnley what land should be brought forward, unless, of course, he is to have a complete duplication of staff and information throughout the country? As far as I can see on any evidence that I had ever heard—and the Minister has not been generous enough to give us any further information—the local authorities are as good judges as anybody of what land is needed in their areas and when it is needed. If there is any doubt about it, the Minister responsible for town and country planning can amend their Plans, but from the point of view of acquiring land for their own purposes there is no need for a further Ministry.
    When one considers this question of acquiring land and the powers of overriding a local authority, one would also like an explanation of what is the position as between one individual and another. In thousands of cases, which have always been welcomed by whichever party was in Government, people have sought to think ahead in terms of redevelopment if they owned parcels of
    456
    land, and they have acquired them. Now we have a provision which will inhibit them from doing that to a large extent because they will find that when they are ready to develop somebody will go round to the back door of the Treasury and say, "Acquire X's land for me". Having built up his scheme, a man may find that his land is taken away from him and disposed of to somebody else. To my knowledge this is a real danger which, quite rightly, is worrying people who are interested in redevelopment, particularly in the development areas.
    I had hoped that the Minister would give us some explanation of the kind of procedure envisaged when such an operation is going to take place. One hopes that he will allow a public inquiry to take place. Presumably he will ensure that he will hear and take into account the views of people who own land and who want to redevelop it, for, on the proposals which he has put forward, the land may well be taken from such a person and sold to someone else. This is a real problem, and neither the Minister's speech nor the White Paper give any kind of indication that it has been considered.
    The next objective, apparently, is to secure a substantial part of the development for the community. At the moment the operation of all land development is subject to Corporation Tax, or, alternatively, Income Tax, Surtax and Capital Gains Tax. Clearly, if a levy is imposed, at least one of those sums will be reduced as it will have been paid already. In other words, if a man has paid a levy, it will not be possible to get as much out of him if he has to pay Capital Gains Tax, or Income Tax, or Corporation Tax on it.
    I would have liked to have challenged the Minister to show how any increase in revenue will result from the setting up of the Land Commission. I do not believe that there will be a penny increase in revenue which would otherwise have been acquired. In other words, I would like the Minister to show what revenue will be achieved simply by the setting up of the Land Commission. This is a point on which the House is entitled to some information, and I would have thought that the Minister would have given it at the outset.

    457
    The next objective is the reduction in the cost of land required for essential purposes. The only examples given are land for local authority housing and housing associations. One wonders how this will help in terms of providing land for urban authorities. If the Land Commission is, in effect, going to provide a hidden subsidy in the sense that it will provide the land at a reduced price, or at a low price, I find it hard to believe that the Treasury will not want to make a reduction in what is in effect a subsidy, because the Land Commission will have had to buy the land at market value and it will have deducted the levy which would have occurred in any event. If the Land Commission gives it away, it is giving away national money, in the same way as a subsidy. I think that urban authorities would be misleading themselves if they felt that they were going to get it both ways. On the short experience that I have had in this House, I do not see the Treasury doing that.
    Mr. Mellish: The hon. and learned Gentleman is associated with one of the London boroughs where the cost of land is a tremendous deterrent to house building. He is associated with the Royal Borough of Chelsea and Kensington, which I think I am right in saying is being asked to pay about £200,000 an acre for land for housing purposes. This was put to me by the local authority, and I was asked, "What can you do to help us to acquire more land cheaply for housing purposes?". The hon. and learned Gentleman has been very negative in saying what the Government are trying to do. Will he give us some positive ideas about what he thinks should be done to help his local authority to get land at a price at which it can build houses?
    Mr. Roots: The hon. Gentleman was very careful not to take the House into his confidence and say what answer he gave to the borough council. If he told the borough council that the land would be given to it by the Land Commission and that it would not have its housing subsidy reduced, he ought to tell the House so, but he knows as well as I do that he said nothing of the sort. If the borough is given its land it will be delighted, but the fact of the matter is that it is far better to give a subsidy to
    458
    those who need it, and if one gives overall reductions one tends to give them without regard to individuals. I do not care in which way the Minister gives it. I notice that he was very careful not to say what he promised the borough council, and, unless it has had an assurance from the Ministry, the council would be very unwise to think that it will get housing land for nothing and not get its subsidy reduced. I would be only too ready to sit down if the hon. Gentleman was prepared to give that assurance.
    There is nothing in the White Paper about assistance for the private estate developer. I am pleased that housing associations are to get help, but I consider that there are many people who want to build and buy their own houses who may be equally deserving of assistance. As far as I can see from the White Paper there is no suggestion that that would happen.
    Again, in respect of urban areas, in cases where persons are buying slum land or developed land which is zoned for housing, I would have liked the Minister to tell us where the levies will come from. If a person is buying slum land and helping the local authority by doing so, it seems to me that no levy will be chargeable. Not only will the Land Commission not get a levy but, according to the Minister, it will give the land away free. That is the sort of Valhalla on which we should get some information from the Minister.
    Similarly, if a person buys commercial or industrial land for open space no levy may be payable on it, but the local authority will still want to buy it for a non-profitable purpose. If the suggestions and hints which have been given are in any way intended the Minister should have told us that in the White Paper.
    The White Paper gives no explanation of the position in the case where a local authority wants to buy voluntarily— where it has land for housing offered to it. As I understand it, if it buys voluntarily it will not get a bonanza from the Land Commission, although a levy will be payable. Why should not a local authority buy voluntarily? As it stands the scheme is an absolute discouragement to do that. Local authorities will lose by it, and as a result we shall have a proliferation of compulsory purchases.

    459
    That situation is envisaged, because it appears that the procedure will be cooked to speed things up, presumably so that people will not have sufficient time to object.
    The Land Commission must first be staffed, and if it is really to know what is best for Bootle it must have a staff stretching from Bootle down to Cornwall. Presumably it will have to have valuers, and if it attempts to use the present district valuers' system I would point out that in Kensington—and there are many other constituencies in the same position—7,000 rating appeals are outstanding. It will have to have a separate valuation staff of a highly skilled nature, and our experience of the working of the 1947 Act shows that the achievement of development values, which are to some extent problematical, is very difficult. No explanation has been given about that, and about the situation where the local authority will be over-ridden and the Commission will say, "You did not buy; we shall buy". A good deal of information is needed on that aspect.
    I cannot help feeling that a body which is to have the positively dictatorial powers that this body is to have should have some kind of elected background. We are handing over power entirely to a body which, it is true, will operate within the general instructions of the Ministry, but I cannot believe that it is right in this country and in this age to hand over powers of this nature to an appointed body of this kind.
    As for compulsory purchases, the White Paper says that the Commission will have the same powers as a Government Department, but very few Government Departments indulge in extensive compulsory purchase. That raises the problem of the establishment of an inspectorate. Is this to be the inspectorate of the Ministry of Land, which does not exist at the moment? The Ministry of Housing cannot get enough inspectors. A separate inspectorate will have to be built up by the Ministry to hear cases operating within the Ministry's scheme. This is the most blatant case of judge and jury. This is the kind of thing which the Franks Committee—as announced in the newspapers the other day—criticised in the case of electricity undertakings.
    460
    If this system is to be put into effect we shall have completely to revise our present inspectorate system—and I would not object to that—because it is quite inappropriate to cases where the purchaser is so closely connected with the Ministry responsible.
    I will not repeat at length the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), because it became quite apparent that the Minister has not appreciated at which prices purchases would be taking place. If this system is really carried out the Land Commission will become virtually the only buyer, and in terms of land for development it may become the only seller.
    I could not understand the Minister's being unsure whether the sales would be at market price or at current use price. Unless they are at market price I do not see how he will be able to arrive at a 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. levy. That he should be at a loss to be able to deal with that point seems to me absolutely incomprehensible, because it is fundamental to the whole consideration of the matter. He has taken a year of gestation, and now there is nothing. I cannot help feeling that from what we have heard today neither side of the House can have any confidence in the scheme for the Land Commission as set out in the White Paper.
    7.57 p.m.
    Mr. Kenneth Lomas: I am grateful for having caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I feel like an adventurous young man who has been sitting here for two and a half days waiting to catch the eye of a virtuous maiden, and who now having received the nod proceeds to take advantage of it. I hasten to assure the House that the only advantage that I intend to take is slightly to widen the scope of the debate, for reasons that will become obvious. I also assure the House that I shall speak for only 15 minutes. If I am still on my feet when that time has elapsed and somebody asks me to give way I shall resume my place.
    We have had a detailed discussion of the question of the Land Commission— a discussion which could easily have been left until we had the Bill before us and until we could have seen what was in it

    461
    and what was intended by it. A cardinal principle is involved here. In my view, if profit is made out of land it should accrue to the nation and not to the individual. That is the main reason why, in my opinion, I support a Measure that ensures that any increase in the value of land should benefit the nation and not those individuals who tend to live on the fat of the land, and have been doing so for many years.
    I have great sympathy with hon. Members on both sides of the House who have advocated measures being brought forward to provide lower mortgage interest rates for couples desiring to purchase their own homes. This must be done. Young people today want houses, and in most cases want houses of their own. The Labour Government and Labour Party endorse this aim. I hope that some measures will be brought into force in the near future to make this possible. At the same time we must bear in mind the urgent need for council house building.
    In Huddersfield I was amazed to find that in 1963 the local authority built only 24 council houses, while over 300 houses were built by private builders during that period. Again, 31 per cent. of all the houses in the Borough of Huddersfield have no baths. This compares with a national figure of 25 per cent. No fewer than 21 per cent. of all the houses in the borough have no inside toilet, which is also far in excess of the national figure. It is more than obvious that, in a situation like this, there must be Governmental control and direction to ensure that council houses are built for the people living in these terrible twilight areas, and at reasonable rent.
    There are a tremendous number of immigrants in Huddersfield, but the difficulties now manifesting themselves are partially aggravated by the appalling housing conditions which are a result of 13 years of Conservative rule nationally and 13 years of Conservative-Liberal alliance at local council level. Sooner or later, this Government must be aware of the fact—I am sure that they are— that people who live in areas like this with these terrible problems must be helped as much as possible. This is why I welcome, as my constituents and, I am sure, the nation will, the fact that the Government are determined to boost the
    462
    housing programme until we have at least 500,000 houses a year by 1970.
    At the same time, there is an obvious need for leasehold reform and rating reform. These are long overdue and something must be done about them. The injustices of the rating system are apparent for all to see, but I should seriously like the Government to consider not only transferring teachers' salaries from the responsibility of the local authority to the national Exchequer but also transferring the cost of, say, ambulances, which are a national service. We have a National Health Service and ambulances should be provided out of the national revenue. There is a case even for asking whether the finance of the police should not be transferred from the local to the central Government. Something has to be done. There are many other matters which should be considered so as to find a way in which we can ease the tremendous burden on the rate system.
    As I indicated earlier, I want to depart from the subject of this debate to other aspects of the Gracious Speech. This is for several reasons, the first being that far too much attention has been paid on both sides of the House to matters which are not in the Speech, rather than to matters which are. Everyone seems to be much more concerned with what is not in it than with what is—
    Mr, Mellish: The Tories want steel in.
    Mr. Lomas: I have not mentioned steel, but I intend to do so because some of my colleagues and I were sponsors of an Amendment to the Gracious Speech which, I suppose, for all kinds of reasons, will not be called. In fairness to the 50-odd Members who signed the Amendment last night, it is only fitting that it should be made clear that our view on steel is quite simple. We believe, as the Prime Minister indicated in his opening speech on the Address, that the public ownership of steel is essential to our economy; we believe that: it is vital to the well-being of the nation, but we take the attitude that we are practical realistic politicians. We realise that there is truth in the maxim that "politics is the art of the possible ", and it is especially so at the moment.
    There seems little point in clogging up the Parliamentary machine for four months when there are still many obvious Measures, as outlined in the Speech,which

    463
    need to be put into effect. If as many of the best authorities in the world say—I know this because they all sit in this House, or so I am told—it would take three or four years before steel nationalisation became an effective reality and even if we passed it in this Session, then, when the next election comes, we shall find ourselves having it all over again and everything will be in the melting pot once more.
    Let us attend to the social reforms, the necessary legislation, the long overdue reforms, which were neglected for 13 years by the other side of the House. Let us get them out of the way and then go to the country and say, "Steel nationalisation is one of the many factors which we intend to bring into being for the benefit of the nation and the benefit of all our people, including even the Conservative Party and its supporters in the long run". My view on the matter is reinforced by my experience over a Private Member's Bill which I introduced—the most innocent, innocuous Bill which could ever have been presented to the House. There was not a controversial comma, full stop or word in it—[An HON. MEMBER: "Tell us about it."] I would tell hon. Members about it but for the fact that I am timing myself very strictly and I have only 10 minutes left.
    I presented that Bill, which was so innocent, to the House at the end of November last year, and it was July of this year before it received the Royal Assent. It took the best part of nine months for the most innocent Bill in the world to become law.
    We must now recognise that there is a question of priorities in considering steel. We hon. Members who signed the Amendment to the Gracious Speech— pledging ourselves to the realisation that it was essential to have the public ownership of steel at the earliest opportunity—realised that, in terms of sheer practical politics, it must wait until we have, as we shall have after the next election, a majority sufficient to guarantee us a full term of four or five years in office. It is realistic to say, "I have lost a battle this Session because I want to win the war in the long run." Those are the tactics adopted by the military as well as by politicians.
    464
    I wish to draw the attention of the House to what I consider to be another important omission and something which is truly vital to the country and the people who work in it. The Gracious Speech includes this passage:
    "My Government is studying with the medical profession ways of improving the family doctor service and will introduce the necessary legislation."
    How I wish that it also said that they would introduce an occupational health service. Tremendous cries go up from hon. Members on the other side of the House—sometimes from those on this side—reminding the Government constantly that, in any one year, we lose 2½ to 3 million working days through strikes, but what they forget is that 20 million working days are lost through injuries and 300 million through sickness of all kinds.
    It would be a good thing if we tackled the problem of industrial injuries at source and made sure that machines were protected and that every large firm had its safety and welfare officer. We should see that all employers are covered by the Factory Acts. It is not right that people in the public service, and those who work for local authorities and in the National Health Service, should not be covered by the Factory Acts. How ridiculous it is that if a man is building a bridge he is covered, but if he is mending a road he is not. If one works in a hospital and serves meal in the staff canteen, one is covered, but if one works in the patients' canteen, one is not.
    These are complete anomalies and I suggest that the time has come when the Government should consider how best they could extend the Factory Acts to cover all sections of the community and introduce an occupational health service which would be of benefit to the nation and to the people in industry. This is one of the ways in which we can hope to create the climate in which it will be possible for a prices and incomes policy to become a living reality.
    We must, first of all, make sure that people working on the shop floor or elsewhere are working in decent conditions and in a decent environment. It must be clearly understood that if we are to plan our economy—whether or not to do this seems to have been a big argument in the House during the twelve

    465
    months that I have been here—this inevitably means that we must plan inside that economy in terms of prices, wages and everything else. A free enterprise society as advocated by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is jungle law. We are a civilised community living without the jungle. I do not want to get involved in the tremendous struggle which results when the free play of the market determines what should be the price of a particular commodity and what wage an individual should get.
    That is quite wrong, and I speak as a trade unionist of 28 years' experience when I say that, equally, some of those who argue for the maintenance of the individual bargaining system are wrong. They tend to forget those who are on fixed incomes or pensions and those whose wages and salaries are negotiated nationally and regionally. I want to see a planned incomes growth throughout the whole economy. But we must make it apparent to everyone that we believe in this form of justice. I believe that the present Government will demonstrate to the individual who works in industry or elsewhere that they intend to attack the unholy trinity of capitalism—rents, interest and profits—which have exceeded wages and salaries year after year ever since the war. This ought to be dealt with.
    We must go into the question of unofficial strikes, not by condemning them but by doing something about them, and particularly by improving communications in industry, because the breakdown of communications is the cause of unofficial strikes in the great majority of cases. This is why I should like to see the Minister considering the possibility of introducing in the future, perhaps by legislation, joint consultative committees and joint production committees in the bigger industries, so that the workers know the whys and wherefores of what is going on. All these things would help considerably to ensure that we have a climate in which to plan our economy and move forward.
    I welcome the Gracious Speech and the many great reforms contained in it. We are entitled to ask the Conservative Party what it would leave out of it and what it would put in it. The Conservatives speak
    466
    about reduced taxation, but what expenditure would they cut to make these reductions possible? They have not answered these questions, and they should be compelled to answer them.
    We on this side of the House believe that we have a job to try to ensure that not just one particular section of the community has the benefit of legislation but the whole community. This is what we try to do. This is the second Gracious Speech in this Parliament and one more step along the road which I believe can take us to a better kind of society. Our course is charted and known. We are moving slowly along it, and by a series of five-year plans we shall reach the goal we seek. We shall eventually create the better Britain and that is what we want.
    I have been speaking for 15 minutes, and I will sit down, grateful to the House for having listened to me. I would assure the House, however, that in the next Parliament if I am still here—and I know that I shall be—I shall be among those who will urge that we should introduce steel nationalisation at the earliest opportunity, but in the meantime let us get on with the job of building a better and happier Britain.
    8.14 p.m.
    Mr. A. P. Costain: First of all I would declare that I am a builder and on the Council of the Association of Land and Property Owners. In view of the suggestion by Mr. Speaker that we should have short speeches, I will not follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) in looking for the virtuous maiden on the Front Bench. I have been looking, and I have not seen one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The hon. Member said that he had been in his seat for two and a half days, which was I feel an illusion. His speech was interesting in that he forgot that he was speaking to his own Front Bench.
    This has been an extraordinary debate. In his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), the Minister said that my right hon. Friend had been in his usual good form. I wish that I could say the same about the Minister, but I have never heard him quite so incoherent. In fact, when he left the Chamber I wondered whether he was feeling well.

    467
    A further regret lies in the fact that except for a short time there has been no representation here of the Liberal Party. This is an issue, the Land Commission in particular, which will be hotly contested. We have already seen this afternoon the extraordinary revolt over leasehold reform when the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was brave enough, as he always is, to say that he would not let it go through unless he could agree with it. Had the Liberal Party been here they would have had an opportunity to take up the challenge, and we could have discovered whether the Government would then have done another steel trick or would have faced the country.
    I want to deal as quickly as possible with the main points of the debate, the first of which concerns the land levy, which has been discussed at some length. I wish that the Minister of Housing had opened the debate and had told us what he intended to do about building societies, which is a vital issue in the house building programme, and that the Minister for Land and Natural Resources had concluded the debate, because many questions about the Land Commission and the levy have been asked which the Minister ought to answer. There is a great deal of confusion on this issue.
    Basically, the land levy is an extension of the Capital Gains Tax, at 40 per cent. instead of 30 per cent. Why cannot this be collected in the same way as the Capital Gains Tax? What will the position be if we have two valuations, as we may —one by the Inland Revenue for probate duty for a particular piece of land and one by the Land Commission, although where they can get the staff to value we do not know. Who will rule on which is the correct valuation? This is a departure from the fundamental justice of British taxation—although many people realise that British taxation is not equity. Under this proposal people can be compelled to pay taxes before they have realised their profits. This argument is known to the Minister, and I will not develop it.
    In the White Paper they referred to the fact that the money received in respect of development will be exempt from long-term capital gains. One is suspicious about such an ambiguous document.
    468
    Have they deliberately mentioned long-term gains so as to exclude short-term gains? Is this a trick so that they can charge at 26s. in the £ any increase in value—because they can do that without the individual having any say in the matter? A man can buy a piece of land genuinely to hold it. Under the Finance Act he is liable to the Profits Tax and Surtax. On top of that he is liable to the 40 per cent. levy, which makes 26s. in the £. Will the Minister refute this argument? The Minister must be aware of the pieces of land which are being withdrawn at auctions because people do not know what the taxation position is likely to be.
    We have been asked what is the Conservative Party's attitude to a capital levy. My right hon. Friend made that clear. I will give my own views. We must divide this question of land into two issues. In this connection, I remind the House that the definition of "land" in the 1962 Act includes virtually anything, including cathedrals, churches and so on. Thus a piece of virgin land might, if planning permission is given, fetch an extremely high price and I appreciate why, in equity, a levy of perhaps 30 per cent. should be charged, for the individual concerned has not done anything to increase the value of that land. However, a farmer farming a similar piece of land next door will not be very pleased to find that his land is worth, say, £200 an acre while the piece next door, with planning permission, may be worth £400 an acre or more.
    All this does not reduce the price of land. Do not let us kid ourselves into thinking that, in equity, we have some wonderful formula which will reduce the price of land and make more land available. I know of no tax—and I ask the Minister to correct me if I am wrong— which, as a result of being placed on an article, has resulted in a price reduction. Despite that, we hear all this poppycock about the Government's proposals being designed to produce more land and at the same time reduce its price. I defy the Minister to give an example of where this has happened or will happen. The simple answer is that it will not happen and cannot happen.
    What we are discussing is really nationalisation by the back door—a very big back door—and that is why I regret

    469
    that hon. Members of the Liberal Party are not present. Do they realise just what this is all about? Are they aware of the monopoly interest which could be absorbed? The White Paper is "slowly, softly, catchee monkey"—in other words, is designed to take over land where the Minister thinks fit. What a wonderful expression. How can anyone tell what a Minister thinks? How can any appeal or form of arbitration work on that basis?
    This is a fundamental issue for the building industry, for the Minister has the power to take over the only real raw material which the industry has. We hear a lot about the shortage of raw materials in the industry, but how many people realise that the industry's main raw material is land and the way the industry gets hold of it? I recall many years ago an old trade union friend telling me, "There is no need ever to nationalise the building industry and pay out you contractors. We can absorb you by placing contracts with direct labour." If he had only known that this applies to land—that it is taking over by the back door.
    We then come to the wonderful new term "Crownhold". Reference has already been made to this and I will merely say that it is amazing that a Gracious Speech should, on the one hand, introduce Crownhold as a form of leasehold, and, a few sentences later, abolish leasehold. This is most extraordinary.
    Several points have been made about the new Crownhold system and I fear that the Minister did not give the right answer. I hope that he will reread his remarks in HANSARD because this whole matter will greatly affect the future of copyhold. Indeed, the position would appear to be the opposite to what I understood the Minister to say. This wonderful business of copyhold will, I understand, give special priority for land to be used by builders. How on earth will one select which builder should have the land? If a builder serves on a local authority, presumably he is prohibited from using the land in view of his prior interest. Who will decide who will have the copyhold?
    The next thing we are told in the White Paper about copyhold is that there will be restrictions. One can only assume
    470
    that the person who takes the copyhold will have a price restriction placed on his investment, so that a house built on the land will be restricted from the price point of view. If that is so, for how long will that apply? Will it be for 999 years? If not, for how long?
    Mr. Gordon Oakes: Before the hon. Gentleman proceeds, when he refers to "copyhold" is he intending to mean "Crownhold"?
    Mr. Costain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for correcting me. I did, of course, mean Crownhold.
    Let us consider the case of two houses built on adjoining sites, one freehold and the other Crownhold. The two houses are built and we can assume that one will be sold, because of the Crownhold, for less—say, £500 less—than the other, meaning that one will be sold for £2,500 and the other for £3,000. Thus, the man who got the Crownhold house has an advantage at that point. The Minister rightly pointed out that that advantage should not be perpetuated and that a quick profit should not result.
    Accepting that, let us say that both men live in their respective houses for 20 years. At the end of that period, with the present rate of inflation, the £3,000 house will probably be worth £5,000. The chap who has lived for 20 years in the Crownhold house, although the value of his property will have gone up from a replacement point of view, will not be allowed to sell it for more than he is permitted under his restricted covenant. Is this not creating a new class of tenant?
    In any case, under these circumstances one cannot have mobility. I will not go into this matter in detail now, except to say that mobility of staff and labour is of prime importance to Britain these days. One of the difficulties of obtaining mobility has been the shortage of housing accommodation. Rent controls have prevented houses from being built to rent in sufficient quantities. Only the other night the Minister of Housing and Local Government admitted that the days of the private landlord were more or less over. The right hon. Gentleman does not see any future in building by the private landlord. I do not altogether agree, but it would seem that one is left with council houses, owner-occupied houses and Crownhold owner-occupiers.

    471
    in these circumstances, one must consider how to achieve mobility. Someone living in a council house may want to move from X to Y. Naturally local authorities will not accept new names on their housing lists if those lists are already long. However, if a person wishing to move happens to advertise in a local paper in area Y and someone living there happens to want to move to area X, the transfer might take place. This is all a sort of lottery, a sporting chance.
    However, the man who owns his own freehold house has complete mobility because he can sell it and replace it in another area. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem always to think that there is something rather wicked about someone being able to obtain a house for cash or on a mortgage and be able to sell and buy elsewhere. Why are they so keen to boast about the increased building of council houses? They must admit that a council house takes twice as long to build as a private enterprise house. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The statistics prove it. I am sorry that the Minister of Public Building and Works is not present, because there are statistics in his Department—there certainly were when I was a P.P.S.—which show the difference in time. The Prime Minister proved this the other day.
    I do not know who gave the Prime Minister his brief, but he made the statement that the Labour Party was doing very well because it had 25,000 more houses under construction than at the same time a year ago. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has pointed out that the proper comparison is between the number of houses under construction between September, 1963, and September, 1964, and the number under construction from 1964 to 1965. This gives the extraordinary result that 56,000 more were under construction in the former period. When the Prime Minister let the cat out of the bag, he proved beyond doubt—I defy anyone to contradict this—that the switch to council houses has slowed down the housing programme.
    Let me give the figures. The number of houses started in 1965 as compared with 1964 shows a drop of 20,000 in the private sector. Let us see how many nouses this great new Government have
    472
    decided to start when they claim that they have 23,000 more under construction. From January to September, 1964, the total was 317,365. For the same period of 1965, however, the figure was 298,987. That number fewer houses are being started, yet the Prime Minister boasts that his Government are doing well because there are 23,000 more in the pipeline. The reason why they are in the pipeline is that they take longer to build. Here is the proof from the Prime Minister himself. Let the Socialist Party realise what they are doing by adopting their policy to get more council houses built. Cannot they appreciate that when private enterprise houses are built, more houses are made available?
    Mr. R. W. Brown: Suppose that my local authority employs the Costain Group to build on a site for the council. Does the hon. Member suggest that if the same firm builds elsewhere for private enterprise it will deliberately go slow on the council work but speed up on the private enterprise work?
    Mr. Costain: I am delighted to be asked that question, which is easy to answer. I am talking of speculative housing. The hon. Member is a great authority on local authority housing. When building material is short, the man who builds for himself will substitute. If a private builder finds himself short of plasterboard he looks round for a substitute. He does not want to waste time, because he knows that he will not get paid until the house is finished. He does not want to pay interest on £2,000 unnecessarily.
    It is not so, however, with a local authority, which plays about with the ratepayers' money. There is no encouragement for a local authority to find substitutes for plasterboard. The private builder who builds a speculative house knows that in, say, an 800 feet super house he requires 102 yards of plasterboard, which will cost him £x. Rather than pay interest on capital of £2,000 unnecessarily, he offers to pay double the £X that the plasterboard would cost simply to save interest payments. That is why council houses take longer to build. This is not appreciated by hon. Members opposite. There is no mystique in this. It is sheer common sense.

    473
    My final subject is building licences. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) is not present. It is fortunate for him that I was not called immediately after him, because I should have been delighted to discuss the success of the building industry with him. When the hon. Member talked about 80,000 builders and the large builders, it was rather like talking about the big motor car manufacturers and the small local garage. Nobody would regard comparison between, say, the British Motor Corporation and the small garage as a fair or equal one.
    The hon. Member made the important point, which is not often appreciated except by people in the building industry, that 40 per cent. of its effort is devoted to maintenance. The time after time I have said that it is not the effort which is involved in building luxury offices that restricts building. It is the maintenance effort that does most to restrict house building.
    We are now to have an extraordinary licensing machine set up which, the Minister tells us, will account for 500 jobs and a great new organisation costing £180 million a year. That is not what the architects say; they are practical people. They tell us that their research shows that it will cost £548 million. This is where the trouble starts and this is where, when we get back to power, we will inherit another vacuum in the same way as we did with road transport licensing. The statistics show that architects are getting rid of their staff.
    One of the problems of the building industry is that plans are not drawn up sufficiently far ahead to facilitate starts. The reason why the Americans have quicker and cheaper buildings, even on higher rates of pay, is because the job is planned out—not Socialist planning but real blueprint planning. The contractor can go on the job, see what he has to do and do it.
    What hon. Members opposite do, however, is to close their ranks politically and then produce their own version of planning and put the architect behind them. The architect is powerless to proceed. The party opposite has, however, repented somewhat by creating an organisation to grant temporary licences. So the light is beginning to dawn, but it is dawning
    474
    very slowly. The country is desperately short of houses. We shall get houses by encouraging production, not by introducing licences and controls.
    8.39 p.m.
    Mr. Archie Manuel: I am very pleased indeed that, after sitting here for so long, I am at last getting into the debate at the tail end. I hope that the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) will forgive me if I do not follow him in detail, although I shall refer to some of the points he made. It appeared to me as if he was dealing with the White Paper on the Land Commission as if this were the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. I look forward with intense interest to the hon. Gentleman's advocacy on behalf of the Property Owners' Association and the Master Builders' Association in the debate on the Second Reading of that Bill, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will spare some thought for how the provisions of the Bill will affect his constituents. That consideration should have some bearing on his work in the House.
    Mr. Costain: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that in anything I said I was neglecting my constituency? I think that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark.
    Mr. Manuel: I did not say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was only referring to the statement the hon. Gentleman made at the beginning of his speech that he was a member of the Master Builders' Association and of the Property Owners' Association. The hon. Gentleman said that. The words are not mine. Therefore, I naturally thought he was acting on their behalf. If I have done him any injustice, of course I apologise.
    I very much welcome the Measures foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech, particularly those which will have a beneficial effect on the production of homes. I instance as the very highest priority in this connection the Bill to establish the Land Commission; secondly, the legislation to introduce a new system of Exchequer subsidy for local authority housing, and, thirdly, the legislation to be introduced to lessen the injustices of the rating system and to limit the burden of rates.

    475
    I welcome in particular the White Paper on the Land Commission, paragraph 7 of which says this:
    "In the Government's view "
    this has not been mentioned by hon. Members opposite in their references to the White Paper—
    "it is wrong that planning decisions which are public decisions about land use should so often result in the realising of unearned increments by the owners of land to which they apply, and that desirable development should be frustrated by owners withholding their tend in the hope of higher prices. The two main objectives of the Government's land policy are, therefore: —

    (1) to secure that the right land is available at the right time for the implementation of national, regional and local plans;

    (2) to secure that a substantial part of the development value created by the community returns to the community and that the burden of the cost of land for essential purposes is reduced."

    I wish there were time for me to read paragraph 13, which deals with the power of acquisition and which will give teeth to the preceding paragraph and ensure that it is carried out.
    I regard the performances of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) with a great deal of relish. Today I think he surpassed himself. I am delighted to welcome the right hon. Gentleman back into the Chamber. I am paying him a very high tribute indeed. I am telling the House of the relish with which through the years I have enjoyed his performances at the Dispatch Box. Today he stands a little further from it than he used to, but he still attains that high performance in speeches which, in the final analysis, when they are dissected, do not mean much, but the right hon. Gentleman can talk on, and on and on. The right hon. Gentleman obviously does not change his speeches from those he made years ago.
    The right hon. Gentleman told us in the early part of his speech today that he was not against the principle of a levy. He said that it was generally accepted. There were some glowers behind him when he said that, but he said it as Official Opposition spokesman. It should be remembered that the Conservative Government in the 1953 Act abolished the levy or development charge. They made such an unholy mess of it
    476
    that in haste they brought in an Act in 1954 which established the two-price system. It was so inequitable that the Tories had to admit it and they brought in the 1959 Act in which they returned to the dream of all Tories—the market value, the most that one can get in the market at the best time for selling. I wonder how the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames can swallow all this and still be full of confidence. He changes his coat so often in connection with these land value matters.
    I know too well from a fairly long local authority experience of land prices in Ayrshire how local authorities have been handicapped over the years by high land prices. I think of developments which I took great pride in bringing into being, and I remember how we brought electricity, gas, sewerage and water supplies to the edge of agricultural land, that land, which had been paying no rates, jumped in value and then, when we wanted to carry out further housing developments, we had to pay through the nose for it. The owner-occupiers also had to pay for the added value when they already had paid for the cost of providing the services and social amenities which had enhanced that value.
    This has been the experience not only of that burgh but the experience throughout the country. This is why my right hon. Friend has produced the White Paper and is dealing with the land question. I shall be eternally grateful to him for these steps which he is taking. I am certain that he will make a success of this. The injustice is so apparent that no right-thinking Christian can tolerate the delay in the provision of houses and homes caused by local authorities being held up to ransom by owners after land has been increased in value by the spending of public money.
    The 1959 Act was the natural outcome of Tory deliberations and I hope that we shall reverse all that. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said that private builders would not be allowed the same freedom to build houses under a Labour Government as they had enjoyed when hon. Members opposite were in power. This is very foolish talk. It does not matter to me whether the private builder is building local authority houses or building for owner-occupation. In the

    477
    main, local authority houses are constructed by private builders, and the private builder, seemingly, is committing a heinous crime if he builds a local authority house. But I cannot separate them. No matter where the houses may be, as long as we keep the firms that are providing them constantly employed in producing houses in the quantities needed by local authorities for their housing lists and in the quantities needed for owner-occupation, we are doing all right. The essential thing is to keep the industry fully employed. One would think that the local authorities were using some different method in their building, but, of course, they do not build. It is the private builder who builds, the same person who builds houses for owner-occupation. I hope that that will be more firmly understood in future.
    I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman that in these debates he is also speaking for Scotland on behalf of the Opposition, and I would advise him to do a little more research. Despite all the incentives down through the years, our difficulty in Scotland has been to get private developers to build houses for owner-occupation. I am pleased to say that we are now putting on a little spurt, and some advance is taking place. If it had not been for the building of local authority houses during all the 13 years of the Tory Government, the building industry would have died in Scotland. There would have been no work for them at all.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Rubbish.
    Mr. Manuel: An average of about 4,000 houses a year in a total production of 28,000 will not do. We did not build, in spite of all the incentives that we were offered. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) says, "Rubbish", but he knows quite well that it is no use dealing with such a serious matter in that flippant way. If one studies the September return of the Scottish housing position and compares it with the position back to 1956 [Interruption.]If you have it, you cannot be reading it.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. Member please address the Chair?
    Mr. Manuel: I am very sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had quite forgotten
    478
    that you were there. My remark was an aside directed to the hon. Member for Cathcart. I apologise.
    It will be realised from the latest housing return which I am referring to now that the number of houses under construction is leaping ahead under the present Government. Obviously we do not want to claim credit for the rather low figure of houses started last year when the previous Administration was in power, but in the three quarters of this year, taking all the houses being built, we have the following figures. In the first quarter, there were 45,350. In the second quarter, there were 47,678. In the third quarter, there were 50,554, which is an all time record. I hope that the hon. Member for Cathcart will put that in his pipe and smoke it.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman said that Scotland had a figure of round about 42,000 in the first quarter. Does he recall that in July, 1964, there were 48,000 under construction, and does he appreciate that after one full year of Labour rule there will be less houses built this year than the 37,000 that were built last year?
    Mr. Manuel: No.
    Mr. Taylor: It is a fact.
    Mr. Manuel: Oh, no. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames is saying "Hear, hear", but he does not know the position. I know the figures full well. I am not talking about approvals, I am talking about houses under construction. I did not say 43,000 in the first quarter. I said 45,000. Then in the September quarter there was an all-time record of 50,554. I said it was an all-time record and it certainly is an all-time record.
    I feel I have spoken long enough. Mr. Speaker made an appeal earlier on. I am sorry it was not obeyed, but I shall try to comply with it, and I wish only to add that I am tremendously bucked up by the provisions of the Gracious Speech and I am particularly pleased with those having an impact on the production of houses, and I wish my right hon. Friend every success in his endeavours in this great field which will amply repay in health and many other ways all the efforts he is putting into it.
    8.55 p.m.
    Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: I do not wish to get embroiled in this debate on Scottish matters. They are not normally the subject of debates at which I am frequently an attender. It had been today a lively debate, albeit attended by comparatively few Members, a debate in which hon. Members on each side have been trying to convince others that theirs was the right course to pursue.
    I start with some comments on the White Paper on the Land Commission. I am sorry the Minister of Land and Natural Resources is not back yet to hear them. I would say at the outset that had I sat on that side of the House for nearly 12 months and had had to prepare a White Paper I would have been very ashamed indeed if I had had to present such a sketchy one as this, and even more ashamed if, having come down to the House to debate it, I had not been able to give more details on things which need to be explained or not been able to give more answers to questions asked. I hope the Minister of Housing and Local Government in his winding-up speech will give us answers to many of the questions we have asked.
    I wish to refer to a number of points and to put a number of questions. It is quite clear that the whole idea of a Land Commission and a land levy arose because of the high price of land. Indeed, today a large number of hon. Members have dwelt upon the high price of land. However, the Land Commission and capital levy will do nothing to reduce the price of land. What they really do is to get the Government in as well on some of the spoils. This is, of course, a classic example of if you cannot beat something you join it. The question is whether the part of the spoils which the Government will take will also be added on to the price of land. It is ironic indeed that the mischief which the measures set out to cure is the high price of land but that the remedy which is proposed will undoubtedlv result in an even higher price for land being paid.
    I do not know that anyone or any organisation seriously contests this except right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench who, I understand, were shaking their heads vigorously at one moment when we suggested the levy would put
    480
    up the price of land. If the right hon. Gentleman believes that it will put up the price of land I withdraw the remark, but I understand that he thought it would not. Certainly the Minister of Land and Natural Resources thinks it would not put up the price of land. Nevertheless, the House Builder believes it will put up the price of land. An article in the Local Government Chronicle believes the levy will put up the price of land. The National Federation of Building Trades Employers believes the levy will put up the price of land. The journal of the Rating and Valuation Association also provides articles which believes likewise.
    Let us be quite clear, therefore, that although many of us can make an interesting debating speech any time upon the evils of the high price of land, this Government are not proposing a remedy for those evils, but proposing only to take a share in the spoils.
    I turn for a moment to the justification for the levy. It has been variously described, and on occasions rather speciously described. It is said that there should be a justification for a development levy where the development value is created by the community and consequently, the reasoning runs, the value should return to the community. It is almost becoming known as the "betterment" theory, that if a betterment in value is created by the community the value should return to the community. This would have various strange logical conclusions. Surely the betterment value in a Premium Bond from £1 to £25,000 can be created only by other members of the community buying Premium Bonds? Where else would the prize money come from? It is not proposed in any way to tax this enormous increase in value, which is far higher than any percentage increase on any land transaction.
    I prefer the interpretation given by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), who said quite openly, "A levy will put up the price of land, but we believe that it is justified on other grounds." Where there has been a very great accretion in value, then throughout centuries of government there has been a Treasury which will very shortly get its fingers into the till. One says, therefore, that if there is a great increase in actual value, there is a source

    481
    which sooner or later will become liable to tax. This is the sort of theory which does not get one into anything like so much trouble as a kind of "betterment by the community" theory.
    It has been suggested in some quarters that a levy should be payable because a betterment would arise from the grant of planning permission. If that were the only betterment doctrine, I could understand that as well, because the grant of planning permission concentrates the potential of land on one particular plot, and it would, therefore, give rise to a substantial potential increase in value. But that is not the only occasion upon which the White Paper is proposing to impose a development levy. There are occasions—
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
    House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
    Mrs. Thatcher: I note that an hon. Member of the Liberal Party, which has been almost totally absent except for one attempt to interrupt my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) at the beginning, comes in only to remark that other hon. Members are not present in sufficient numbers.
    I was saying that the levy is payable not only on the grant of planning permission but purely on a straight increase in value. This is apparent from paragraph 26, which gives an example of agricultural land worth £300, sold for £1,000 without planning permission, but with the hope that it might get planning permission if it has been zoned within a plan. If this land is sold without planning permission for £1,000, there will be a development charge on the £700 and a levy of 40 per cent. will be payable. That would seem to be not so much an example of betterment by the community but just a straight increase in value, and it is the increase in value which attracts tax.
    Therefore, I would put my personal belief in a levy not upon a rather sophisticated theory of betterment value but upon the view that this is something that has increased so rapidly that it would be proper to take a part of it in tax for the Revenue.
    482
    One thing upon which the White Paper is very quiet is the inter-action of the levy with Capital Gains Tax. It is vital to know how the levy will dovetail with the Capital Gains Tax. The White Paper makes only one reference to it.
    Let us consider the extent to which increases in land value are already taxed under existing law. They are taxed to a very considerable extent without any need for a special extra tax of this kind. For example, builders, estate developers and land dealers who purchase land and develop it are subject to tax on their profits—Corporation Tax if a company and, in so far as these profits are distributed, to Income Tax at the standard rate. If a person deals in land he is taxed at the full personal rate. Thus, ordinary dealings in land are and always have been caught under the ordinary taxation legislation. They are already liable to very heavy tax because the standard rate of tax is high and the proposed rate of Corporation Tax is fairly high.
    Since the Budget, landowners who dispose of their land at an increased value over and above that which they paid for it, or over and above the value on Budget Day, also have to pay a Capital Gains Tax of 30 per cent. if a person or possibly up to 40 per cent.—if taxation should go that high—if a company. The vast majority of increases in land value are therefore already taxable. There are very few which are not. The only ones that are not, I believe, and which will be caught by the new proposals, are cases where the land does not change ownership but which is taxed when it is developed by the owner for the purposes of his business or his own farm.
    So if the moral which has given rise to the need for the White Paper is that increases in land values should be taxed, they are already taxed very heavily. It is said that the gross yield from the levy will be £80 million a year. That figure is gross. How much do we have to deduct from the gross to get the net figure? Obviously, what would have been levied by Capital Gains Tax would have to be deducted, that is, the great majority of the increases in value, as the Capital Gains Tax is already very high and, with Corporation Tax, may be as high as the

    483
    development levy. There would also have to be deducted the enormous expense of running a fresh new big machine which would have to extend up and down the country to assess values and to know which land to acquire compulsorily.
    I doubt very much whether there will be a very large increase in revenue, if any. It might be found that the administrative costs of running the machine will more than mop up any development levy which comes in and which would not otherwise have come in in the form of Capital Gains Tax. We are going to a bureaucrat's paradise in order to do something which can already be done under the existing Revenue law, and is already done to a considerable extent.
    It used to be said that a tax should be certain in its incidence, cheap to collect, and simple. This is certainly not certain in its incidence, as I shall show shortly, because of the enormous gaps in the White Paper. It certainly will not be cheap to collect, because there is to be set up a whole new machine especially to collect a tax most of which would have been collected otherwise. It certainly is not a simple tax in any way.
    I deal now with those cases which under the White Paper would attract a levy and would not be liable to Capital Gains Tax. No one has dealt with them yet, except my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). They become apparent from the paragraphs in the White Paper which deal with examples of how the levy would work. It is said in paragraph 26 that a development levy would be payable when realised by a transaction or by development.
    A development levy might be payable if a manufacturer had around his factory a large area of land upon which he wished to put an extension to his factory. In order to do that he would have to apply for planning permission and possibly an I.D.C. When he put up the building he would have developed the land. The development would probably be a "material development". It would be required to extend his business and, in certain cases, to modernise his business. It would rank as development attracting a development levy. Thus, under the White Paper a manufacturer who modernised or expanded would not only
    484
    have to finance the modernisation or expansion but pay a levy because he had expanded. That seems to be very silly. Indeed, it seems to be nonsense.
    One could get a similar position with farming land on which a farmer wanted to build cottages for his farm workers. He would apply for planning permission and then not only have to finance the cottages, itself a big enough requirement, but have to find the money to pay a levy because he had provided cottages. That is no recommendation for the kind of levy which the White Paper proposes.
    I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will think that such developments should be exempted from the levy. If they are not exempted, the Treasury will probably have to recommend changes in the Finance Acts because, if a levy has to be paid, the next thing will be to increase capital allowances to negative the effect of the levy. One will have put on a charge which manufacturers have to finance and then one will have to amend taxation provisions on the capital allowances in order to nullify the effect of the levy which one has put on. I have dwelt on this because I think it is an important and significant point. This is the only kind of case, as far as I can make out, of a development which is caught by the White Paper which would not be caught by Capital Gains Tax.
    It looks as if right hon. Gentlemen are not particularly au fait with this situation. This is the kind of thing which I would have gone into thoroughly before I dared to come to this House, and I would have expected anyone who comes here with a proposal to put on a tax to have gone into it thoroughly. If the right hon. Gentleman has not, he does not know his job. I feel very strongly about this. There should be a whole section in the White Paper explaining the inter-action of the Capital Gains Tax, long-term and short-term. An example has already been given of how, if one has the short term Capital Gains Tax and development levy, one will get taxes up to 26s. in the £. This, too, is nonsense. Before I leave the taxation part of what I have to say, I want to point out that difficult as it is to arrive at a hypothetical value at any time —and we know that it is very difficult from the arguments we have had on Capital Gains Tax and the arguments

    485
    raised sometimes on Estate Duty valuation—it is even more difficult to have to apportion that value between a liability for a levy and a liability for a capital gain. When one has arrived at the increase in value which is taxable one has to apportion that increase between the amount attributable to increased development value and the amount attributable to the increased underlying use value.
    This is going to be one of the most complicated sums ever. Is it really worth having a Land Commission? Is it worth having this kind of levy when the whole thing could have been done much more simply, and is done much more simply, by plain, straight Capital Gains Tax? If one thinks that the Capital Gains Tax is not enough on land transactions, which is clearly what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen do think, then it would surely have been simpler to have a differential rate for land transactions. But I very much doubt the wisdom of setting up a very complicated machine to bring in the tax which must be difficult to collect, assess and must be very uncertain.
    The other points about the White Paper upon which there is all too little information is when the levy is to apply. It is said in paragraph 25 that it is payable at the time of development. Is that when the development starts or when it is completed? We do not know, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will know.
    A point has been raised relating to the powers of the Commission to acquire land, almost any land ultimately, for development by compulsory purchase, and to acquire land in advance of use. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots) inquired particularly how the powers of the Commission and the view which it took upon how land needed for development would interact with the views of the local planning authority. At the moment the local planning authorities, of whom I understand there are approximately 215, have powers to acquire land compul-sorily. If the Commission is to have more extensive powers to acquire land, then it obviously has to take a view about future development needs. Whether that view will be the same as the local authority, we do not know. But it will have to make an assessment, and it seems that if the Land Commission provisions
    486
    go through they will, sooner or later, result in very considerable changes in who is the planning authority. As things are at the moment, it would seem that there could be a considerable conflict between a view about future development needs taken by the Land Commission and the view taken by the local planning authority.
    The Minister of Land and Natural Resources quoted a speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and, I think, attempted to quote it in support of the idea of a Land Commission. One of the things which my right hon. Friend condemned in almost every speech that he made on this subject was the very idea of a Land Commission. The fact that at some time or other he proposed new machinery, or thought that new machinery might be necessary for compulsory acquisition in certain circumstances, should not be taken in any way to mean that he supported the idea of a Land Commission. He most certainly did not.
    Another point of interest in the White Paper is this hybrid child of Crownhold. Some would call it perhaps by a rather less flattering term. I still do not know quite what it means from the Minister's explanation, and I would like to know whether it will apply only to housing or whether it will apply to land leased for other development purposes.
    I must refer to the contents of paragraph 20. This seems to me to be a very dangerous paragraph indeed, as does paragraph 19. The latter attempts to vest land quickly in the Commission by a vesting declaration. In other words, if the Land Commission is going to acquire something compulsorily it wants to do it quickly and then be able to pass the land on, and may be able to do so before the compensation has been calculated. The land may well have been passed on to another purchaser and the evidence required for the calculation of compensation destroyed before that compensation has been decided. This seems to me to be quite wrong.
    Paragraph 20 says that the Bill will enable the Minister
    "to invoke temporarily … some modification of the requirements relating to the services of notices and the holding of inquiries into objections."

    487
    This seems to me designed to cut down the rights of the individual, or to try to get something through before he has had time to object.
    I leave for a moment the White Paper on the Land Commission. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us some of these answers tonight, or will undertake to write to us and give us some of the answers, particularly about the Capital Gains Tax and the way it interacts.
    I turn from that for a moment to various other problems which have been raised. On the question of leasehold enfranchisement, the right hon. Gentleman made a statement on 8th December last year, but he did not tell people what they really need to know, and he has not told us yet. I hope that he will do so. From the wording of the Gracious Speech there seems to be considerable modification now in the intention to grant leasehold enfranchisement. From the former Gracious Speech it would seem that everyone would have been entitled to leasehold enfranchisement, but now the emphasis is put, not on enfranchisement, but on reform of leasehold. This seems to be different.
    What people really want to know is how much they will have to pay or how much they will get, and under what circumstances. Undoubtedly the majority of interest has been evinced in this by people who want to purchase the freehold reversion. They want to know how much they will have to pay under the Bill, and it will not be an easy formula to decide, because obviously it will depend on the amount of ground rent payable, and when that amount was fixed.
    The other point they really want to know is whether, if the lease is held by a charity, or by the Crown, or by the Church Commissioners, they will also have the opportunity to purchase it. At the moment Ministerial announcements with regard to residential property seem to imply that the leasehold system is rather wicked except when it is created by the Crown. Obviously people want to know whether everyone who holds a lease for residential property will be entitled to purchase the reversion, and roughly for how much.
    488
    I turn for a moment to a number of comments which have been made about the future of the building industry. Undoubtedly there is a good deal of uncertainty at the moment, and for a Government who said that they did not believe in stop-go this Government have created an extraordinary amount of stop —perhaps more than any other Government. As my right hon. Friend said in his opening speech, already, in one quarter, between July and September, about £546 million worth of work has been withdrawn from architects' offices, and the licensing system which the Minister of Public Building and Works announced will apply to £180 million worth of work each year.
    The very worst thing for any industry is uncertainty about the future. The one thing that an industry must do is to plan the continuity of work in the coming year. This is needed in any industry. I am not in the building industry, although my husband supplies certain goods to it so I may be said to have an interest in it by marriage. But we all need to plan for continuity, and this is the one thing that cannot be done at the moment. Many firms are having to stand off their most highly skilled architects. They want to know how long the building licensing system will last, and when they can expect to take those people on again.
    Finally—and I must point out that my time has been artifically cut down by the unconstructive intervention of the Liberal Party—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us a few more details about his system of relief for those who are suffering hardship because of the rates and, in particular, can he say whether the amount of rates of which he will relieve those people will be borne either by other ratepayers or by taxpayers. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer the points that have been raised.
    9.27 p.m.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Grossman): Many questions have been asked, and I shall try to deal shortly with most of those which were fired at me at the end of her speech by the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). First, I will deal with the question of rate rebates. They will not be borne mostly by the

    489
    ratepapers; they will be borne largely by the taxpayers—otherwise they would not be rebates but a mere shifting of impositions from one body of ratepayers to another.
    Many interesting questions have been raised concerning the Land Commission. I apologise for my right hon. Friend's absence. Unfortunately, he felt very ill while making his speech and retired to bed immediately afterwards, which has made it difficult for me to prepare adequate replies to the extremely detailed and skilled questioning to which we were subjected on this matter. I have taken careful note of the questions and I can answer one or two of them.
    First, on the question of the interaction of these proposals with the Finance Bill. Much of this will be dealt with in special Clauses in next year's Finance Bill. Crownhold, applies only to houses and to no other form of development. On one matter which interested me the hon. Lady is quite right—the creation of the Land Commission will affect the whole planning system. It will influence local planning and national planning, and I should not exclude the possibility that once again Ministries in Whitehall will be subject to further revision and readjustment. Such things have happened before in the history of Whitehall, and it will be quite right in this case, because the new Commission will have an enormous effect on planning.
    I have been listening to the debate, and I find myself in disagreement with the hon. Lady as to its nature. She said that it was a vivacious debate. I thought that it was very quiet. Ever since the Recess I have been waiting for the frustrated hon. Members of the Conservative Party to accept the chance of massing themselves for this debate, waiting to pit their indignant fury at us, but we never had much of it from them. Where are they? [An HON. MEMBER: "Where are yours? "] A Government of our sort do not need much protection by back benchers. We need them at Erith.
    I want to put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is very striking how little passion was engendered in the debate, apart from that very remarkable passage in the speech of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in which he challenged me
    490
    on the whole of my housing policy and, in particular, on my conversations with the builders and the building societies. I intend to give him a very full answer later on this and, in that answer, I shall also answer the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley, in part, on the subject of land and our land policy. I want to concentrate on what we do between now and the appointed day, which are very important issues, too, and not so much on the detailed questions of the Land Commission.
    In order to deal with that, I want to say as simply as I can, first of all, so as to get it clear what we have been trying to do this last year, that we have been planning for a very considerable expansion of the housing programme, an expansion which was not contemplated by our predecessors—[HON. MEMBERS:" Oh."] As a matter of fact, I was looking at the last statement I could find of official Conservative policy made in this House. It was made by my predecessor as Minister of Housing, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). In that speech, he defined the Government's policy at the time in the following words:
    "… the Government are looking to increasing the productivity in the building industry and are basing all their plans during the following five years "—
    up to 1969, the same as ours—
    "on reaching … a level of 400,000 houses a year."
    The following month, the then Prime Minister, the present right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas Home) made almost the same statement, when he said, in his rather individual style:
    "We shall read 400,000 houses in the next five years and we shall be able to sustain that."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1963; Vol. 684, c. 40.]
    It is quite clear—and, I think, perfectly sensible—that the Conservative Party said to themselves, "400.000 houses are about the quantity which this country can expect to carry as an annual production without special measures." I am very well aware that to increase that amount from 400,000 to 500,000 a year without taking special measures might lead us to inflation and to an overheating of the building industry, the dangers of which we know very well.

    491
    Therefore, we were well aware that if we are to go beyond what the Conservative Party believe to be possible and which they gave themselves as their target—the maintenance of 400,000 houses a year—we could do it only with three things: more careful advance planning, a number of extremely unpopular Government decisions, some of which we have taken this year, and, third and perhaps most important, the active cooperation of the building societies and the building industry and their confidence in the plan.
    These were the three things, therefore, which we had to achieve during the first year. I want to say something about each. First of all, the planning. How does one plan to reach the rate of 500,000 houses a year by 1969? First of all, one has to make sure that the resources and the labour are available, and to persuade one's colleagues—or the Cabinet has to decide—that that amount of resources will be made available for housing. This decision is bound to affect other forms of building. We also have to make sure of our building materials. We hear a great deal now about surplus building materials and how we have switched and transformed a shortage of building materials into a surplus. I took the trouble to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works what the exact situation in the brick industry is now—
    Mr. Oscar Murton: Does he know?
    Mr. Crossman: He does know. He always knows these things when I want him to give me the figures.
    We all know that plasterboard is still in desperately short supply and that there is a great shortage of skilled labour in many parts of the country, but one thing we heard about was the surplus of bricks, which I find amounts to 16 days' supply. That is a good deal less than the average which we had in this month in 1962 and 1963, but rather more than we had when we took over, when it was three and a half days' supply. To start complaining of a surplus when there is 16 days' supply seems to me the kind of propaganda which even an amateur, one-year Opposition should really cease to make—
    Mr. Costain rose—
    Hon. Members: Sit down.
    Mr. Crossman: I turn now from the materials which are still in short supply to labour. It is true, as our National Plan showed, that if we are to achieve a rate of 500,000 houses a year, we shall have to be able to increase the amount of labour available to the housing industry. We can get it only by increased productivity per man. This we reckon on. I believe it is possible and I shall have something to say later on about the introduction of system building. Whatever the disadvantages may be, if we really want to increase production of houses, then an increasing element in house building must be system building—if only because there is a chronic shortage of skilled labour— and the need to get more per man out of the industry, even if, in the short run— at the beginning—it costs a little more to do so and it takes some time to get the prices down. We therefore had the problem of materials and labour.
    The second item, apart from planning, was Government initiative. Unpopular decisions had to be taken. It was clear to me that if we were to have 500,000 houses a year, which was 100,000 more than the previous Government ever dreamed of getting or ever thought it was possible to get under a private enterprise system—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, if they thought it could be done, why did they not do it? Why did they say that they wanted only 400,000 houses a year? The reason is that to achieve 500,000 houses a year one must curb less essential demand. This is why we have the office ban and the control of office building and why we have the control of commercial building.
    If we are to do this job of making housing top priority, we must take the necessary steps to pare down the less essential building. That is why, apart from the office ban and the control of commercial building, we have the control of public building, which is my responsibility and that of other Ministers. We had to cut back on many of our favourite swimming pool projects and town hall projects. We found on taking office that there was a spending spree and that there had been encouragement of spending before the election; local authorities had been given a sense of freedom in their capital investment programmes which they

    493
    do not have today. Now they have been told that housing is top priority and that they cannot have their swimming pools except as No. 2 or No. 3 priority. They have been told that houses, hospitals, schools and industrial buildings matter. They have been given a clear sense of priority and have been told which is No. 1, which is No. 2 and which is No. 3. This is why there has been restriction in respect of offices and commercial premises and restriction in the public sector, too.
    I know that it has been unpopular. I know that the introduction of a straightforward ban at the beginning was difficult. We are already devising some more flexible controls which we want to introduce more and more on less essential work. It is a difficult job when we are preparing to bring that house building rate in this country up to 500,000 a year.
    My next problem was to obtain the co-operation and confidence of the private sector. I had to persuade people like the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), who made such a long speech, and his brother, and other distinguished builders, that they could with confidence co-operate with us, even though we had used these unpopular controls on less essential building. I had to persuade them to work with us in achieving this record output for housing. This is what we have been busy doing, and this is what J want to tell the House about in replying to the debate.
    The right hon. Gentleman waxed indignant in his speech about these talks. He asked what my aim was. It was clearly a threefold aim. I wanted to discuss, first of all, the possibility of achieving this total, with all these measures of negative control and positive initiative combined. As was pointed out to me, there are two major problems. The first is finance and the second is land. These were the crucial problems which we had to tackle in order to get this increased production. I had to agree a balance between houses for sale and houses to let, and I had to remove the obstacles which stand in the way of the private sector fully achieving the aims for owner-occupation. I had to see that the local authorities could fulfil the target in the public sector. Those are my jobs.
    I should have thought that it was clear that the need for these talks had
    494
    been illustrated by the history of the 'fifties. Under the Tories, the total amount of housing did go up year by year, from 1952 onwards. However, it went up in a lopsided way. Whereas building in the private sector increased year by year—I will not give the figures because I detailed them in the debate on the Milner Holland Report—building in the public sector dwindled. We did not get the expansion, the swelling of owner-occupied private house building and public building together but a corresponding dwindling of building in the public sector. Without giving a great number of statistics, suffice to say that for every year between 1954 and 1962 one sector swelled while the other decreased, until we reached the very low public sector building, with a figure of 119,000 in 1961.
    Did that happen because the need had decreased? Did it happen because there was less need of rented accommodation? On the contrary. During the same period the quantity of rented housing steadily sunk. As the result of the Rent Act, landlords lost confidence in the profitability of rented accommodation and, as they lost more and more confidence, they sold out. As a result, 1 million rented houses disappeared from the scene. Between 1951 and 1964 there was a net loss of 500,000 rented houses, not luxury-type rented accommodation but accommodation which the working class could afford.
    Faced with that decline in the quantity of privately rented houses, the Government answered by cutting year by year the amount of publicly rented housing available, until—and I wish to do justice to the party opposite—in 1962 there came a sudden upspurt, but it went lower and lower. It was 124,000 in 1962, although in 1964, election year, it rose to 156,000.
    I had to ask myself, looking at these figures of public and private building, whether they made any sense in terms of social need. I concluded that they made none at all. I agree that the number of owner occupied houses was required, but it was obvious that far more rented houses were also required. It was, therefore, obvious that both sides of the programme should have been expanded side by side to fulfil the social need.

    495
    I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would realise that a Minister of Housing and Local Government faced with this problem would want to get the two sides, private and public building, together, to work together, to strike a balance of need and to try to co-operate in achieving a planned, steady expansion of both sectors of the economy. That is what I have been trying to do.
    I have been surprised—I will not say disappointed, although I have been a little disappointed—at the reaction of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Perhaps I should not use the word "surprised". In any case, I have found the reaction of hon. Gentlemen opposite slightly distasteful. It almost looks as if they did not want these talks to succeed. I certainly would not wish to make the allegation that they were trying to bitch the talks. I would not like to say that—[Laughter]—although I am tempted to.
    I am tempted to say that hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen opposite said to themselves, "I do hope that they will not succeed". In this connection, it might be helpful if I quote something from their party conference. After I had told my party conference that I was hopeful, that I had set up a working party with the building societies and that it was seeking to work out a form of collaboration between them and me, one right hon. Gentleman opposite said:
    "Do not let him try to use these great building societies to try to do his dirty work for him."
    A few weeks later the Leader of the Opposition talked about the "great housing scandal" while the Pope or, should I say, the Savonarola, was saying something else. What about this quotation:
    "Enoch Powell hit out with shock warnings of …homes' rationing… blackmarket… curbing mortgages …"
    These things were said by hon. Gentlemen opposite who, they tell us, believe in co-operation between the building societies, the building industry and the Government. It was a strange way of showing their enthusiasm.
    I will only say at this stage that they underestimated the common sense of the builders and the building societies, who do not listen to politicians unless they are in some measure acting with responsibility and reality. The building societies
    496
    and the builders are, of course, suspicious of Socialists. They have grave suspicion, but they also look at Governments as Governments and say to themselves, "What is this Government up to? Are they trying to increase building? Are they seriously out to get 500,000 houses a year? If they are, we will not turn down straight away the object of cooperating with them in achieving that aim."
    I can, therefore, reveal to the House that this morning, at mid-day, we issued to the Press the full text of the communique which, no doubt, hon. Members have already read in the evening papers; but since it may have been squeezed out by news from overseas, I had better summarise the communique for the benefit of those who have not seen it.
    We have now reached agreement between ourselves and the building societies and representatives of the builders. I will not read the whole thing, because it was issued as a Press release this morning and it is available. It states, however, that
    "The decision was taken at a meeting at the Ministry this morning. All present welcomed the Government's intention to increase the total production of houses to 500,000 a year. The representatives of the building societies and the builders recognised the advantages of forward planning"—
    unlike hon. Members opposite; planning means deciding how much to do and doing it—
    "but they stressed that the confidence of private house builders, particularly in relation to the supply of land, would need to be strengthened if this target was to be achieved."
    That is a perfectly reasonable thing to say.
    "The Ministers accepted this, and said that as a main object of the plan they were hoping, with the assistance of building societies and building organisations, to give confidence to all concerned in house building. It was agreed that an immediate study should be made of the problems of land supply and planning permission",
    on which I will say a few words later.
    "The Ministers explained why it was necessary to plan not only the total house building programme but also its broad division between houses built by public authorities to rent and houses built by private developers for sale. The Ministers hoped that public authorities would be producing somewhere near 250,000 houses in the United Kingdom in 1970—as they believed could be done with the aid of the new subsidy arrangements to be introduced shortly. The Ministers did not however see a public sector output of this size as a permanent feature of housing policy.

    497
    While not accepting any particular figure, the building societies and the builders did not disagree that, over the next few years, there was need for a rising public programme to deal with the slums and urban renewal and to meet the needs of the great cities for more rented houses; though they urged that targets should be flexible and subject to a tolerance which they thought, as far as the private sector was concerned, should be perhaps 10 per cent. either way.
    The Ministers accepted the need for flexibility, and said that they were anxious that the forward building programme, and the broad balance between public and private sectors, should be kept under regular review by all the interests concerned. In that way targets could be adjusted as might prove to be desirable. The building societies and builders welcomed this.
    All parties agreed to join in a working party to examine the resources available to sustain a housing programme rising to half a million, and particularly the availability of land and money; and also to make arrangements for the regular review of progress."
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: May I ask, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's agreeable personal references a moment or two age, whether there was any undertaking on behalf of the building societies to withhold advances where the granting of those advances would take the number of houses built in the private sector during a year above the figure fixed by the Minister?
    Mr. Crossman: I have read exactly what the communique" says. It says what it says. The right hon. Gentleman can see it. The building societies and I are in discussion. We have two working parties, one on finance and the other on land. We all understand that if we are to avoid the crisis of last spring, we need to have a reasonably planned programme. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is disappointed by the communique and by the fact that the building societies are prepared to work with us in trying to expand the programme in this way.
    I do not for one moment suggest that the building societies or the builders are in complete agreement with me and my theories, or even that they accept everything I say or my policies. What I do say is that they are prepared and ready now to work with us to get the programme through and to get the programme up in this way. They have accepted the need for the kind of programme that we have. They have pointed out—
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter rose—
    Mr. Crossman: The right hon. Gentleman asked me a number of things and made a number of grave allegations, to which I intend to reply
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer is "No".
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister refuses to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Gentleman must sit down.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. Is it not contrary to the custom of the House for a right hon. Gentleman winding up at the end of a debate not to give way to the right hon. Gentleman who opened the debate?
    Mr. Speaker: The Chair is not prepared to rule on that, and the Minister has given way once.
    Mr. Crossman: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not ask whether it is in order to say, "Sit down if you have got the guts to do so ", because that was unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman, even in a whisper.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer is "No".
    Mr. Crossman: This is what happens when gentlemen lose in a game.
    I want now to deal with the main issue which the right hon. Gentleman raised and which the builders raised with me, which is the problem of the size of the public sector. We have decided that we must bring up the public sector to a level of 250,000 houses a year. This will bring it somewhere near the private sector in this period. We have done this for this reason. The social need for picking up the backlog of ten years of neglect has now been overwhelmingly proved.[Laughter.] Hon. Members who laugh at that should read the Milner Holland Report. It was perfectly reasonable, both of the right hon. Gentleman and of the builders, to say to me, "Is it your aim here to switch and to say that you believe in council house building? We believe in owner occupiers. You want to have a competition or strife between the one and the other". Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman almost said this in his speech. He quoted out of context that phrase of the

    499
    Chairman of the Greater London Council Housing Committee.
    I would reply to the right hon. Gentleman in this way. That is very old fashioned. Speaking as a politician, if I go to a council estate—I represent a good many—I should be very stupid to believe that they all voted Labour. It would be equally silly to believe that all owner-occupiers voted Tory. It would be absolute insanity for any Minister of Housing to be ideologically in favour of one or the other. It would be equally insane for a Tory to be pledged to be in favour of owner-occupation against council house building, because the two things are essentially different and they are different needs.
    It is my view—I said this the other day to the International Congress of Building Societies—that in the long term, as society grows more affluent, more and more people will want to own and occupy their own houses. This is a very natural thing to do. If so, they will be harking back to the early days of the trade union movement, when people owned their own houses so as to get out of the landlord's power and be able to be independent trade unionists and not be under the threat of eviction from landlords. There is nothing improper in wanting to own one's own house. Many people behind me do so. It is a great mistake for anyone in the House to try to divide owner-occupiers from council house tenants.
    We must recognise the need. We have a pent up demand for owner-occupation. We have an overwhelming social need for rented houses in the great conurbations. I want to be quite clear. I am giving every priority in our housing programme on the public side to the great conurbations. I had deliberately told people that that is where rented housing must be concentrated, because that is where the need is desperately proved.
    I want to give a little evidence of this. As to the London programme, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Ber-mondsey (Mr. Mellish) has been concerned, we have brought it up from what it was in the four-year programme 1961–64, which was the very period of Rachmanism and the very period of the Milner Holland Report, when they built 70,000 houses in four years. We are
    500
    going to build 125,000 houses in the next four years in London. We are not content. We know that everyone of those rented houses is desperately required.
    One hon. Gentleman talked bitterly about the rate subsidies. I will tell him something. Unless the State subsidy goes up to some 70 per cent. of the cost of the house in London, land being at the price it is, the ratepayer has to foot the bill. It is either a State subsidy or a rate subsidy, or no housing. That is the fact in the London conurbation. This particular hon. Gentleman said that they were pouring it out from the rates. That is true. I am trying to rearrange the subsidies in London to have this special case of London's costs considered to enable London to build the houses it desperately requires.
    I move on to figures outside London. In Birmingham in 1961–64 9,300 houses was the figure. In 1965–68, the figure will be 27,000 houses. This is because there is a great area of slums in the centre of Birmingham and we are building a great satellite town outside to get them out of the slums. The Liverpool figures are 8,600–18,800, and I need not say anything about Liverpool slums, Manchester 13,900–18.000, Leeds 8,000 —11,700 and Sheffield 7,200—14,500.
    These are the areas we want to deal with. These are the social standards. This is where the whole drive will have to be concentrated. I say to the builders, and hon. Members opposite who reflect the opinion of builders, that if they feel that a council house building programme of 250,000 houses a year is in danger of removing their clients then, heaven knows, they under-estimate the crisis in London, Sheffield or Manchester, and it is a mean thing to hold a programme down for fear of clients being taken away.
    We are prepared and we shall announce that in the course of the Session to broaden the basis of owner-occupation, and we are fulfilling our pledge to the owner-occupier in the way in which we shall enable more working people than ever before to be owner-occupiers. I believe that they have the right to be owner-occupiers. In travelling round Britain I have been profoundly impressed by the fact that even obsolescent old houses are now being bought for

    501
    owner-occupation because of the passion for owner-occupation. We have had a special study made in Rochdale where we have found that 60 per cent. of houses there which used to be landlord-owned are now owner-occupied, well-preserved and well-maintained, £50 a year being paid out to improve them. This is a passion which keeps old houses from becoming obsolescent. We ought to help it in every possible way. Local authorities gave the mortgages for them, not the building societies. I am trying to encourage the building societies to spread their work into that area as well.
    I want to give improvement grants, but I do not want them given for the individual houses alone because if one lives in that kind of area it is the area that matters. What one wants is pavements, street lighting, and the dreary dust-heap at the other end turned into an adventure park for children, but at the momen: there are no grants for local authorities for environmental improvements. We have three experimental areas which we are working at carefully now. I do not want to launch legislation too soon because we want to be sure how to do this. We want to know not merely how to build magnificent new blocks of flats but how to save old areas and give people there their share of life. Our Rent Act will not exactly encourage people to stay in the
    502
    landlord game. There is going to be a spread of owner-occupation. I do not believe that the private landlord has any future in building houses. I believe that the future is with the owner-occupier on the one side and the council housing and the housing associations on the other. It seems to me that these are the realities, and it is on the basis of these realities that we have been working out our policies in the first year.
    The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames made some fun about our record in the first year. I admit that we have built only a few more houses this year than the Tories built last year. We ought to have done better than that. We shall do better next year, but we have been busy this year planning the first national housing plan. We are having the courage to put the controls on, and we are trying, I think successfully, to persuade the builders and the building societies that we are a Government who want to expand housing and who are determined to do a short-term job of urgently increasing rented accommodation while satisfying the long-term demand for the occupation and ownership of one's own home, which is the right of every Englishman.
    Debate adjourned.[Mr. Gourlay.]
    Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

    WAR DISABLEMENT PENSION (MR. TURNBULL)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gourlay.]
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. Arnold Gregory: I want to draw the attention of the House to the case of one of my constituents, Mr. James Turnbull, of Heaton Chapel, Stockport. It is a long-standing matter, but it is well known to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and I must say that my hon. Friend has given much of his time over the last few months and afforded me a number of interviews to discuss the intricacies involved, and I am much obliged to him.
    Mr. Turnbull's own words can be best used to describe the beginnings of this case. In a statement dated February, 1964, he gives the following points:
    "I was wounded in France in February 1917 and was in hospital until December of that year when I was discharged with five pieces of shell in me: one piece 3 ins. long, one piece 2½ ins. long, and three medium size pieces. I was in receipt of a pension until it was stopped in 1921. I protested at the time, stating that I still had five pieces of shell in me and that it was a violation of the Royal Warrant to do so, but as I did not receive a reply to my protest I did not bother further in the matter. Approximately two years later one piece of shell turned septic and I was rushed to Grangethorpe Hospital where one large piece 3 ins. long was removed. Since that time I have been greatly troubled with the remaining foreign bodies."
    Between March and June, 1964, which was before I came to the House, Mr. Charles Royle, then Member for Salford, West and now Lord Royle of Pendleton, approached the then Minister with the case. In the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary of the time the developments of the Turnbull case were catalogued and the whole history from the Ministry standpoint was run over. That attitude largely holds today, and it is the basis of the Ministry's reasoning in the affair.
    For the interest of the House, I will quote the relevant part of their communication dated 12th May, 1964, for it is most important in subsequent developments:
    "Following his discharge from the Army Mr. Turnbull was awarded a war pension at the 60 per cent. disablement rate for the
    504
    gunshot wounds. A medical board in October, 1918, reported a considerable improvement in his condition and his pension was reduced to the 20 per cent. rate. In July, 1920, Mr. Turnbull was examined by a further medical board which included a surgical specialist. His wounds were reported to be sound and not adherent or tender and his gait was normal. Our doctors advised that there had been a further improvement in Mr. Turnbull's condition and assessed his disablement at 4 per cent. permanent He was awarded the appropriate compensation which took the form of a lump sum of £48 15s. in final settlement of his claim. This meant that further compensation could only be awarded if there was a permanent and material worsening in his war disability."
    From that, it will be seen that the door was left open for further consideration of Mr. Turnbull's entitlement, and that presumably on the assumption that, having first been granted a 60 per cent. disablement rate, then a 20 per cent. rate, then a 4 per cent. rate and then nothing at all, Mr. Turnbull would be bound to have trouble of some sort for ever after which, in the Ministry's opinion, might or might not qualify for pensionable rights.
    The letter goes on:
    "Since 1949 Mr. Turnbull has asked on many occasions for his claim to be reconsidered, as he thought that his war disability had worsened. Medical boards have been held in 1950, 1957, and 1959 and reports were obtained from specialists. On no occasion, however, has the war disability ever been found to have worsened. In 1957 Mr. Turnbull was found to be suffering from swelling of the testicles and osteo-arthritis of the right hip, but in the opinion of our doctors these further conditions were entirely unconnected with the war disability or any factor of Mr. Turnbull's 1914 war service. He could not, therefore, be awarded any further compensation. In 1959, Mr. Turnbull was also found to be suffering from psycho-neurosis but our doctors stated that this condition was of recent origin and also entirely unconnected with the war disability or any service factors. In the circumstances, we had to tell Mr. Turnbull again that we could not award him any compensation. These decisions were reconsidered in 1960 after Mr. Turnbull had written to the Prime Minister and then referred his case to his local War Pensions Committee. Our doctors remained firmly of the opinion that there had been no worsening of the accepted disability and that the further conditions from which Mr. Turnbull was unfortunately suffering had no connection with it or any factor of his 1914 service."
    This trend has been taken up by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in the various letters received over the past few months. Fortunately,

    505
    there has been no repetition of the suggestion that Mr. Turnbull was suffering from psychoneurosis. This was a needless and troublesome additive, for it had no bearing on Mr. Turnbull's claim. The Ministry, in any case, forecast a "no liability" clause and it only gave my constituent a few wretched moments, for he could not recall any interview or examination to assess this particular condition either in 1959 or at any other time before or since then.
    However we must take events as they come, and, indeed, in conformity to the pattern already described, on the whole they form a very interesting and detailed pattern in Mr. Turnbull's case. I would at this stage emphasise that I have no criticism or question of the ability, the integrity or purpose in the findings of these eminent and learned people. The whole matter rests on the doubt and disagreement which is found on one side and then the other in the process of Mr. Turnbull's pursuing his rights.
    As we know, Mr. Turnbull had between 1950 and 1959 appeared before a number of boards, and specialist reports have been issued on his case. Before and during these years Mr. Turnbull had been receiving quite a lot of treatment and a number of medical statements were issued during this period to illustrate the opinion and feelings of those attending him, and the positive nature of this opinion as to where liability lay in the matter.
    There is the opinion of his famliy doctor who wrote on 4th May, 1951:
    "Whilst being in this district up to 1947 Mr. Turnbull had frequent trouble with pieces of shrapnel in the left buttock and in 1944 he was X-rayed and four pieces were found deeply embedded."
    That was signed by Dr. Vipont Brown.
    We know from the Ministry's letter that in 1957 Mr. Turnbull was found to be
    "suffering from swelling of the testicles and osteoarthritis of the right hip."
    but in the opinion of the Ministry doctors these further conditions were entirely unconnected with war disability or any factor of Mr. Turnbull's 1914 war service.
    Yet during February of that year he was examined by Dr. Norman W. Bolton, consultant surgeon to Stockport Infirmary who wrote to the chairman of the Stockport War Pensions Commitee on February 13, 1957:
    506
    "This man sustained a war injury in the First World War and had three pieces of retained shrapnel in the perineum for which he was in receipt of a pension 25 years ago. Periodically since then he has complained of pain in the left hip and right groin and also in the perineum. We have periodically during the last six years investigated him."
    Dr. Bolton then goes on to describe this condition and concludes:
    "He is still complaining of pain in the outer part of the left hip and the right groin and X-ray examination revealed scattered, opaque foreign bodies are present. One lies over the lesser trochanter on the left side, another occupies the left pelvis posteriorily. The smallest is seen below the left pubic symphysis.'"
    He concludes:
    "I think these attacks of pain that he is getting are due to the retained pieces of shrapnel. I believe he is making a claim to see if there is any possibility of granting him some further pension. I fel his case is a genuine one."
    Mr. Turnbull was then 63 years of age, and this refers to a period of consultation and treatment extending over six years when he was 57 years of age, still in active, working life. Yet he was bearing a non-pensionable disability in the Ministry's eyes which I understand led him to lose some five to six weeks' work from time to time.
    In addition to this there is a tremendous amount of medical opinion in Mr. Turn-bull's favour, particularly from his family doctor, Dr. J. Neill Shepherd, and there is another important note from Mr. Thomas, chief consultant of Mossley Hall Hospital, Liverpool, issued in January, 1960.
    Mr. Turnbull describes the incident as follows:
    "Three years ago the Ministry of Pensions ordered me into Mossley Hall Hospital, from December 1959 to November 1960, when I had one more piece of shell removed from my left hip. (The sciatic knotch.) My condition was very much deteriorated, and I was again admitted to Mossley Hall Hospital on 19th November to 22nd December, 1962. After examination by the specialist there, a surgical boot was provided, which I now have to wear."
    At the time of Mr. Turnbull's visit to Mossley Hall Hospital the following observations were made in the report of Mr. Thomas, the chief consultant to the hospital:
    "Mr. Thomas also considers that he (Mr. Turnbull) has had recurrent periods of disability over the years and it is impossible to dissociate this, in part at any rate, from the effect of the injuries and the presence of foreign bodies."

    507
    In a further note to the Ministry dated 11th February, 1964, Dr. Shepherd wrote:
    "I have seen Mr. Turnbull today and do not agree that his pain, which he has had intermittently for 30 years, is due to arthritis. There is no doubt at the moment you are trying to shelve liability for something which is your responsibility in this case, and which you have up to now never failed to admit."
    It is clear that there has been a steady hardening of the Ministry's stand in the Turnbull case. Indeed, I would refer to the letters received from the Parliamentary Secretary dated 13th August and 23rd September. On 13th August he referred to the further consultations with medical consultants both from his own Ministry and another appointed for independent opinion. After dealing with the nature of the complaint he states that Mr. Turnbull:
    "is, unfortunately, like many other people in their seventies, suffering, from an all too common degenerative condition which has nothing to do with his service. I need not assure you that we have, as has our consultant also, taken full account of the medical opinions which Mr. Turnbull has submitted, particularly Mr. Thomas's opinion of January, 1960. But we must have regard to the whole of the evidence —in many cases, as you will understand, there may be a conflict of medical opinion—and, quite frankly, out senior doctors have no doubt about the evidence in Mr. Turnbull's case. If it were anywhere near the borderline, we would give Mr. Turnbull the benefit of the doubt."
    One might well ask what has Mr. Turnbull yet to do to prove his position in this matter, and, furthermore, to prove how near the borderline he has yet to get, or what he has to do to prove it. It is the hardening attitude of the Ministry in this case that disturbs me. The reference to a man in his seventies and the possibility of a degenerative condition at such an age is, I feel, to be well taken by the House.
    But we must remember that this is the tail end of things. All this began in Mr. Turnbull's youth. It wrecked his normal activities, particularly a bright football career, a matter which Mr. Turnbull personally considers of greater importance than his battle for pension rights. These, of course, cannot be restored. Neither is it an issue today. I think it was Keyserling who implied that it is much worse to deprive a man of his living than to take away his life. Who knows? Who can really tally up the damages and ravages
    508
    of war and its total inhumanity to man? This is a question very close to our minds in more than one way today. The whole point that I wish to make to the House is that my hon. Friend cannot say that his is a cast-iron case, tightly sewn up and beyond dispute. It will always remain one of doubt. In fact, nothing could be more borderline.
    Opinion that has been on Mr. Turn-bull's side for so long remains firmly so today. It queries and questions the hopelessness of the case. After all, Mr. Turn-bull shows the sign of a man in later years, supported by sticks, and of being disabled. That cannot be doubted. However, medical evidence is called upon to prove only the disability and where liability lies—not the pain. One can only hope that my hon. Friend will look again at this case, to break through the barriers of resistance that have apparently built around the whole thing. I hope, too, that my hon. Friend will consult the Minister in this way.
    I conclude on the note adopted by Dr. Shepherd when still further evidence was being sought on the case. He said on 15th June, 1965:
    "I believe it is impossible to prove one way or the other whether it is in fact the result of his war service, but there is no doubt that bis foreign bodies are from service in the 1914–18 War."
    Indeed, doubt is the underlying thing about the whole case.
    10.15 p.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Harold Davies): I would like to begin by paying tribute to the temperate yet forceful way in which my hon. Friend has put the case on behalf of Mr. Turnbull. I know, too, how hard my hon. Friend has worked on this case. However, there is one point in his speech—and he was kind enough to inform me of some of the things that he would say—on which I would take issue with him. He spoke of the "barriers of resistance that have apparently been built"—as he put it— "around the whole thing". There are no such barriers.
    I think that it is fair to say that we administer the war pensions scheme with generosity and concern for the pensioner and not at all in any niggardly

    509
    spirit. I do not think that there is any dispute in the House about that. I do not need, therefore, to assure my hon. Friend or the House that, if Mr. Turnbull's case had been anywhere near the borderline, if there had been any real doubt about it, we should gladly have given him the benefit of that doubt.
    Unfortunately, I am bound to say, with emphasis, that the weight of the evidence leaves us in no doubt at all—and I have been into the case several times very carefully indeed with our doctors and have seen my hon. Friend with them—that Mr. Turnbull's difficulties, for which we must all have great sympathy, are not in any way caused by the worsening of his war disablement. It would be an inadequate recognition of the force and sincerity of my hon. Friend's case on behalf of Mr. Turnbull if I did not make this clear.
    Before I come to the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend I would like to fill out the background. Mr. Turnbull joined the Army in January, 1915. In March, 1917, he sustained some shrapnel wounds to his buttocks and one across the back of his right thigh as a result of an accident. By July the wounds were healed and he was discharged from hospital. He was however readmitted the following month because he complained of some stiffness of his left hip.
    Examination of the hip joint under anaesthetic revealed that movements of the hip were absolutely normal. X-rays showed, however, the presence of some foreign bodies—there is no question of there being pieces of shrapnel two or three inches long—and an operation to remove one of them was recommended. Mr. Turnbull declined to have an operation—his refusal was quite reasonable— and on 5th December, 1917, he was discharged as unfit for service.
    Following his discharge, he was granted a 60 per cent. pension in respect of the wounds. In October, 1918, a medical board found a considerable improvement in his condition and his assessment was then reduced to 20 per cent. In July, 1920, another medical board found further improvement and assessed the degree of disablement at 4 per cent. permanent. As pension is not paid where disablement is below 20 per
    510
    cent., Mr. Turnbull was then awarded a gratuity. This gratuity did not mean that we thought that there would be no continuing disablement from his wounds at all, or that if he should need any treatment for them we would not give it. This gratuity meant that the disablement arising from the presence of the foreign bodies, though it would be permanent, would be relatively slight. Mr. Turnbull in fact had some treatment in 1921 when two pieces of shrapnel were removed. He had the right of appeal for one year against the award, but he did not exercise that right.
    For many years, Mr. Turnbull has sought restoration of his war pension. He has renewed his claims, sometimes directly and sometimes with the help of bodies such as the British Legion and the Red Cross. He has discussed his case with his local war pension committee and others. He has been medically examined on numerous occasions and reports have been obtained from specialists. I need not go into details. Suffice it to say that on no occasion was his war disablement ever found to be permanently worse, though at the end of 1959 a small piece of shapnel came to the surface and was removed. When this was done, Mr. Turnbull received treatment allowance at a rate equivalent to 100 per cent. pension.
    My hon. Friend also mentioned that Mr. Turnbull went into hospital in 1962, when a pair of surgical shoes were prescribed for him. But the treatment he had then and the shoes which were prescribed were not for his war wounds but for his arthritis. This was fully explained to Mr. Turnbull at the time.
    In January this year, my hon. Friend wrote to us about Mr. Turnbull. He considered that he still remained dissatisfied. We therefore thought it right, in order that justice might be seen to be done, to submit a statement of all the evidence in his case, including the full range of X-rays over many years, to an independent consultant, and this we did. We referred the papers to one of the most eminent orthopaedic surgeons in the country, director of the department of orthopaedic surgery of a major university. I emphasise that this gentleman had nothing to do with my Department. He

    511
    was completely and entirely independent and we were content to abide by what he said.
    He gave Mr. Turnbull a full examination on 19th March and his opinion was as follows:
    "This patient is suffering from osteoarthritis of both hips. The osteo-arthritis is more marked on the right side than on the left. It is to be attributed to constitutional causes and is not, in my view, in any way due to the effects of the injury sustained in 1917.
    The various small metallic foreign bodies in the left buttock and upper part of the left thigh are making no contribution whatever to Mr. Turnbull's disability."
    We submitted every scrap of evidence. It is a clear and unambiguous opinion. Furthermore it is accompanied by detailed reasons, and in the light of it, I must tell the House, quite frankly, that there are no grounds at all upon which we can say that there is any worsening of Mr. Turnbull's war disablement. The plain fact is, as I have indicated in my letters to my hon. Friend, that Mr. Turn-bull's war injury consisted of some deep flesh wounds which, within a few months, were satisfactorily healed. There was no artery or nerve damage. The X-rays show quite clearly, and we took the trouble to get a lot of them, that though there are some very small fragments of shrapnel remaining, they do not lie near the joints. Many people carry such small fragments around with them, encapsulated in fibrous tissues, and normally they cause no trouble. The X-rays also showed quite clearly that Mr. Turnbull is suffering from bilateral osteoarthritis, of constitutional origin which has nothing to do with his war service. This was beginning to manifest itself when he first claimed restoration of his pension. An X-ray taken in 1949 showed arthritic changes. My hon. Friend says that his present condition is the tailend of things. It is a condition which has been developing for many years, and I must say would
    512
    have been just the same whether he had been wounded or not.
    In essence my hon. Friend's arguments amount to the claim that, since the medical evidence was conflicting—and that is the nub of it—and because Mr. Turnbull has adduced a certificate from his own doctor and two local hospital specialists in his favour, the case, in my hon. Friend's own words, will always remain one of doubt. With great respect to my hon. Friend, this does not follow. What matters is not the volume of the evidence but the weight of it. No one has ever denied that there are some foreign bodies present, but the X-rays over the years show quite clearly that they are in the flesh only and are not interfering, and never have interfered, with any joint, nerve or artery.
    The disablement from the wound is not serious. It is not worse now than it was in 1920. The main condition with which we have to deal is an entirely unrelated one, namely, degenerative joint disease of the hips. This is Mr. Turnbull's serious condition, and it is the condition which is causing the trouble. Foreign bodies have nothing to do with it. I would emphasise that we prepared for the consultant a full unedited statement of all the evidence. This is a long and expensive process. We make no complaints about that. If there is the slightest possibility of a feeling of injustice we do all we can to remove it. We have done so here and, as I have said more than once to my hon. Friend, though I have the greatest sympathy in Mr. Turnbull's situation, and were it possible I would like to acquiesce in his demand, I am sorry, but that is the conclusion to which I have to come in the light of the weighty evidence in Mr. Turnbull's case, and that is where I must leave it this evening.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Service Pensions (Changes)
  Service Pensions (Changes)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Immigrant Children (Apprenticeships)
  Immigrant Children (Apprenticeships)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Quantity Surveyors
  Quantity Surveyors
HOUSING
  Dwellings
  Dwellings
ROADS
  M.4 (Statutory Procedures)
  M.4 (Statutory Procedures)
MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY
  Hovercraft (Development)
  Hovercraft (Development)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Durham

RHODESIA
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sure the House would wish to know that at about 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the events in Rhodesia.

ABORTION BILL [H.L.]
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioners. I beg to move that the Bill he now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Silkin.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Longford, I beg to move the Motion which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Merthyr, the Lord Archibald, the Lord Ailwyn, the Lord Cawley, the Lord Airedale, the Lord Douglas of Barloch, and the Lord Strang, be appointed the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that, in the present Session, all Consolidation Bills (whether public or private), Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills prepared pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949, be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.
ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
3.8 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved on Tuesday last by Lord Francis-Williams—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:—
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I should like to preface my remarks with two apologies. First, very much to my regret, I fear I shall not be able to stay for the whole debate this evening. This is something of which I personally very much disapprove when it is done by others, and I can only offer the House my sincere apologies. It so happens that I undertook to preside and speak at a dinner to-night. The engagement was fixed many months ago, and as this debate was only recently fixed to take place to-day I can hardly give up the other engagement. Secondly, I, like all your Lordships, am very conscious of the tragic events which are taking place elsewhere in the world to-day, and I know all your Lordships' minds are concerned with those events. All of us are most anxious to hear the Statement at half-past three. However, the time between now and half-past three has to be occupied, so I will do my best to fill in the time as well as I can.

115
As your Lordships know, the debate on the gracious Speech to-day is on external affairs, and the relevant passage from the gracious Speech reads as follows:
"My Government will seek to promote peace and security throughout the world, to increase international confidence and co-operation and to strengthen the United Nations. They will promote disarmament, and in particular will seek the conclusion of a treaty to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons."
Those are the aims, and none of us would quarrel with them, for they are universal. While these great problems which face the world—the maintenance of peace and the need for disarmament, the problems posed by the disparity of wealth between the developed countries of the West and the developing countries of Africa and Asia—are the same the world over, no two countries approach them in quite the same way. Each nation's own particular situation, both geographical and political, inevitably moulds that country's approach into its own particular form. While countries which have the same broad common interests will attend to problems in broadly the same way, there will be differences between countries, and a difference of emphasis and approach even between countries which are the closest of friends and allies. Thus, we in Britain have our own particular ideas as to how we should set about tackling these difficult problems.
Because in the years since the last war our own situation has changed so radically, it is perhaps as well for us first to see clearly what our present situation in the world is, before we go on to press our views on others as to how to set the world to rights. For this country the years since the war have been years of readjustment, a process which is still going on but a process the sooner completed the better. For while we continue to flounder about trying to decide where we stand in the world and what our image is, our national voice will lack authority and our advice will tend to go unheeded. As I see it, the difficulty lies in adjusting ourselves from having been a great Power—indeed, the greatest Power in the world—to being merely one of the more important Powers; and it is, of course, a big change to accustom ourselves to, from being captain of the first eleven to one of the more important members of the second eleven. In our reappraisal there
116
are two main dangers. The first is of not properly recognising our altered circumstances and of taking comfort in our past glories, thereby deluding ourselves that our power and influence is much the same as it was several decades ago. The second danger is exactly the opposite: that of thinking that, because we are no longer in a pre-eminent position, we have little or nothing to offer to the councils of the world, and that even if we had, few would bother to listen to us.
There are, it seems to me, certain factors to-day operating in favour of our falling into one or other of these two dangers. The main one, that may cause us to indulge in what I might call national folic de grandeur, is the Commonwealth. In saying this I imply no criticism whatsoever of the Commonwealth itself, but only of the dangers of our relationship to it and in it. Because the Commonwealth was evolved from the British Empire, I fear that even yet it is believed by some that there is some similarity between these two organisations. This is of course, nonsense. They are as different as the proverbial chalk and cheese.
To emphasise the point, may I use the analogy of a wheel? The Empire can be likened to a wheel, with Britain as the hub and the dependent countries of our Empire as the spokes going out from the hub. The Commonwealth, equally, can be likened to a wheel, only this time all of its members, including Britain go to make up the rim of that wheel. To put it in a single sentence, it was "The British Empire" but it is "The Commonwealth". Also, let us not delude ourselves that because the modern Commonwealth was to a large extent our creation, brought into being by us, that gives us some special powers and privileges.
On the other side, the particular factor that may influence us towards the second danger which I mentioned—that of underestimating ourselves—comes, in my belief, to a large extent from our feeling of being compelled to follow blindly our American allies. Again, I say this in no criticism of the United States; indeed, in the years since the war she has been the very bastion of all we hold most close. She is our tried and true friend, to whom we shall be for ever grateful. But we do no service to her or to ourselves if we

117
never speak our minds. We are an ally and not a lackey.
I do not wish to weary the House with too many analogies, but may I liken the United States and our allies in the Atlantic Alliance to a school class, with the United States the master and the rest of the allies the boys. Each boy presents his own special problem. You can liken France to the generally awkward boy, and Canada, perhaps, to the boy who is closely related to the master and therefore poses special problems. Germany is the boy with the special problems brought about by coming from a broken home.
And we in Britain, what are we? It seems to me that we are the steady, reliable boy, upon whom the master can always depend to help him out. An admirable rôle for us, you may say. Well, yes; but the trouble is that the boy who can always be relied upon tends to be taken for granted after a bit; and while the boys posing special problems are paid special attention, the boy who is taken for granted is not. So let us not be frightened of exerting our independence of view, when we think it right to do so. Let us, in fact, look ourselves squarely in the face without any complexes, be they superiority or inferiority. History and geography have seen to it that we have a rôle to play in the affairs of the world.
To return to the aims of our foreign policy, there is, first and foremost, the preservation of peace. Here we are playing our full part in all the danger areas of the world, whether it be in Europe, in the Middle East or in South-East Asia. Indeed, the question I hear is not whether we are doing enough, but whether we are doing too much. I am a keen but incompetent angler, and over the years I have learned one thing about fishing: if one wishes to be successful one must accept one's own limitations, and it is better to fish a short line properly than a long line incompetently. And so it is, I think, with our international commitments. If we undertake to do too much, we shall be in danger of carrying out none of our rôles efficiently or competently.
At the same time, I realise that those rôles must be filled or vacuums of power will come into being. As the years since the war have shown only too clearly, the Communist Powers will strain every nerve to fill those vacuums, thereby increasing
118
world tension and the threat to peace. It would, I think, be legitimate to ask some of our friends and allies in different parts of the world to play a larger part in sharing the burden of keeping the peace. But the difficulty, of course, is that, so long as we go on doing it, there is no compulsion on others to help out. I have found that, so long as one's bank manager allows one to overdraw, one does not feel compelled to curtail one's expenditure; and I think the same is true of international obligations.
Disarmament and peace are closely linked, and in current thinking on disarmament much attention is rightly being given to trying to bring about a treaty of non-dissemination of nuclear weapons—and reference is made to this subject in the gracious Speech. This is clearly right: it must be a paramount aim to limit the number of countries which possess these ghastly weapons of total destruction. If such a treaty is feasible, no effort should be spared to achieve it. But, my Lords, I wonder whether it is feasible. In Europe, France is already a long way on the road to developing her own deterrent; in Asia, Communist China is clearly determined to become a nuclear Power. Will this inevitable extension of nuclear nations he the end of the story? I doubt it, I fear.
It occurs to me that there may be another way of curtailing this spread of nuclear weapons—and at this point I must make it quite clear that what I am about to say is entirely my own thinking and has not the authority of the leaders of my Party, who, like the rest of your Lordships, will be hearing it for the first and probably the last time. It is accepted, I think, that any effective limitation of nuclear weapons must depend upon cooperation between the United States and Russia. Taking as a starting point the basic fact that the whole essence of the deterrent is that it deters, and, however much we may be outraged by the horror that can be wreaked by the explosion of a nuclear weapon, the threat of it has prevented the outbreak of major hostilities for the past twenty years, if we wish to maintain the peace the deterrent value of nuclear devices must be kept before the world.
If the United States and Russia—and, indeed, ourselves—could agree to use, in combination, our nuclear strength against

119
any nation which had used a nuclear device in an act of aggression against another nation, then the combined nuclear armoury of the West and of Russia would for the foreseeable future be of such overwhelming superiority that, once a treaty of this kind had been negotiated, no nation would dare to use its own nuclear weapons in an act of aggression, since it would certainly mean its own total destruction. And surely no nation would go to all the vast expense in men's skill, in money and in materials to make a weapon it would never dare to use; and, if there ceased to be the fear of nuclear devices' being used aggressively, then there would cease to be the need for nations to have them as a defence against nuclear attack. I put this forward merely as my own idea. I know that it sounds bellicose, but its aim is the preservation of peace. It seems to me that since the sole justification of these hideous manifestations of twentieth-century technology is their power to deter nations from major acts of agression, and as this is the case, then in the interests of peace full use should be made of that power.
I turn now to the third of the three aims I gave at the objects of our foreign policy—that of bridging the gap between the "have" countries of the West and the "have not" countries of Africa and Asia. I am inclined to think that this is the most important of all the aims, because poverty lies at the root of so many evils and sources of tension in the world to-day. Certainly poverty is the breeding ground of Communism; and if the faith of Communism is to be defeated in Africa and in Asia, or indeed wherever it rears its ugly head, it will be done only by alleviating the appalling poverty which is the sole inheritance of countless millions of people in the world now. In the end, the threat of Communism will be removed not by bullets but by bread. This is not to say that there will not be times, as to-day in Vietnam, when, in the cause of freedom, force is necessary.
The task of bridging this gap is enormous, and one of the greatest problems is that singularly intractable one of how to prevent disastrous collapses in the prices of primary commodities upon one or other of which the economies of so many of the developing countries depend. Here, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development gave grounds for
120
hoping that something may at last be done; and I think noble Lords on all sides of the House would agree with me that the efforts of Mr. Edward Heath in this particular field were particularly praiseworthy, and have given a lead to nations throughout the world. I hope that the present Government will give the permanent United Nations organisation which is to be set up in Geneva as a result of last year's conference, every possible help and assistance, not only with words but also with finance.
My Lords, for us as a great exporting country, a prosperous world means a properous Britain, and therefore not only is it morally right for us to do all we can—and more—to bridge this hideous economic gulf, but it is also in our own domestic, economic, financial interests. Furthermore, once we can create an ever-increasingly prosperous world, then and only then will the tide of Communism begin to recede. Thirteen years ago, at the time of the Coronation, there was much talk of Britain entering into a second Elizabethan Age, with the implication that the era of the reign of the first Queen Elizabeth was a time of greatness and glory for this country. That is a view from which I certainly would not dissent; but, my Lords, let us remember what Britain was in those days. She was not one of the acknowledged great Powers. Spain was the great Power in the world. We were a small nation. We were as we are to-day—a small, close-knit island. We had a tough and resolute people who believed and had confidence in themselves.
My Lords, if our influence is to spread throughout the world, that is what we must again become. It was said on repeated occasions in the debate on the gracious Speech yesterday, when we were discussing economic affairs, that our own strength in the world and our own influence in the world depend on the strength of our own economy. We need to shrug off this malaise of apathy which seems to hang round so much of our national life, so that with renewed vigour we can tackle our own domestic problems. Then, and only then, will our voice be listened to with ever-increasing respect in the counsels of the world; and then, and only then, can we play our part in bringing about a lasting peace and a world of increasing prosperity for all mankind.

RHODESIA
3.30 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I would ask the permission of the House to make a Statement on Rhodesia which is being made by the Prime Minister elsewhere. If I may, I will use the Prime Minister's own words. I now quote the Prime Minister:
"The House will have heard with deep sadness of the illegal declaration of independence by the men who until that declaration constituted the Government of Rhodesia.
"The House is aware from statements made in this Chamber by the previous British Government and the present one of the long record of discussions aimed at agreement on independence conferred by the only legal authority capable of granting independence, by this Parliament acting on legislation introduced by the British Government. I do not intend to retrace the course of those negotiations which have now continued over a period of three years, but I must repeat that at every point over those three years successive British Governments have warned the Rhodesians in the strongest terms that any so-called declaration of independence not carrying with it the authority of the British Parliament would be illegal and invalid.
"Before informing the House of the consequences that follow this illegal act, I think that honourable Members will wish me to say something of the discussions between the British Government and the then Rhodesian Government since I last reported to the House on Tuesday. On Tuesday and again yesterday, my colleagues and I had a series of meetings with Sir Hugh Beadle, then and now Rhodesia's Chief Justice. In his capacity as Chairman designate of the Royal Commission he discussed with us every aspect of the working of that Commission which could affect the issues still in dispute between the two Governments. He returned to Rhodesia overnight authorised to explain to Mr. Smith and his colleagues the precise position of Her Majesty's Government on all these
122
questions, including one to which the House attach great importance, the effect on the working of the Royal Commission of the state of emergency and the steps which will have to be taken to ensure that the Royal Commission would still be in a position, despite the state of emergency and the regulations made under it, to see every one it needed to see and to obtain the views of the Rhodesian people as a whole on the basis of a free expression of opinion without restriction or intimidation from any quarter.
"Yesterday afternoon I sent a detailed message to Mr. Smith explaining our position on all the outstanding items, but adding that Sir Hugh Beadle would be in a position to give further clarification on every point including the interim report which I have referred to in earlier statements in this House. On the last outstanding point which held up agreement, namely the extent to which each Government would give an assurance in advance that it would accept a unanimous report from the Commission, we made a proposal to the Rhodesian Government which would fully meet every demand they had made.
"We asked them the following question: 'If the United Kingdom Government undertook to commend to Parliament—whose sovereign rights must be reserved—a unanimous report by the Royal Commission to the effect that the 1961 Constitution was acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole as a basis for independence, would the Rhodesian Government give a corresponding undertaking that if the Royal Commission submitted a unanimous report to the effect that the 1961 Constitution was not acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole as a basis for independence they would abandon their claim in this respect and would agree that a Royal Commission should then proceed to devise a new Constitution for Rhodesia which would give effect to the principles enunciated by the United Kingdom Government in their statement of October 9, 1965, and which would be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole as a basis for independence?'

123
"I must tell the House that what was proposed in that message to Mr. Smith which he was in a position to report to his Cabinet yesterday last night met every requirement to which he had referred in messages formal and informal which I had received from him.
"Evidence was accumulating that despite this the then Rhodesian Government were hell-bent on illegal and self-destroying action. Throughout the small hours I was in touch with Salisbury, with Her Majesty's High Commissioner, and arranged an early mornning telephone call to Mr. Smith himself which took place several hours before the illegal declaration.
"I began by telling him there were now no outstanding points between us and I said I was sending a senior Minister to Salisbury empowered to sign an agreed minute recording the basis on which the Royal Commission could be set up this week. I must tell the House that in that conversation I went through every single item of dispute between the two Governments regarding the establishment of the Royal Commission. I spelt out yet again our attitude on them, and proved beyond any possible reasonable doubt that every point they had made was fully dealt with on terms that must be satisfactory to them. Every point was discussed and at the end of the conversation he had no further queries, no further points to raise, and no suggestion that there was anything still in doubt. Yet after this he said that the position of the two Governments was irreconcilable. I am bound to say that when I heard this I told him that if anybody could now say that this position is irreconcilable and justifies illegal action I think they want their heads examining or they must have a death wish on them.
"Mr. Smith who gave no indication that a decision to take illegal action had been taken went on to say that they were in the midst of discussing this and he took it that it would not be right of him if he did not tell me that the feeling seemed to be that it looked as though this thing had gone too far.
124
"I will not at this stage inflict on the House my comments on this statement, on Mr. Smith and on his colleagues. But I should perhaps add that Mr. Smith went on to say that his Cabinet and he himself regretted that this has happened at this stage because he said himself, 'You find yourself in a position that has gone too far not because of actions on your part.' I am glad to feel that Mr. Smith at any rate agrees with the claim I made to the House on my return from Salisbury that I have done everything any man could do to avert this disaster.
"Mr. Speaker, I am hound to tell the House I was speaking in the early hours of this morning to a confused and unhappy man. He has been in these past weeks under intolerable pressures from some of his colleagues and the unreasoning extremists of the Rhodesian front; but it must not be forgotten. Mr. Speaker, that it was Mr. Smith who called the Rhodesian Front into existence.
"I ended the telephone conversation with a heavy heart, feeling that reason had fled the scene and that emotions, unreasoning racialist emotions at that, had taken command regardless of the consequences for Rhodesia, for Africa and for the world.
"The Government conceive it as their duty, Mr. Speaker to publish all the exchanges we have had with the Rhodesian Government over these past months and indeed longer, and when they are published I will call the House to witness that this Government did everything in its power to avert this disaster, that even when this day dawned, less than fours hours before the illegal declaration, we had created a situation settling every difference between the two Governments, providing for the immediate despatch of a senior Minister to proceed to Salisbury and sign an agreed minute and creating the conditions in which the Royal Commission could have been appointed in this very week.
"I still find it incredible, and the House when they read the records will find it incredible, that this action should have taken place. But as I have previously warned the House, the differences between us have not been differences of legal drafting, they have

125
not been the differences of normal political interchange, they have represented a deep difference of philosophy, a gulf that we now know could never be bridged because it was a gulf covering all the distance between different worlds and different centuries. At every point when agreement was near we were told that our positions were irreconcilable because there were men in the then Rhodesian Cabinet who were determined at all costs that agreement should not be reached. I challenged Mr. Smith to-day as I did in my last meeting in Salisbury with this fact, and to his credit Mr. Smith had the honesty to admit it.
"I felt the House was entitled to this frank assessment of the last stages of these discussions. Now I must inform the House of the action that has been taken, that is being taken, that will be taken—some of it subject to the necessary powers being given by Parliament to the Government.
"I repeat that the British Government condemn the purported declaration of independence by the former Government of Southern Rhodesia as an illegal act and ineffective in law. It is an act of rebellion against the authority of the British Government and against the Constitution as by law established, and actions taken to give effect to it will be treasonable. The Governor, in pursuance of the authority vested in him by Her Majesty The Queen, has informed the Prime Minister and other Ministers of the Southern Rhodesian Government that they cease to hold office. They are now private persons and can exercise no legal authority in Southern Rhodesia.
"The British Government wish to make it clear that it is the duty of all British subjects in Southern Rhodesia, including all citizens of Southern Rhodesia, to remain loyal to The Queen and to the law of the land and to recognise the continuing authority and responsibility for Southern Rhodesia of the Government of the United Kingdom.
"The British Government are in close touch with all other Commonwealth Governments about the consequences of this illegal act and about the measure we should take. The British Government will of course have no
126
dealings with the rebel régime. The British High Commissioner is being withdrawn and the Southern Rhodesia High Commissioner in London has been asked to leave. Export of arms, including spares, have, of course, been stopped. All British aid will cease. Southern Rhodesia is being removed from the sterling area. Special exchange control restrictions will be applied. Exports of United Kingdom capital to Southern Rhodesia will not be allowed. Rhodesia will no longer be allowed access to the London capital market. Our Export Credits Guarantee Department will give no further cover for exports to Rhodesia. The Ottawa Agreement of 1932 which governs our trading relations with Southern Rhodesia is suspended. Southern Rhodesia will be suspended forthwith from the Commonwealth Preference Area and her goods will no longer receive preferential treatment on entering the United Kingdom. There will he a ban on further purchases of tobacco from Southern Rhodesia. We propose to suspend the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement in its relation to Southern Rhodesia and to ban further purchases of Rhodesian sugar. We shall not recognise passports issued or renewed by the illegal Southern Rhodesian régime. A further statement will be made on citizenship questions.
"We shall bring before Parliament on Monday a general enabling Bill to deal with this situation. It will first of all declare that Southern Rhodesia remains part of Her Majesty's Dominions and that the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom continue to have responsibility for it. It will go on to give power to make Orders in Council, to enable us to carry through the policy I have stated. There will be a Government statement tomorrow giving more details of the action we propose under this Bill.
"Lord Ca radon, British permanent representative to the United Nations, is asking the President of the Security Council to call an early meeting to consider the situation. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will he leaving for New York this evening.
"It is the duty of everyone owing allegiance to the Crown in Southern Rhodesia or elsewhere to refrain from

127
all acts which would assist the illegal régime to continue in their rebellion against the Crown. Members of the armed forces and the police in Southern Rhodesia should refrain from taking up arms in support of the illegal régime, and from doing anything which will help them to pursue their unlawful courses. Public servants in Southern Rhodesia should not do any work for the illegal régime which would tend to further the success of the rebellion. It is the duty of all private citizens owing allegiance to the Crown, wherever they may be, to refrain from acts which will give support to the illegal régime.
"The House will have an opportunity of further debate since the Southern Rhodesia Bill comes before the House next week. I understand also that discussions are proceeding through the usual channels about a possible special debate on Rhodesia to-morrow instead of the intended debate on defence and foreign affairs."
That, of course, refers to the House of Commons.
"For my part I will reserve further comment until we debate these matters more fully. But I cannot end this statement about a problem with which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and other colleagues and myself have been so intimately concerned for so long, without expressing the deep sense of tragedy—personal tragedy, but not only personal tragedy. It is a tragedy affecting a great people, including many thousands who have made their homes there and who are plunged into a maelstrom not of their own making, and of millions more who are denied the inalienable human right of self-expression and self-determination. Heaven knows what crimes will be committed against the concept of the rule of law and of human freedom for which this House has always stood: this progressive unfolding of the regulations which have been signed under the state of emergency are an ominous warning.
"The illegal régime which now claims power and authority in Rhodesia marked its usurpation of authority with a proclamation which borrowed for the purposes of small and
128
frightened men the words of one of the historic documents of human freedom, even to appropriating the reference to 'a respect for the opinions of mankind'.
"I would repeat to them and to the Rhodesian people as a whole, in words I used in my farewell statement on leaving Salisbury, these words:—
'When, nearly two centuries ago, the American States declared their independence from a British Government which to say the least was remote, oppressive and unimaginative, they insisted that their actions be inspired by "a proper respect for the opinions of mankind". Nor were they alone. Could anyone say that either of these things would be true of a Rhodesia which chose illegally to claim its independence?'
"It would be unworthy of this Government, of any British Government, as it would be unworthy of this House, to allow this challenge, offensive as it is to all our cherished traditions, and to the wider aspirations of the whole of mankind, to go unanswered.
"We did not seek this challenge—the House will concede that we did everything in our power to avoid it—but now, as it has been made, we shall face it, with whatever sadness, with resolution and determination. Whatever measures in our opinion are needed to restore Rhodesia to the rule of law and to allegiance to the Crown, these measures will be taken, with the support of Parliament. And I am confident that we shall have not only the support of Parliament; we shall have the support of the nations of the world, and shall have the clear and decisive verdict of history."
My Lords, that concludes the very grave statement made by the Prime Minister.
If the House will allow me a moment more, I will outline our proposals for the Business of the House in regard to Rhodesia in the next few days. It is proposed that we sit on Monday for the purpose of considering an enabling Bill, which it is hoped will be available from another place by 7 p.m. I cannot give any guarantee of that—none of us could—but it is hoped that it will be available by 7 p.m. It is also hoped that this Bill will receive the Royal Assent that evening.

129
The Bill is an enabling Bill, under which Orders will be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure, so that in each case the Orders will be debatable, if necessary, in this House. Finally, so as to give the House a proper opportunity for a full discussion, it is proposed to meet on Monday at 2 o'clock to debate a Motion on Rhodesia, and the debate, will continue until shortly before the enabling Bill is received from the House of Commons. I am afraid that I have not had an opportunity of talking to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who also has on the Order Paper a Motion on Rhodesia, but perhaps I can talk to him afterwards.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I can say at once that in the unhappy circumstances that have arisen I do not propose to move my Motion on Wednesday, and if I have the opportunity I shall speak on Monday.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. My Lords, that concludes the statement of the Prime Minister and my own statement on Business.
3.48 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, it is hardly necessary to say that the Statement we have heard from the noble Earl the Leader of the House is a grave one; indeed, it is one of the gravest that any of your Lordships will have heard made in this House. Both Her Majesty's Government and the Conservative Party, when they were in power, have made it abundantly clear that a unilateral declaration of independence by the Rhodesian Government would be an illegal act, with the gravest consequences. To our great regret, Mr. Smith and the Rhodesian Government have embarked on this course, and no one can foretell what the ultimate result may be. I regret very much that the Prime Minister's efforts have failed.
As the noble Earl the Leader of the House has said, we shall have an opportunity, on Monday, of discussing the whole subject of the situation in Rhodesia, and I do not propose to say much more this afternoon. I think that at this juncture we should all exercise great restraint. Of course we shall have to look very carefully at the Statement which the noble Earl the Leader of the House has
130
made. It is not immediately clear to me, for example, what exactly is the position of the police, the Civil Service and the judges. We shall certainly have more questions to ask about the measures which the Government have said that they will take.
With regard to the last paragraph of the Statement, I assume that when the Statement uses the words
"whatever measures in our opinion are needed to restore the rule of law will be taken",
this excludes the use of force, since the Prime Minister is on record as saying so. I should be grateful if the noble Earl would be good enough to confirm this. With regard to the arrangements which the noble Earl has outlined to the House, I am sure that all noble Lords who sit on this side of the House will, as they always do, do their best to co-operate in getting Government business through. Of course, we will do that, provided we are satisfied that every Member of the House has had an opportunity of making his view known. But I think that I ought to make it clear that, if the Bill which the noble Earl has foreshadowed does not arrive from another place by about 7 o'clock, it will be increasingly difficult to complete all the stages that night and to have a Royal Commission on it.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I, from these Benches, express our sympathy with the Government and congratulate the Prime Minister on the great efforts he has made, which so unfortunately have failed. I wonder whether the noble Earl can tell us what is planned by the Government and Governor. The Governor, I take it, has the full support of Her Majesty's Government. We shall be interested to know whether they are going to set up some other form of Government or governing body. Meantime, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that this is not really the time to go into details. We should like to study what the noble Earl has said and go into the matter in greater detail on Monday, as proposed.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful to both noble Lords. The Governor, of course, has the full support of Her Majesty's Government, but what steps he is taking at the moment I am not in a position to explain to the House; nor, indeed, am I completely aware of them. The noble Lord,

131
Lord Carrington, asked about the use of force and pointed out that he was satisfied by the previous answer of the Prime Minister. I certainly endorse what the Prime Minister said on the earlier occasion.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask just one more question? Can the noble Earl say when the Bill will be available for noble Lords to study?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am under the impression that it will be available to-morrow.
3.54 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I think that everyone in your Lordships' House will be conscious of the gravity of this occasion and would not want to say anything at this moment to prejudice the position further, but I should like to ask two questions which are immediately important on matters that might be involved before our debate on Monday. The first is in relation to the European population in Rhodesia who are opposed to the declaration of an independent Government—and I am thinking particularly of the Judiciary. What are the British Government going to do to protect them immediately? I am also thinking of the 4 million African population, for whom we are directly responsible, as well as for the Europeans. What is being done to protect them from the imposition of the restrictions under the Emergency Act?
The second immediate question I want to put is this. Zambia is likely to suffer immediately, even more than Southern Rhodesia, from economic sanctions. What is being done to protect the people and the economy of Zambia, and, particularly, what is being done to safeguard Zambia's right to the service of the Kariba Dam, which is jointly owned by Zambia and Northern Rhodesia, and in which our Government are a party?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, perhaps I may reply first to my noble friend Lord Brockway. I think that I have made a very full statement—I cannot remember so long a Statement ever being made in this House in my time—and I should not like to add to it now. I think that the questions raised by my noble friend are poignant ones to
132
which eventually answers will have to be given.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I will exercise every possible restraint, as indeed I did yesterday, but there is a question which must guide all of us, particularly those less knowledgeable about these obscure matters of law. Did the Prime Minister say, through the noble Earl, that anyone who lends aid, succour or help, even perhaps argument, to those favouring the late Government in Rhodesia (possibly it is, de facto, the present Government: I do not know) is in treason with Her Majesty? If so, we shall have to have some special privilege to enable us to speak at all on this matter in the debates that are to come.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord to study carefully the Statement, and he will then be reassured, at any rate in regard to the last point. The wording is carefully employed, and I would ask him to read it, when he has a chance to do so, to-morrow.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I follow the question asked by the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party and ask the noble Earl that, when the time comes on Monday to open the debate, Her Majesty's Government should tell us clearly the position of His Excellency the Governor, who has carried the most heavy responsibilities during this period and whose position is so much in question. Can we be assured that we shall have a full Statement as to whether he is still able to exercise his constitutional position in Rhodesia, or what his position will be at that time?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I certainly join, as I am sure the House does, in the tribute paid to the Governor, and I certainly hope to be able to answer that question clearly on Monday. Obviously the questions coming up to-day are questions into which we are bound to go carefully when we come to the debate, but, to be quite honest, I do not think that there is much more that I can add to what I have already said.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure that there is no-one in this House who does not share the deep sorrow expressed by the Leaders of the

133
various Parties about these recent developments in Rhodesia. Nobody wishes to say anything to-day which would exacerbate an already sufficiently tragic situation, and I would only say this, if I may. There are many of us in your Lordships' House who hold views, which we are entitled to hold, regarding the events which have led up to the present situation and who believe, rightly or wrongly, that the action of the Rhodesian Government could be seen in a less unfavourable light, perhaps, than appears from the Prime Minister's Statement. I wanted to say that to-day, because I felt that it should be said. We shall have, I know, a fuller opportunity of discussing these matters on Monday, and I will reserve any further comments until then.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I would express my thanks to the noble Marquess for the restraint he has shown on this matter, on which we are all well aware that he has the deepest possible feeling.
ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
3.59 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, resuming our debate of this afternoon, I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to limit my few remarks to two subjects, in the first place, to Europe—that is to say, the general political situation in Europe to-day—and, in the second place, to what is called "peacekeeping" in the Indian Ocean, the two subjects being, as your Lordships know, intimately linked.
On Europe, most thinking people—and I repeat, most thinking people—would now admit, I believe, that by far the best solution would be that the European Economic Community should be allowed to continue on the general lines laid down in the Treaty of Rome; that France should return to the fold; that we and the other candidates for admission should join as soon as we possibly can, subject only to provisional arrangements for certain Commonwealth products, a suitable voting formula and a handful of hardcore problems (mostly agriculture), and that we should proceed with the construction
134
on this basis of some European Political Community which would represent the famous Eastern "pillar" of the Western Alliance. This general view is, I believe, becoming more and more widely accepted, both here and on the Continent of Europe—even, I believe, in certain French circles—and it still has many adherents in the United States of America, even at the highest level.
Unfortunately, this happy solution, if I may call it such, is ruled out for the moment owing to the extremely nationalistic policy of the present French Government. If this policy is pursued after December 4 next, which is probable, though not, I suppose, inevitable, a situation will eventually arise in which four other possibilities will perforce present themselves to us. I should like to tell possibilities are.
In the first place, France returns to the European Economic Community more or less on her own terms, which would probably involve a virtual French hegemony, the formation eventually, I suppose, of a kind of European Third Force, the continued exclusion of Britain from Europe, and very possibly, I fear, the break-up of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation as at present constituted. The second possibility: the European Economic Community breaks up altogether, and we presumably then try to form some kind of extended European Free Trade Association. The third possibility: we, the Five, and one or two other EFTA countries, form, or try to form, some kind of Community which is itself based on the principles of the Treaty of Rome, if not on the Treaty of Rome itself, a place being left open for France. The fourth possibility: we leave Europe to its own devices and enter into some kind of Customs Union with the United States, perhaps with Canada, and perhaps also in company with one or two other EFTA members.
Now, my Lords, the first possibility I mentioned is the gloomiest, and if it happens we should not, I fear, be able to do very much about it beyond being gradually drawn towards the last possibility that is to say, the possible Customs Union with America. Though if the terms for the return of France really result in a kind of French hegemony, we might perhaps count on an inevitably

135
rather weakened Community not hanging together for very long.
The second possibility is a little better, but not much. There would presumably be little point in France joining an extended EFTA. Why? Because it would not include agriculture, and consequently the French would be much worse off than if they had let us into the Common Market. But if France did not come in, then I am afraid she would certainly gravitate more and more towards the Soviet Union.
The third possibility rests on a double assumption—namely, that the Five are prepared to break temporarily with France, and that Britain agrees to accept the main features of the Treaty of Rome. Both assumptions are problematical. But if it were adopted, this solution, though bad, would, from our point of view, be clearly preferable to the first or the second solution. The hope would be, of course, that France would eventually have second thoughts and join some suitably extended Community.
So the fourth possibility is something which we may well hear rather more about—the famous "Anglo-Saxon" bloc of the General's historic imagination. It seems that there will be no political content in such a Customs Union, though, as we all know in the past, Customs Unions hardly go on for very long without some kind of political content. What it would therefore really mean is that, whatever the economic advantages might he, we should be handing Western Europe over to France to run as a kind of independent Third Force, or if she is not capable of doing this (and probably she is not), then handing it over to potential anarchy, which would hold out all kinds of opportunities to the Soviet Union.
If the suggestion were that Germany and certain other European States, apart from ourselves, should come into the North American Customs Union, this might not be so. But apart from the long-term political effects of an Anglo-German-American bloc, there is little doubt that the Soviet Union could profit greatly by the ensuing disruption of Western Europe, for they would obviously be able to play off America against France and France against America. Moreover, in this bloc there is
136
no doubt that the Germans, rather than we, would become the principal allies of the Americans. It remains to be demonstrated, also, I think, how exactly we should benefit economically, to say nothing of politically, by becoming a sort of new New England.
These are grave matters, and no doubt we shall have many debates on them during the coming Session. All I wish to do at the moment is to repeat the Liberal proposal of long standing that any British Government would be well advised in this critical period to make known their views and their preferences and, if possible, to issue some considered "Declaration of Intent". The Five (this is really an important point) have to make some critical decisions shortly, and surely we want to give them all the encouragement we can. Let it also be declared (why not?) that our one desire is to work in with France on a footing of complete equality, and that the only way, in practice, to arrive at such an intimate co-operation is for both of us to accept certain definite supra-national obligations, or, if we do not like that phrase and prefer another, to arrange in certain defined spheres to take certain decisions in common.
I approach my other topic, which is, as I have said, closely allied to Europe—namely, the question of our Defence policy in the Indian Ocean. When I last addressed your Lordships on this question, on April 8 last, I questioned the whole conception whereby we maintain, at, as I think, crippling expense, bases at Aden, Bahrein and elsewhere in this area, and suggested, in the first place, that we should here and now decide gradually—and I repeat gradually—to clear out of Aden and the Persian Gulf; and in the second place, that we should consider—I say consider—reorganising our communications westabout and work out with the Americans some kind of defence scheme for Australia, New Zealand and our interests in South-East Asia generally, including Singapore, if indeed the defence of that particular base was possible, given the desires and inclinations of the local inhabitants.
When I had finished my exposé, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition (I do not think he is in his place at the moment) asked me, as one apparently thunderstruck, whether the speech I had

137
just made set forth "the official policy of the Liberal Party." I replied, you may remember, that it did. Subsequently the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, observed that "by my own witness" I appeared to be living in 1926. He must tell me that if somebody shipped me off to somewhere East of Suez to-day, I should find that the best is not like the worst, and one of the important factors which maintains this distinction is British power directed to one responsible Government or another. Our Forces, the noble Lord continued, are protecting a great deal more than tin and rubber, which seemed to him to be the only benefits which I had recognised. (I may here interpose that it was not so, as he will see if he will re-read my speech). He finally had to point out that the "Gladwyn plan" as propounded was not interdependence, but would be dependence in its purest form.
For his part, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, replied, in his summing-up speech (or immediately after my speech; I cannot remember which), that the adoption of the Liberal Party policy would mean "leaving whole areas of the world in chaos." It will be interesting to see whether any areas are to be left undefended by the Government in their forthcoming Defence Review (which is surely rather overdue, is it not, by this time?); and, if so, whether a little chaos is, after all, now perhaps considered acceptable. We shall see.
I now read, however, that in his speech at the recent Conservative Party Congress the Tory Shadow Minister of Defence, after having explained, very sensibly, that we really did not need Armed Forces to protect our overseas trade interests and that bullets were no good against ideas, observed that
"assuming that Western military power could limit, or be a factor in limiting, the extension of the Russian and Chinese influence in Asia and Africa, we should still have to measure the practical effect of British military efforts against the size of the resources it demands."
He went on to say:
"However much we may do to safeguard and reassure the new independent countries in Asia and Africa, the eventual limits of Russian and Chinese advance in those directions will be fixed by a balance of forces which will itself be Asiatic and African."
Finally we read:
"We have to reckon with the harsh fact"—
138
it is of course, still the Tory Shadow Minister of Defence speaking—
"that the attainment of this eventual equilibrium of forces may at some point be delayed rather than hastened by Western military presence."
Now I am not saying that the Tory Shadow Minister of Defence was actually adopting the Liberal defence policy, as defined by me, when he uttered these words, but he was certainly coming pretty close to it. In more general and philosophical terms than I used, he was nevertheless questioning all the fundamental assumptions on which our Defence policy East of Suez has so far been thought to rest.
For my part, I simply ask, once again, what are the aircraft carriers which we propose to order and construct, with their possible nuclear capacity, and what even are our nuclear submarines going to do in the Indian Ocean if we evacuate Aden, as I have suggested we should, and go back at enormous expense to some other base which will have to be constructed, such as Gan (I think it is; or I now hear reference to Diego-Garcia). Whom exactly will these Forces bomb if it comes to some crisis in the Middle East; and why? Surely, we are not going to use these Thunderbolts to hack up or oppose some revolutionary Government in any of the States concerned. On this point, at least, I have no doubt at all that I have the support of Mr. Enoch Powell. Surely, too, if it is a case of formal aggression by the Soviet Union, the ensuing nuclear war—and it will inevitably be a nuclear war—will be waged by quite other methods and our comparatively small forces, though very efficient, at Gan or elsewhere, would be of no particular use.
However this may be—I mean, as regards the general strategic plan—what seems pretty certain, I should have thought almost indisputable, is that the maintenance of a base at Aden and a British military presence in Bahrein are absolutely useless. Do we think that it is necessary to defend the Sheikh of Kuwait, or some other Sheikh along the Coast, against some serious aggression by their neighbours; and do we think that such conventional forces as we can maintain will be sufficient if serious aggression really takes place? Kuwait is, after all, a member of the United Nations, and

139
there would almost certainly be a majority in that body, even, I think, in the Security Council, to give her collective aid and assistance if aggression really did occur.
Finally, if it is suggested that we should have to pay more for our oil in the event of Kuwait's being absorbed by some other State or States—which seems quite unlikely in the present circumstances—should we not at any rate set off this against the amount we should save owing to our evacuation of Aden and elsewhere? That is, unless we commit the folly of spending hundreds of millions on new bases and new aircraft carriers for use in the area, which I trust we shall never do.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord at this point? I let him run on, because I am sure that he wanted to. But since he did me the honour of mentioning my name, I should like to point out that, so far from my right honourable friend, whom he also mentioned, following his policy, the noble Lord now seems to have come round into following the thinking by my right honourable friend, because whereas he was—
LORD SHEPHERD: Who is the noble Lord's right honourable friend?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Mr. Enoch Powell. Whereas on the last occasion the noble Lord was didactic, he is now inclined—but only inclined—to be pragmatic. The terms in which he repeated his own original words this time were that we should here and now decide gradually to be gone. Once you here and now decide, and announce your decision, you are doing something which my right honourable friend Mr. Powell certainly did not suggest, and it seems to me that the noble Lord has been guilty, with many thousands of others, of reading certain remarks of my right honourable friend entirely out of context. I would admonish him for doing so, because he carries rather more weight than some others, and I would request him to read more carefully in their context the words of my right honourable friend.
LORD GLADWYN: Nobody has tried to read more carefully the words of Mr. Enoch Powell than I have, and I have
140
read out what I believe are the essential points. If your Lordships would like me to read out the entire oration, I will gladly do so.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD GLADWYN: I did not try to interpret his words in any tendentious way. Nor did I say that Mr. Powell accepts the policy I put forward on April 8 last. He is expressing himself in very general terms, but philosophically I have no doubt that the general tendency of his thought lay in the same direction as my own remarks. I do not think that that can be disputed. Perhaps the Tory Party will eventually pronounce ex cathedrâ what its defence policy is, and shortly we may have another authoritative statement on this. I look forward to it greatly. In the meantime, I do not want in any way to traduce what the Shadow Minister of Defence said.
To resume my argument, perhaps I may be told that a base on some atoll in the Indian Ocean is necessary to give heart to our friends in Africa, and persuade them that no Chinese, Russian or, who-knows? some other Asian Power, may one day be able to invade Africa. That is an argument I have heard. But where are these mythical Chinese or Russian forces? And if they ever did appear in strength off the coast of Africa, would not any active military aggression on their part call into question the so-called delicate "balance of terror"? If it is a case of these Powers' gaining influence in Africa by means of ideas, or political propaganda, or by aid, that is another matter. Here, however, I entirely agree, and I think everyone would undoubtedly agree, with the Tory Shadow Minister of Defence, when he rightly said: "You do not shoot theories with bullets". Why not, if Africa is indeed our concern, rather save the money to be spent on any new Indian Ocean base and give increased aid to the African countries, thereby diminishing the likelihood of some takeover bid by local Left-Wing, though not necessarily pro-Chinese or pro-Russian, elements?
My Lords, the present balance of terror really has changed the face of the world, and "defence" plans which would no doubt make sense if it did not exist, now make pretty good nonsense. There is a crying need to adapt our general strategic

141
thinking to the evident needs of the latter part of the twentieth century. As for leaving the defence of South-East Asia, however, entirely to the play of local interests and to some Asian balance of forces, I am not quite so sure that I go so far as Mr. Enoch Powell in that respect. In South-East Asia, whether we like it or not, the forces of East and West are at the moment actually in contact, which is not by any means the case in the Middle East or Africa, and is unlikely, whatever people may say, to be the case in the Himalayas.
However, what I do say is that the Tory Party is clearly making the most satisfactory progress, both as regards Europe and as regards what is called disimperialisation, and I think the eloquent speech of the noble Duke this afternoon was additional and welcome proof of this tendency. I only wish that such enlightenment would gradually spread to the Government Front Bench which, however well they may be doing in other respects—and I do not deny this—seem to be carrying out a Tory defence policy that might have seemed slightly reactionary even to the 1922 Committee in 1922.
It is the fate of Liberals to produce the good ideas that are eventually taken up by the larger Parties. Perhaps the electorate will gradually come to see that what Liberals think to-day, with luck their opponents will think to-morrow!
4.23 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I first of all sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and also congratulate him? I wish to sympathise with him in having to rise at a very difficult moment of considerable tension, and I wish to congratulate him on coming to this House and, in spite of that, delivering a very carefully thought out speech. It is in fact a speech which it is hard to debate. It is a speech which is better read, then perhaps I could invite my noble friends who sit behind me to continue the debate in the columns of The Times. I think this would be fair. I thought the noble Duke who spoke first, set the tone of this debate. It was quite unlike yesterday, which started off with a good deal of good humour and Party fight. He contributed his own careful thoughts on a number of matters and he was conscious of the events that
142
no doubt were in everyone's mind—the dark and sombre and dangerous events in Rhodesia.
Although the gracious Speech mentions the problems of Rhodesia, the words in that Speech are now out of date. We shall have our opportunities to debate this problem. Nevertheless, I think this is the moment to say that, if there is any failure, it does not lie with the Prime Minister. I do not believe that as a man he could have put more flexibility or tenacity into finding an honourable solution. If there is any failure it is within the men and women of Rhodesia who thought that by unilateral action they could find a solution. Events have now moved, and shortly we in Parliament will have to do our duty. It will be a duty of great sadness, but I hope we shall do it with resolution. But, at the same time as we act, let us make sure in our own hearts and in our own actions and in our own words that we allow an atmosphere in which, when the time comes, negotiations can be opened and a successful conclusion reached. There will be hard and bitter feelings, no doubt, but I would beg the House, in the interests of Rhodesia, in the interests of Africa, to be very responsible in the debate to come.
I believe it was Mr. Macleod who the other day spoke about choice. Choice is an enviable opportunity when it comes to us. I am quite sure that if the world had a choice between peace—co-existence, perhaps passive in the first instance and then later co-operative—or conflict there is no doubt which the mass of the world would decide to have. We all know that there are large numbers of people in this world who cannot have a choice. Therefore, we must take our steps with that in mind. Certainly the possibility of war between great Powers is less, but I think it is true—and I think the noble Duke touched upon this—that the possibilities of conflict through poverty, misery, the hopelessness of ever being able to improve their lot, either by race or by nation, are increasing.
We must also be conscious—I know we shall be discussing this on Tuesday, and it has a great bearing on world matters—of the conflict of colour. Let us be under no illusion about it. The fear of conflict between peoples of different colour is increasing, not only in this

143
country but in many other parts of the world, and this could perhaps be the greatest threat that the world has ever faced in times of peace, because a conflict of colour would go beyond the boundaries of sea and land, beyond the boundaries of nations. Perhaps we can only play a small part. We can play a strong part at the United Nations, but within our own area we can play only a smaller part—although possibly a major part in dealing with the conflicts of colour within our own lands. The Government are determined to take a lead in this matter in an attempt to ease this conflict and to bring about integration of peoples of different lands and different religions who are already in our country, so that they may live in peace and harmony with us, and perhaps if we succeed other nations will follow us and we may be able to remove this dangerous threat.
In the United Nations there are perhaps four avenues for obtaining a lasting peace. As your Lordships will know, the gracious Speech has been very clear as to the Government's attitude towards the United Nations. The first avenue, obviously, is disarmament, both of conventional and of nuclear weapons. I do not propose to speak about this this afternoon, although the noble Duke touched upon it, because my noble friend Lord Henderson is initiating a debate on November 18 to which my noble friend Lord Chalfont will be replying. We felt this was a subject that should be treated as a specialised subject on its own, and I hope the House will agree we were right in asking my noble friend Lord Henderson, who has done so much in this House in the realm of disarmament, to start that debate.
The only two avenues—or the two middle avenues, because they really go together—within the United Nations are peace-keeping and the settlement of disputes. If you look at all the conflicts in which the United Nations has been involved—Korea, Suez, Cyprus, the Congo and more recently between India and Pakistan—you find that the United Nations has been able to intervene effectively and in time in the stopping of the war, and in the early stages the limitation of the area of the conflict, but on no occasion has the United Nations been
144
able to bring about a settlement. I think we should be frank: the United Nations has not yet got the organism to deal with settlements.
The House may be aware that the present Government, the Labour Government, have suggested in this field that the United Nations should persuade countries that are in dispute with each other to use more frequently the International Court of Justice; that there should be a wider acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction and a greater recourse to arbitration within the court. But we think—and we have put this to the Assembly—that there should be men within the United Nations who are skilled in the art of conciliation. We recognise in our own country the use of men who are able, because of skill and knowledge and general acceptance by persons in conflict, to bring about a solution. We believe that if the United Nations could have a body of such men it might well be much easier, not only to bring a solution to a conflict but to act—and I think this is more important—before the conflict in fact occurs.
In peace-keeping we must admit that the machinery of the United Nations, whilst it has reacted fairly reasonably in a number of cases, could be a great deal better. The Labour Government has suggested at the present General Assembly that the United Nations should set up a peace-keeping fund. This would get over the difficulties of financing peace-keeping operations when an emergency arose. It certainly would mean that the forces could act a great deal more quickly. We have suggested before, and we have repeated our view, that the United Nations should have at its disposal forces contributed by members of the United Nations, forces which are equipped and trained to do specific jobs. This would mean that if a conflict were to arise in one part of the world or another there would be forces available to go there quickly and perhaps able to limit the extent of the conflict. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has pressed this matter upon the Government. As my noble friend Lord Walston said to him, there is no need to press us; we are firmly of this view. Unfortunately at the present moment, as the House will know, the United Nations, for various reasons, is not ready to move.

145
But we believe that both the peace-keeping fund and the forces are a vital necessity if the United Nations is to react in a peace-keeping rôle.
The fourth avenue—and this was touched upon by the noble Duke, and I am sure he is right—is that we have to remove the seeds of war. We know where they are; they lie in the poverty of the underdeveloped countries. I said earlier that I do not believe, nor do the Government believe, that there is a great probability of war between major Powers, but I think we must recognise that there are some of the smaller and poorer countries to whom war may not be such a terrible step as we know it to be. I think it was the Foreign Secretary who used the phrase the other day that we must try to build up a world climate in which people do not wish to go to war, do not wish to lose their standards. We believe this is right, but we have a long way to go. This nation, in fact, is the second largest contributor to the United Nations Agencies. We are spending about £189 million a year in aid to the underdeveloped countries. Others are doing a great deal, but, let us be frank, there are some countries who could do a great deal more; and the gap that divides the rich and the poor is growing wider.
It could be said that, apart from spending money and giving aid, aid to-day is becoming very much a political art. We are learning a great deal how best our money can be used, and this is one of the reasons—and there are great gains from it—for the decision of the Prime Minister to set up a special Ministry, the Ministry of Overseas Development. Here we are bringing together some high-class specialists. They are making a tremendous impact and making far greater use of the money which is available to us.
But whatever we may do in the United Nations, we must still try to open up our contacts within Eastern Europe. As the House will know, the Foreign Secretary has recently been to Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Poland, and at the end of this month he will be going to the Soviet Union. The Minister of State has been to most countries in the Middle East. I am quite sure the House will agree that, while there is no immediate appearance of gain, it is absolutely right that we should keep open these channels and if possible extend them. The Gov-
146
ernment firmly believe that we must not only increase our political contacts but encourage businessmen, traders, the arts, and also private visitors from this country to them, and from them to us, and that in this way we can get a broader approach, a broader understanding of each other's thoughts.
I should like to turn, very briefly, to Europe. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, would not expect me to be able to satisfy him to-day. There are two problems. First of all, the Government attach the greatest possible importance to EFTA. It would be utterly wrong to write off EFTA, as some people do, as though it were nothing. In fact, by the end of 1966 all the trading barriers within EFTA will have disappeared, and we shall have a trading bloc of 100 million people. I believe that EFTA is one of the greatest examples of international co-operation. We believe that this must be continued. But we also recognise the increasing divisions between EFTA and the European Economic Community.
We believe—and I would say that the Ministers of EFTA also take this view—that we must seek some way of bridging the gap between E.E.C. and EFTA. As the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, knows, there is not only difficulty in EFTA, there is also difficulty in the E.E.C. But I believe that, with tenacity and a good deal of flexibility in all parties, we should be able to come together and find a proper solution. Undoubtedly, Europe and all the countries within Europe would be that much stronger, that much richer and have a greater capability towards helping the rest of the world, if they could remove the barriers of trade between them.
There is one particular point in our problems with EFTA—namely, the surcharge that the Government felt it necessary to place upon imports, in view of the economic difficulties of this country. We have had to tell EFTA (I think it was last month) that in the present economic situation we could not remove the surcharge, but that we regarded it as of the highest priority that it should be removed. While they continue to press us, I think it can be said that the pressure of our friends in EFTA is now such that they understand, but that they would like us to remove the surcharge as quickly as possible.

147
The House will also acknowledge, perhaps with a degree of surprise (I am sure that some may think that it has something to do with my noble friend the Leader of the House), the proposals for the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area. These arise from a meeting of Mr. Lemasse with the Prime Minister on November 5, 1964. There have been close consultations on an official level, to see whether it is possible to remove the trade barriers, or at least to mitigate some of them, between our two countries. It is hoped that the official discussions have now reached the stage when the matter can be referred to the Ministers, and we look forward to being able to make a statement during the course of this Session.
I come now to Vietnam. The House will recognise that this has been a long and bloody conflict, and I am sure noble Lords will agree that there is no foreseeable military solution to it. Time after time the Government have suggested that if those who were taking part were to adopt four steps, the right solution could be obtained. We have recommended to all parties that they should cease fighting; that a conference should be held—and in our view, it is really immaterial under whose auspices it be; that there should he guarantees for North Vietnam and for South Vietnam that both countries could live in peace and free from any fear of attack by their neighbours; and, above all else, that there should be massive rehabilitation by the United Nations and other countries. In this way these two countries, which have been at war for, I think, some fifteen or twenty years (my noble friend Lord Brockway will correct me if I am wrong, but certainly longer than most of us can remember), could be rehabilitated and could live with some sense of decency.
Her Majesty's Government have taken the initiative. So far we have not been successful, as Joint Chairman of the Geneva Conference, in getting this Conference recalled. We proposed a Commonwealth Mission. We even sent Mr. Harold Davies. We make no apology for doing so. We found, as has been said so often, that the doors were always closed to us. But one day those doors will have to open. I am quite sure that most of your Lordships will agree with me that, if the doors have to open, there
148
is no reason why they should not open immediately. We—and I believe this is so of our American friends also—have done all that we can in the circumstances. It is up to the other side now to respond.
Apart from Vietnam, we must also be conscious in South-East Asia of the confrontation policy of Indonesia against Singapore and Malaysia. There were some who thought that the attempted coup of September 30, which brought about a confused situation, might in some way relieve the pressure upon Singapore and Malaysia. I think I should say, quite bluntly, that there is no indication that what took place will have any effect immediately upon the menace and threat to Singapore and Malaysia. Therefore it becomes most important that the Government should reaffirm that it will stand by its Defence Treaty with Singapore and Malaysia. We have had a number of comments in relation to poor Mr. Enoch Powell. He took a "pasting" yesterday on Economic Affairs, and he took a "pasting" again on Defence.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I was not conscious of giving him a "pasting" at all: I was trying to encourage him.
LORD SHEPHERD: Well, I am wrong again: but he certainly took a "pasting" yesterday. There is no doubt, however, that in the speech of Mr. Enoch Powell, which I read most carefully and which was fairly well written up (I would not have thought that the noble Lord should jump to too many conclusions), he did go round and round the point. But the point is that in Singapore and in Malaya there has been, as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, knows, certain disquiet as to the attitude of the Conservative Party in regard to Defence. It is perfectly true that his Party are now in Opposition; but outside opinion recognises that there has to be a deal of bipartisan approach in the field of Defence. I hope that the noble Earl, if he has that authority, will reassure our friends in the East that the Conservative Party have not departed from the pledges they made when in office, in regard to keeping to the Defence Treaty with Singapore and Malaysia. I believe this to be most important. While this confrontation exists we must keep up the guard.
I should here like to pay great tribute to the skill and endurance of the British

149
forces in Borneo. They have undertaken a formidable, dangerous, and certainly an uncomfortable task, and they have done it well. We are indebted to them. While we must keep up that guard, we must be ready to meet any opportunity which the Indonesians present to us for negotiation. But let us remember that, in the end, negotiations will depend on Singapore and Malaysia, for they are now separate and independent countries, and it is for them to make the final agreement. It is up to us to see what we can do to help.
There will shortly have to be a Bill dealing with Singapore—I think this was a matter which was originally in the Queen's Speech, but it was taken out in view of its length. As the House knows, Singapore and Malaysia have decided to part. This was a matter of surprise and sadness to the Government. May I say, as one who lived there for a good number of years, that it is a matter of very bitter disappointment. I cannot see how these two countries can really live separately. I hope that their divisions are temporary, and that they will be able to unite and to move forward together, because they have so much to offer to each other.
I want to say only a brief word on Defence. NATO is our major commitment in Europe; we have a major interest in relation to SEATO, and we also have military operations outside SEATO, namely, in regard to Indonesia. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, last night took my noble friend Lord Shackleton to task over the Defence Review The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, knows that this is a major, complex task, and I am quite sure that he would not wish us to hasten and then make mistakes. We believe that it is right to take time in this matter. If there are any who think that we should have done it more quickly, I would only refer noble Lords opposite to their own Party document which they produced, I think, a few days before their Conference. They had twelve months in which to produce, or to refurbish, their policy, and I think that it was Mr. Heath himself who then said that it was only the guideline. But if the Conservative Party took that time to produce that document, I do not think that the Defence Ministry is in any way open to criticism for having taken time in dealing with this very
150
important, complex and balanced survey. I hope that it will be completed and available to the House as soon as possible.
There is one aspect within the Defence Review which perhaps would have been apparent to many even without the Review, and that is the situation facing the Regular Army. We had many debates on this matter when the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was in the previous Government, and I am sure he would agree that one of the natural consequences of a small regular force, particularly when it is stretched, as our policy now requires it to be stretched, is that it should have available to it adequate reserves—not only adequate numbers, but reserves which have been specifically trained to meet an obligation. It seemed clear to the advisers of the Government that the basic requirement of the Regular Army would lie in the logistic field. We also felt that the Territorial Army, because of its degree of voluntary service and willingness to act, was perhaps the right force to look to for these reserves. It was also clear that the Territorial Army had been organised as an independent force mainly for home defence and as a Reserve Army in major war.
It was the view of the Government—and I admit that it is a matter of opinion—that both these rôles were extremely remote. In particular, we could not envisage the rôle of a reserve army in a long, major conflict in Europe, particularly if it were to involve the use of nuclear weapons. In view of the overwhelming need for these forces, it was felt that we should have to take action there. A White Paper will be issued quite shortly setting out the Government's proposals. We hope that the White Paper will be based on the agreement of Government and the Territorial Army Associations. I hope that the House will think that this matter can well be left until the White Paper appears. I say this because during September I visited the Territorial Army and discovered that there were a number of misconceptions among the soldiers as to the Government's proposals, misconceptions which were causing a great deal of uncertainty and hardship. I am not saying that any speech in this House would create misconceptions, but I think that it would be right to wait until that White Paper is

151
available so that we know what we are discussing and what are the proposals of the Government in this matter.
To give your Lordships an example of one misconception, the House will remember that our Statement said that a soldier in the reserve could be called up for twelve months. From what they had read in the newspapers and from what other people had told them, the soldiers thought that, if they agreed to serve, they would be called up for twelve months. In fact, of course, the twelve months was put in as a limit—a limit for the protection of the soldier and his employer. But a misconception arose in the minds of the soldiers that, if they were called up, they would be called up not for one month or two months, but for the whole period of twelve months. If this were so it would, of course, cause great difficulty to soldiers in obtaining the consent of their employers so that they could be released to serve. This is one of the reasons why I beg the House to be most careful in this matter.
In conclusion, may I echo the words of the noble Duke and say that, whatever we want to do in the field of Defence, or Foreign Affairs, or overseas development, everything depends on our economic stability and our economic growth. That is why we give paramount importance to this matter in the Queen's Speech. Once we are able to overcome our balance-of-payments difficulties, once we are able to move forward so that we are in surplus, then we shall he able to take perhaps greater strides and achieve greater success in giving help within the Commonwealth and to overseas countries. In the meantime, within the limitations which we have had to set ourselves in the National Plan, the Government are determined to maintain our Forces, to equip them properly and adequately, and at all times to meet the obligations within our Defence arrangements. One would hope that the words in the Queen's Speech, although they may be pious and old in the sense that they appear there from year to year, will give as much satisfaction at the end of the year as at the beginning.
5.0 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, before offering a few remarks on the external
152
situation, I should like to add my tribute to what has been said by the Leaders of both sides with regard to my old friend Lord Hall. Lord Hall was a very old friend of mine. We were in the House of Commons together in 1922. He served in my Government and in Sir Winston Churchill's Government, and everywhere I think he impressed everybody by his exceptionally fine character. I have never known anyone more completely unselfish than Lord Hall. He was one of the finest men I have ever met. May I, at the same time, pay my slight tribute also to one of our old friends who died recently, Lord Lawson, and to Lord Chuter-Ede. I am afraid I am getting very old. I am losing all of these old friends of mine, and it makes me rather lonely. I do not think anybody did his duty better than Lord Lawson, Lord Hall or Lord Chuter-Ede. Lord Chuter-Ede was a most remarkable character. He was a very good Home Secretary and he was devoted to the County of Surrey. He was the only Labour member on Surrey County Council and he led it again and again as Chairman. He was one of those people whom everybody could trust.
Having said those brief words, I should like to offer a few remarks on one very vexed corner of the world—that is, India. It was a great grief to me that old friends on both sides, Indians and Pakistanis, should actually be making war. I had something to do with the setting up of both those countries, and we had the very difficult problem before us of what to do with Kashmir. I tried to settle it and so did other Prime Ministers from Canada, from Australia and from New Zealand. We strove earnestly. We were up against two peoples who set their face against any compromise. Now we have this act of warfare—an act of supreme folly on both sides, and reckless, too. At the present moment there is danger of widespread starvation owing to a very late monsoon, and there are resources which ought to be coming from all over the world to help these two peoples who are engaged in this conflict.
I do not think it is a matter which can be settled easily or by a plebiscite. I think something other than that has to be done. I agree very much with what my noble friend Lord Shepherd said about the need for an international force.

153
I was agitating for that under the leadership of Lord Davies long before the First World War, with Sir Winston Churchill. We were both members of an organisation trying to press for the establishment of that force. We need it to-day. But beyond that, if you want to stop the fighting you must somehow or other cut the knot of this problem. I do not think it will be settled by a plebiscite. I think you have to take it that this delectable country of Kashmir should belong neither to Pakistan nor India; it should be an independent country guaranteed by Pakistan, India, Britain and other States, and I think it might be governed by someone from outside neither Moslem nor Hindu; someone widely respected in the world, someone like, possibly, U Thant, who has done so well in the United Nations. It might work, but not with a full democracy. I do not think you have it yet.
The old device of getting someone from outside has been employed before in the world. It was employed every now and again in the Italian Republics. When the strife was very great they brought in someone from outside called the Gonfalonier of Justice. Someone might be brought in from outside to govern Kashmir for a time, until they got over their present troubles. There is a great future for that little country, a future in the life of the world. It is not really of strategic importance to anybody. It should be preserved by general consent. It should be a kind of Switzerland in Asia. I think that here is a matter where we can take the initiative. We are very old friends. There are many men in this country who are loved in India and Pakistan, and who love India and Pakistan, and they feel this tragedy very deeply. I think that now is the time when we should come forward with other countries and offer a solution to this tragic position which I deplore so much.
5.7 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire has dealt with some of the wider aspects of foreign policy, and I propose to confine my remarks almost exclusively to but one, albeit vital, aspect of foreign policy—namely, Defence. For that reason I regret, as I am sure many of your Lordships do, the fact that we shall not be
154
hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, this afternoon. Having said that, I must apologise for being myself snatched away before the end of this discussion. My reason is that I happen to be one of the lucky guests of our absent friend Lord Shackleton and the Royal Air Force Ball. I apologise for that, and I should like to thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bourne, for making it possible for me to speak now. I am very grateful.
Last year on this occasion my noble Leader, Lord Carrington, and I made it clear, I hoped, that, whatever else we might do in Opposition, we would oppose the Government only when we believed that their actions were not in the national interest. We would certainly not oppose the Government just "for the heck of it", let alone on grave matters like our national Defence, and I hope that noble Lords opposite will feel able to agree that we have held scrupulously to that course. But however virtuous the Government's intentions on Defence may be, some of their actions, or inactions, are beginning to fill us with considerable disquiet.
First, there is the mystery of the missing Defence Review. The Government have themselves blown up that Review—the sort of review on which all Governments are engaged, almost all the time—into a vast mountain of their own creation. When are we going to see that mountain, or that mouse? The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, told us that it would be made available to this House. Does that mean that it will be made available in the form of a White Paper? If so, when? I must say that I am getting just a little bored by the way in which the Government, when they are now asked awkward questions on Defence, almost immediately duck behind the smokescreen of that Review. It does not matter at all that I am getting bored; but what does matter—and it matters a very great deal—is that the Government, through their handling of this matter, are causing very serious anxiety and uncertainty in the Armed Forces themselves. Therefore I would ask that they should hasten with this Review, but (to revert to the phraseology of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd) without making mistakes. I hope that that is not asking too much.

155
The second reason for our disquiet is that the Government compound all this self-induced uncertainty by a very odd illogicality. On the one hand, they tell us that they cannot tell us this or that about Defence, or that they cannot do this or that, until they have finished their Defence Review. On the other hand, they are blithely taking a whole series of basic Defence decisions. They have taken, or they are taking, a series of crucial decisions on aircraft procurement which will affect the whole posture of our Defence Forces right through the 1970's. They have taken, or so it would seem, fundamental decisions about our Reserve Forces. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, told us that we should soon have a White Paper on this important subject of our Reserve Forces. For that reason, and because a number of my noble friends (and I do not think that the concern in this House is confined to my noble friends) will also be reverting to this matter, I wish to take up only a moment or two on it.
I will confine myself, for the most part, if I may, to reading a Statement made by the Under-Secretary for the Army on March 8, in another place. This is what he said on March 8:
"Once we have carried out the review of our commitments and Civil Defence and the home defence requirements, we can look at the size and disposition of the Regular Army and see what is needed to improve it. Having done that, we can look at the Reserves needed to back up the Regular Army in maintaining the commitments, and the Reserves include the Territorial Army,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 708, col. 190, March 8, 1965].
That seems to me an absolutely unexceptionable statement. Any Government have the right—indeed, all Governments have the duty—to review the size and shape of our Reserve Forces, but on one condition: that is, that they do not put the cart before the horse; that they do not proceed from a priori assumptions dictated possibly by prejudice, possibly by ignorance, possibly by a well-meaning desire for economy.
In short, my Lords, they should do exactly what Mr. Reynolds has recommended: they should look at the Reserves in the light of our commitments, revised, as they judge fit, for defence abroad, for home defence and, not least, for civil defence, and then come to their decision about the size and
156
shapes of those Reserves. But there was one thing that puzzled me in what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, told us. He told us that the decisions to which the Government have come—and by all accounts they are pretty firm decisions—are founded on certain absolutely fundamental assumptions. One, for example, was the length of a war in Europe—and it is difficult to have a more fundamental assumption than that. But how can they come to that sort of fundamental assumption until they have concluded their Defence Review? That is what some of us find so puzzling in this whole matter.
That brings me to my third and most important cause for concern. The Ministry of Defence have apparently accepted a rigid and quite arbitrary ceiling on Defence expenditure for the next half-decade: I think it is £2,000 million per annum at 1965 prices. They argue that Defence strains our resources and that if our resources are seriously overstrained, it diminishes our influence abroad. To that I would only say, "Granted". And we would all grant that. They go on to add that our plans (that is, the plans of the last Government) would, in fact, have overstrained our resources in that way. That argument I would deny. Our plans were based on the assumption that even in the peak years of expenditure. Defence expenditure would never exceed 7½, per cent. of our gross national product. That was so, I repeat, even for the peak years when Defence expenditure was going to be rather bunched together. If we take Defence seriously, I would not hold that an insurance cover of that sort imposes an intolerable burden on our economy.
But, in any event, there is one point which I should like to make quite clear. The Secretary of State for Defence, his fellow Ministers and the Government are labouring under an illusion if they really believe that they can make real economies without real cuts in our commitments. They are kidding themselves and kidding the nation if they really think they can, at one and the same time, keep within this self-imposed ceiling and keep our present commitments.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, will in fact be able to tell us something more about our commitments. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has already told us quite a lot. I hope, for

157
example, that Lord Walston can tell us how the Government now view our nuclear responsibilities. Last autumn, if I remember aright, we heard a good deal about the negotiation, or the renegotiation, of the Nassau Agreement. Last winter and in the past spring we heard a great deal about the Government's proposals for an Atlantic Nuclear Force. Those proposals were announced with a tremendous fanfare of trumpets, and I remember the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, waxing quite lyrical about them in this House. Can the noble Lord, Lord Walston, now tell us how these important proposals stand? Can he, in fact, confirm whether or not the Government are still fathering this sophisticated and constructive child of theirs?—to use the adjectives which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, employed. Or have they dropped it, like steel, into the waste paper basket, as some words of his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, in New York last month, somewhat implied? I think it would be very useful if the noble Lord could shed some light upon this now rather grey area.
In saying that, and in saying what I have just said, I do not wish for one moment to underestimate the importance, the complexity or the urgency of this matter. I feel it is very urgent that, within the NATO Alliance, we should reach an agreed solution to this very difficult problem of nuclear-sharing. The words of the German Chancellor only yesterday remind us how urgent and important this problem is. But, my Lords, it is not only urgent within the context of the NATO Alliance itself. It is very urgent that we ourselves should put our nuclear-sharing house in order in Europe if we are going to tackle this problem of nuclear dissemination outside the NATO area. So, in saying what I have said, and in asking for information, I am not, I hope, underestimating the complexity or the gravity of this problem.
I hope, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, can bring us up to date as to the Government's thinking on our Defence commitments as a whole in Europe, by which I mean in NATO. The success of NATO over the last fifteen years is now, of course, the problem of NATO. Because Western Europe has not been attacked, it is argued—and the argument is a plausible one—that the resources
158
which we devote to its defence can safely be reduced. True, the dangers of a Soviet direct aggression across the frontiers of Western Europe have receded. We would all grant that. But the great problems of Europe, Berlin, a divided Germany, the truncation of Europe itself, still persist. And as long as those problems persist, the security problem in Europe is bound to remain with us. Nor can we ignore, save at our peril, all the other possibilities.
There is one other eventuality (apart from that of a possible miscalculation) which I should have thought we must guard against: that is, the possibility, however remote, of a limited Soviet pressure or of a limited incursion against the more vulnerable and isolated flanks of the NATO Alliance. My conclusions in this sphere are fairly simple. It would be unrealistic to press our European allies, or indeed to press ourselves, to raise the general level of our conventional forces in Europe. On the other hand, we should examine very carefully indeed from the standpoint of our wider political interests any proposition—however tempting that proposition might be on purely economic grounds, however plausible it might be on certain military assumptions—that we should reduce, let alone reduce unilaterally, our stake in the defence of Western Europe. I would make only one qualification to that. It is that this would be different in the case of an agreed reduction—a reduction made as a result of an agreed reassessment within NATO of the threat and of how a division of effort to meet that threat could best be spread between the NATO partners. I trust the noble Lord can confirm that the Government are in broad agreement with the view I have just expressed. I trust also that the noble Lord will be able to examine one concrete suggestion: that is, whether it would not be wise for the NATO countries to increase the size and the mobility of the NATO mobile force primarily to guard against the eventuality, remote though I have said it was, of a limited incursion against the flanks of the NATO Alliance.
Before turning from Europe, I should like to touch on one more matter affecting our relations with the Continent and, indeed, with North America; that is, the danger that Europe might become virtually dependent upon the United States

159
for advanced armaments. The warning signs are flying all around Europe today: large Italian purchases of United States weapons; massive German purchases, and now our vast aircraft procurement programme. We in Europe are very close here to the point of no return. We are in danger of placing whole areas, and some of the most advanced areas, of our economy in pawn to our friends across the Atlantic. I naturally welcome such steps as the Government have already taken to make a reality of co-operation within Europe in this field, but I suggest that more drastic decisions are urgently required. I feel that from now onward we need to follow the principle that we in Western Europe will buy no more arms from the Americans than they are prepared to buy from us. We need to accept what in some cases may well be the painful consequences of that decision: that in price, in performance, and in delivery time, at least initially, the European alternative may be inferior to the American product. I think we should face that squarely. Above all, we need to evolve, and to evolve without any further delay, an organisation within Europe designed to ensure that, in the main, the arms requirements of the European members of NATO are met from their own resources. I believe that in this way great gains may come in time. The other way, the present "primrose way", means that for a great range of military equipment, for much of which there is a great direct commercial "spin-off", to use the vulgar jargon, Europe may well become a Europe of sub-contractors.
My Lords, I should like now to turn from Europe to some extra-European problems. I listened with great attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, had to say about the confrontation between Malaysia and Indonesia. I should like to take this opportunity of echoing the tribute that he rightly paid to the skill and dedication of our armed forces in that area, and indeed across the world. But so that there can be no doubt about it, let me make the position of my own Party, whether in Opposition or in power, clear beyond peradventure on the question of our existing military commitments there or elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, invited me to say some-
160
thing on this point. I am glad to do so. I can say categorically that, so far as we are concerned, they stand and we support the Government in honouring them. Some remarks of my right honourable friend the Shadow Secretary of Defence, Mr. Enoch Powell, the other day at Brighton have been both widely quoted and widely misinterpreted. Let me remind the House of some of his remarks on November 4 which have been less widely quoted. After referring to the need to project our thinking in these matters well forward into the future, he said:
"It is not our commitments at this moment, whether, for instance, in South Arabia or in Malaysia, which can be at issue. They exist, and must be met."
I should have thought that that was quite categorical enough. I should have thought that that assurance from the mouth of my right honourable friend should give the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and those whose anxieties he was voicing, all the assurance for which they have asked.
So much for the short, or shorter, term. However, as my right honourable friend said, this does not mean that we should not consider what, in the longer term, our defence commitments outside Europe (especially in Southern Asia) are likely to be and how best they can be discharged. Communist China poses a threat to the independence of many Asian countries; and, judging by the virulence of Peking language, that threat is very real indeed. We may expect that in time, like the Soviet threat, it may be mitigated. But meanwhile, unless we in the West are content to see the engulfment of many millions of free peoples, that threat must be faced.
I do not think, the Conservative Party do not think, that we should be right to contract out of that involvement, although I should have thought, judging by what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said, that the Liberal Party feel that we should, at least after a fairly short time. Could we, for example, stand idly by if, at some future date, Australia or New Zealand came under pressure or attack? We have only to pose the question to answer it clearly in our own minds. Certainly, as we see it, so long as we remain a sovereign State we are likely to retain certain obligations around the world outside the territorial limits and

161
waters of Europe. We shall retain certain collective defence obligations outside Europe, be it as a member of the United Nations or under some more limited arrangements. Certainly, as I see it, even if we become, as I hope that one day we shall become, an integral part of a United Europe, we shall not necessarily find ourselves suddenly freed of all defence obligations outside the narrow confines of that Europe.
I personally believe this dichotomy between defence in Europe and defence outside Europe to be a false one. Clearly, we should attach the very highest priority to Europe and to the defence of Europe. But should we succeed in our desire to join a United Europe, that Europe would be, in fact, a super-State, in the same sort of bracket as the United States of America, as the Soviet Union and as the China which will probably emerge within the coming decade or so. That Greater Europe would inevitably be involved in the affairs of this shrinking planet. I grant that quite possibly some members of that Europe might wish to confine that involvement to the purely peaceful arts of commerce, or politics or culture. We may not succeed in creating that Europe, but I would hazard a guess that if we do, that Europe will not succeed in making so artificial a distinction between the arts of peace and the arts of war. The involvement of that Europe in world affairs would inevitably include an involvement in those affairs which involve power and its use.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): Is the noble Earl suggesting that we ought not to enter a Europe unless it would take over those commitments that we have in the Far East and elsewhere?
EARL. JELLICOE: I would not put it in that way. My belief is that, as and when we enter Europe, this will enlarge the horizons of the Europe which we enter. I think that we should bring a very considerable influence to bear within a Europe which we enter. I grant that many of our European neighbours seem to accord far too low a priority to these grave matters which are beyond the confines of Europe itself at present.
My Lords, it is difficult to peer with any certainty far over the horizon in these matters, and perhaps it is unwise
162
to try to be too specific. But I feel that our best hope, in the longer term, in the area of which we are speaking is to aim for a belt of neutral countries South of China, supported, if need be, by Western power held some distance in reserve. I would also suggest that, in considering our longer-term defence commitments outside the immediate NATO area, our thinking could be based on four general propositions. I do not know whether here I carry all your Lordships with me, but these are they.
The first is that there is no point in our contributing towards the defence of countries in Asia, or elsewhere, unless those countries have a real desire to defend themselves and are prepared themselves to play a real part in that defence. The second is that an actual Western military presence on the mainland may—and I say only may—in the longer term be counter-productive. The third proposition is that we have the right to expect our contribution to be matched by at least proportionate contributions from our partners, be they our European partners, our American partners or our Commonwealth partners. The fourth proposition is that our present collective arrangements, in so far as they do not match these criteria, need to be looked at again; and I think that this applies to SEATO.
What I am suggesting is that when we are considering, in the longer term, our contribution to the strategic defence of free Asia we should be thinking less in terms of classical bases and more in terms of operating from exterior lines of communication, with our power, our capacity to intervene, held well back in reserve. In this connection I should be very glad to hear any more which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, can tell us about the very interesting news which he read yesterday about the formation of what I think is termed the British Indian Ocean territory.
I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is under certain misconceptions in speaking of the Chagos Archipelago and the concept of this base. As I understand it, this will not be a base in the classical sense; it will be a much lighter and much more austere affair. As I also understand it, it is not the intention of the present Government, nor

163
was it the intention of the late Government, to try to turn the Indian Ocean into some form of British lake. This is an Anglo-American, in the first stage, project. I hope that it will be broadened out to form part of a much wider concept for the security of that area.
My Lords, that is all I have to say on these vast and complex subjects. In conclusion, I would say just this. These are very grave and great questions. I hope that, in considering them, the Government will be determined not only to relate our resources to our commitments but also to relate these higher defence considerations to the broadest issues of foreign policy, globally considered. They are taking a very long time about their Defence Review, but I am an eternal optimist; I am also charitable, and I would still express the hope that, while they are about it, the Government will, in fact, do this properly.
5.37 p.m.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, we have had quite a lot of fairly long dissertations on this very important subject, and I propose to deal with only two or three fairly narrow aspects because the wide field has been well covered. At the beginning of the debate the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, mentioned British influence, how we had descended from the first eleven to the second eleven. I feel that we have lost influence because we have lost power, but we still have considerable influence in all areas where we are determined to apply it. We have had one or two gratifying results recently when we acted as a broker between the Americans and the Russians over the Test Ban Treaty. We have taken a very large part in the discussions about the European NATO affairs, quite rightly, and we still have influence.
On the other hand, I feel that that influence ultimately depends on power with a capital "P" and is not just a question of force. I suggest that it is an amalgam of three elements. The first is our actual forces, which are unfortunately very small; the second is a sound financial status which we are fighting for and we have heard so much about, and the last is the quality of steadfastness of our friends. It is these three elements together which give us power in any particular situation.
164
Locally, for example in the Persian Gulf, where we have had good friends for a hundred years or more, we have power. In the United Nations, on the other hand, our power has been diminishing, because we are outnumbered. Again, in the Commonwealth not so very long ago we had considerable power. Now it is extremely doubtful whether we have any power at all in defence matters. We have not been able to stop any emergency. We have not been able to prevent the war between two members of the Commonwealth, India and Pakistan—a tragic war—and we are no longer exercising power as head of the Commonwealth. The lesson I draw from this is that if we want to continue to exercise power in certain situations not only have we to keep our finance strong and keep our friends, but we should be very careful how we dispose our tiny forces acurately.
This brings me to Asia, but please do not be frightened, because I am not going round the world. I mention Asia because of the doubt which has arisen from the remarks of Mr. Powell at Brighton. Whether he actually said something at Brighton with which I agree or said something with which I disagree does not matter: the fact is that he has created considerable doubt, which I should like to clear up, if I may. He spoke about the eventual power situation in Asia resolving itself because of the countervailing Asian forces. I do not think anybody denies that. But, in my opinion, it is a matter of timing, and I was delighted to hear from my noble friend Lord Shepherd and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that the Government and the Opposition are both quite determined to continue to fulfil our present defence obligations in that area. That is quite right. But the question of timing arises. When will countervailing forces become ready?
The answer, I suggest, is a long way ahead, when Japan and India have them available. At the moment Japan has not any force at all worth mentioning, and India is fully occupied defending herself along the Himalayas and in other places. She has remarkably little military influence in South Asia. In other words, it is going to be a long time before the countervailing forces, about which we have become rather mystified, ever become available. Until they do, the

165
United States and Britain—the United States in a large way and ourselves in a smaller way, but in important ways—must defend the newly independent countries which are not yet able to stand on their own feet and defend themselves.
If we withdraw our forces at any time in the near future while that situation still exists, we should be creating a power vacuum and there would be nobody to fill it. The Australians and the New Zealanders could not fill it. The Germans and the French would not fill it. The only people to fill it are ourselves, and therefore we must stay. I do not deny the eventual solution. Asia will have to sort out its own problems in the same way as the Middle East is beginning to do. The balance of power in the Middle East is beginning to emerge. But I will not go on to discuss that, because there is not time.
My noble friend Lord Shepherd mentioned the Defence Review and said that it was not taking very long. I do not quite agree about that; I think it is taking far too long. In fact, it is taking so long that it may be overtaken by events and may be torn up the day it is published. I do not say that it will be, but it is necessary to have a year of an unchanged peaceful situation for any Defence Review which takes that time before it emerges, to be worth anything. The risks which may be caused by delay are so great that they are creating uncertainty, I am afraid, in the ranks of the Army, which I happen to know about. The recruiting of technicians and others is falling off and married officers with children going to school are worried about their careers and longing to hear the answer. So the sooner it comes out the better.
I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, about this arithmetical approach. If we say that we are prepared to spend £2,000 million a year at 1965 prices, which means a saving of £400 million over the next three or four years, that is a very nice target to keep in front of us; but if, in doing so, we destroy our defences, we destroy our power and influence, according to the formula which I mentioned at the beginning. So I think there is an element of risk in setting a hard and fast arithmetical target and not looking at our commitments first. I think an operational approach is safer.
166
We can cut when we can afford it, and not the other way round. Decisions can be taken and published as we go along.
The Government's decision on the Territorial Army was issued as a sort of edict. I was delighted to hear from my noble friend Lord Shepherd that a White Paper is coming out soon, because we are all waiting for it. The statement which has been made is rather disturbing. My noble friend asked us not to disturb the situation any further until the White Paper was published, which means that I must confine my remarks to a small space, but I would say that although I do not challenge the need to reorganise the Territorial Army as the reserve for the Regular Army—the first 50,000—the question about the remaining 60,000 is very much in the air. It is still, I believe, the subject of discussions between the Ministry of Defence and the Territorial Council, and while these deliberations are going on, I would only say this: if we are not very careful, we shall again come to the wrong decision.
I think there is a great deal in the German view which I read the other day. It is: Where is the logic in having B.A.O.R. to fight even a short, conventional war on the Continent if Britain is the only country in Europe which has absolutely no defence? It is not right that the Territorial Army should he the sole support of the Regular Army and should have to send out its ten divisions, as it did in the last war. I am sure that that is wrong. I agree with the Government that it is not right that the Territorial Army should only support Civil Defence. I think it is right to have some force in reserve for the unforeseen emergency. We have only to look at the activities of the National Guard in the United States over the last year or two to see the sort of thing which the Territorial Army in this country could be called out to deal with. To say that riot squads of the police can do it is not good enough, because they do not exist. Cutting out the sentiment and tradition—which, incidentally, we cannot cost effect—we want to be reassured by the Government that they are thinking again carefully about this decision on the Territorial Army.
The last subject that I would mention is the choice which is coming to us very soon in the course of next year as NATO

167
allies. We shall hear more about this from my noble friend Lord Chalfont when we discuss disarmament soon—though I am sorry to say that I do not believe that I can be here that day. I believe that this country has had some influence in bringing the Russians back to the Disarmament Conference at Geneva, and they are going ahead now doing their level best to draft a non-dissemination treaty. This is absolutely right and very important. If, concurrently, we are discussing more widely some fairer system of nuclear sharing, of control of decision, inside NATO, and also discussing perhaps the setting up of M.L.F. and A.N.F.—though these are not very popular at this moment—and if the Russians say to us that they are not interested in signing a non-dissemination treaty until we assure them that there will be no further control of nuclear decision inside NATO, we should be careful indeed, because it was my experience that the Communist threat in any area, whether in Europe or in Asia, was directly proportional to the force opposite it.
The only reason we sleep comfortably in our beds in Europe at the present time is that NATO has assembled a large force, the United States has a strategic deterrent and there is the Iron Curtain—a definite line, a large conventional force and a very large strategic nuclear force. These are the reasons why the threat has been removed in Europe for the present. Incidentally, those are the reasons that will, to my mind, eventually make more peaceful the situation in Asia. If we have to make this decision, I suggest that we must be most careful before we do a horse-coping deal in order to get a non-dissemination treaty, and so allow the centrifugal forces inside NATO—and they are certainly strong enough—to take over and split the alliance. If we split the alliance we shall regret having worked with the non-dissemination treaty.
5.50 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, in his extremely interesting speech the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said that we have little power as head of the Commonwealth; and the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, said that our position in the Commonwealth gives us no special powers and privileges. And this is right
168
enough. But we are not head of the Commonwealth; and I think that some of our strength, some of the value of the Commonwealth, comes from the fact that we are not.
I have had to spend the past year making non-controversial and, I fear, rather dull speeches about the Commonwealth, as is entirely proper for a Parliamentary Secretary to the Commonwealth Relations Office. But now I can be a little more controversial, and, I hope, perhaps a little more constructive. Two weeks ago the noble Lord, Lord Florey, spoke of the need for some great project which could be the pride and joy of everyone in this country. He was talking about the great space programmes of the United States and of Russia, and he said that we had nothing to match these in public imagination; and, of course, that we had not enough resources to compete with them. But I want to urge as such an enterprise the creation of a Commonwealth University.
Mr. Nehru once spoke of "the silken bond that holds the Commonwealth together". In the past year, and in the past month, that bond has been stretched and strained, and I do not doubt that in the coming year it will be just as stretched and strained, at any rate for part of the time. One of the duties of Her Majesty's Government, which they are performing and, I am sure, will perform, is all the time to weave in new sources of strength into that bond. This process goes on whenever Commonwealth Prime Ministers or Ministers meet. My noble friend Lord Shepherd has already paid a tribute to the work of the Prime Minister, and I should like to pay a tribute to the work of my right honourable friend Mr. Bottomley, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. He has worked tirelessly throughout this year to try to ensure peace in Rhodesia; indeed, he has worked all over the Commonwealth in a remarkable way.
The meetings of Commonwealth Prime Ministers are a building of links. The work of the C.R.O., the Ministry of Overseas Development, the British Council and the C.O.I. are all links. The new Commonwealth Medical Conference which took place in Edinburgh was just another part of this job. One may say how encouraging it was to see Commonwealth Ministers, other than Prime

169
Ministers, and their chief civil servants, from both the old Commonwealth and the new Commonwealth, meeting as equals, often for the first time, and finding, when they came to their technical problems, that they talked the same sort of language.
Another of the links of great potential importance is the Commonwealth Secretariat. I think it was significant that when Singapore applied for membership of the Commonwealth she did not go to the C.R.O., as would-be new members have gone in the past to get their application sent around; she went to the Commonwealth Secretariat. This is a sign that a change is taking place here. The seeds of these last two institutions were sown by the last Government. Now, after a period of what one might call institutional consolidation, I think we are ready to start looking forward again.
My noble friend Lord Shepherd had a notable piece in his speech about the danger of conflict of colour. We know from our limited experience in these islands that it is not easy to make a success of a black and white multiracial society; it is not easy to create that situation where skin colour counts for no more than Welsh, English or Scottish blood in the United Kingdom. In so far as we are succeeding, I think it is because we have tried—generally successfully, but not always—to break down the barriers by multiracial education.
For many years, in our colleges and universities, we have learned to live, work and play with a quota—it is only a small quota—of Commonwealth students. It is at this time of life, between the ages of 18 and 22, that our major cultural attitudes are formed, and in homes and families where there are strong opinions the young people often want to rebel. When they get to college or university, they get the chance to translate their rebellious idealism into practical reality; and if they are alongside Commonwealth students, this is certainly their chance. Mr. Nehru was himself a product of English education, and I think that without it that "silken bond" of which he spoke might well have snapped under the strain.
The Government are already doing much, and the other Commonwealth countries are helping, too, in mutual Commonwealth education. But I do not think we are doing enough; and I know that
170
we are not doing as much as we might. At present, in the university field we are putting most of our new effort into postgraduate education of Commonwealth students. This is because each new Commonwealth country is building, or wants to build, its own undergraduate university. The latest is that lovely little island of Mauritius, in the Indian Ocean, which is multiracial, although it has an Indian majority, and which we all hope to see joining us as an independent Commonwealth country within the next two years. They are to have a university, and I believe that it will be a very fine thing for them.
This development of local universities is both natural and good; and in some of these new universities they are taking small numbers of students from other developing Commonwealth countries. But these national universities can meet only a small part of their countries' needs; and they are not, of course, international Commonwealth institutions. They are building better societies, but they are not designed to demonstrate or inculcate the ideal of the multiracial Commonwealth society. They could easily become nationalistic institutions if they were to get going on the wrong lines; although, thank goodness! I do not think there is much evidence of that at the present time.
The Commonwealth University which I hope we may soon see launched is one for undergraduate students from all the Commonwealth countries: from the old Commonwealth—Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand; with an equal number of young people from India. Pakistan and the West Indies, the Colonial Territories, and all the African countries. Here they could grow up together as new Commonwealth citizens. In such a university—and it is not fantastic to think of such a university as having 10,000 students—I think there should be a fifty-fifty Anglo-Saxon, Afro-Asian mix. To such a university all the Commonwealth countries should contribute not only their students but also, according to their means, materially; and such a university should, of course, be Commonwealth-controlled and Commonwealth-staffed.
I could give your Lordships a dozen reasons why this should not be done.

171
The first is that the time is not opportune. Of course, always there are difficulties whatever time one chooses; and for some people no time is ever opportune. Then it is said that we might strain our resources. Resources develop in response to strain. My noble friend Lord Shepherd mentioned that we were spending £189 million on overseas aid. I reckon that a Commonwealth University would cost not more than £4 million or £5 million per annum, both to build and to run. I base this on the cost of, say, Edinburgh University, which is of the same order and has a number of students not far short of the number I mentioned.
If such a Commonwealth University merely duplicated existing universities, I would at once agree that it would not be justified. We are, I think, well enough equipped to produce super-specialists, but in this process we are in danger of ironing out vigour, non-academic originality and enterprise. All the developing countries—and here we ought to include ourselves—need young men and women with "guts", vigour and "go", trained in the useful arts and sciences, as the Victorians used to say, and trained also with breadth of vision and a conception of service.
We need them to create, develop and operate our factories and workshops. I get a little depressed when I see students with degrees not knowing what to do. One feels often that when in desperation they choose to become personnel officers, it is a little wasteful of all that has happened. We all need them, developing countries the world over, in agriculture and food production, in building and planning our towns, villages and roads. We need town planners, architects, civil engineers and surveyors. We need them in general medical practice, for both treatment and prevention, in the under-doctored rural areas of the Commonwealth and in our own under-doctored urban areas. When we think of our own shortages, it really is a little ridiculous when our colleagues from Nigeria told us at the Commonwealth Conference of their 55 million population and 1,500 doctors for the lot—a ratio of one doctor to 40,000 people, which is an overall ratio. The figure is infinitely worse in the rural areas, because most
172
of those doctors are concentrated in the towns.
We need young people trained in marketing and distribution, in local and central government, and in the Commonwealth I think we need them, perhaps more than anywhere else in some ways, in printing, journalism and television. One cannot go round the Commonwealth without feeling the need for a cadre of professional journalists, with professional standards of integrity—and good, professional printing is one of the things that is most lacking. It could do more than anything else to help to build up public life and standards. Above all, of course, we need them in the schools and colleges of all kinds as teachers of the next generation. Imagine 10,000 young men and women, say, 2,000 or 3,000 every year, from all parts of the Commonwealth, going out to their own countries, not only skilled in useful arts and sciences, but also made into real Commonwealth citizens. Here, surely, is the great project of which my noble friend Lord Florey spoke. I reckon with our Commonwealth colleagues that such a plan could be developed and launched within two years.
At the Commonwealth Medical Conference, Dr. John Ellis of the London Hospital spoke about building new medical schools, and he sadly told us:
"The more developed the country, the slower is the rate of development."
To prove his point, Professor T. J. Danaraj, Dean of the Medical School of the University of Malaya, told us how he was even now finishing a £10 million medical school in Kuala Lumpur, including a 750-bed hospital, which he started only 2½ years ago in 1963. If this can be done in Kuala Lumpur, I suggest that the Commonwealth as a whole could do it, and at no less speed.
At this time, when the Commonwealth is suffering and straining to survive, the antidote for our troubles is working together in some great common endeavour—and the more worthwhile the job, the smaller will our troubles seem. If the Commonwealth is a worthwhile institution for the world—and I personally am sure it is; and, even though it may not be very powerful, one remembers Faraday and the electricity and the baby—one day these African countries will be great

173
countries, strong in industry, too. I am sure all your Lordships think that the Commonwealth is a worthwhile institution, but I believe it can only be made strong for the future by building into it a cadre of Commonwealth citizens who will owe allegiance, not only to their own countries, but also to the Commonwealth as a whole.
6.7 p.m.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, just for five minutes I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, on the problems of home defence and the reorganisation of the reserves. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, I will make only a very few remarks, and hope to have a later opportunity of discussing this matter much more fully.
We know now what deep feelings of apprehension—and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, mentioned this—are felt all over the country about the plans that have been announced dealing with the future of the reserve forces. I beg the Government to have another look at this in the light of the advice they have received, and are receiving, from many varied sources, because under the Government scheme the task of home defence, if it is to exist at all, will rest only with whatever Regular units happen to be stationed in the country at the time. For the Minister of Defence has specifically stated that the units to be retained as a reserve will have no rôle for home defence, no rôle for aiding the civil power, nor are they required to provide a framework for expansion in emergency. They are to be a Regular Army reserve—there will be no Reserve Army so far as I know. So far as I know, there will be no Territorial W.R.A.C. I have just come back from Scotland where there are several very keen units, and where there is very great feeling about it. Of course, most people recognise that some form of reorganisation of the Territorial Army is justified, and as an ex-Territorial Army Divisional Commander I entirely agree with that.
There is a real need for Ever-Readies, both units and individuals, and it is certain that reserves which can be called up for service under conditions well short of mobilisation are badly needed. I believe that such reserves can be attracted from a framework of the 80,000 to 90,000 volunteers that we have to-day.
174
But the achievement of the present target is highly unlikely if there is not a national network of volunteer soldiers from which to draw. Once the great national network, with its county traditions and backing and loyalties, is abandoned or curtailed, it can never be rebuilt. No matter how grave the emergency, expansion will be impossible.
As I have said, the old Territorial Army is outmoded in some respects and reorganisation is necessary, but I am sure we should retain a Territorial Army framework for each county, more economically run than it is at present. This would provide a source of volunteer reserves which the Regular Army may require, and a training ground for them, which we support in every way. It should be able to provide a smaller, unsophisticated force with good communications, capable of expansion if required but adequate for a national emergency, and one which would retain the goodwill of employers; and that, under the present scheme, we are not going to get. It would also retain the spirit of voluntary military service, without which any attempt to provide reserves for the Regular Army will founder.
Retention of the Territorial Force is vital for the efficiency of the Civil Defence organisation with which it is at present integrated, and of immense assistance to the Army Cadet Force. How can the Government be so certain that there will never be an emergency which will require Home Defence or military expansion—never in ten years; never in 50 or 100 years? No other European country is prepared to take such a risk. Why should we?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I intervene just for one moment? I have been asked to announce that dinners will be available for the hardy few who remain long enough to require them.
6.12 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, into the realms of the Territorial Army, but it must be clear to your Lordships that our whole Defence structure is in a state of flux, and we should all like to know when the Defence Review is to be completed and presented to Parliament. The noble Éarl, Lord Jellicoe, has already made this point very

175
strongly, and I cannot emphasise it too much.
Articles have appeared recently in the Press—either as a result of guesswork or leakage; and perhaps a bit of both—indicating that the Fleet Air Arm is to disappear in its present form and that its rôle is to be taken over by the R.A.F. Then on Tuesday of this week it was indicated in the Press that a signal was sent to Her Majesty's Fleet by the Minister for the Navy indicating that no decision had been reached in the matter. It was this kind of clumsy handling of affairs which many years ago caused the mutiny at Invergordon. Surely Her Majesty's Government will not revert to the old inefficient organisation of some years ago, when R.A.F. pilots were engaged on naval reconnaissance and were found quite unable to carry out these duties effectively. The Royal Navy requires a special type of pilot, trained in naval warfare and reconnaissance, to be of effective assistance to the Fleet. I hope that the Minister who is to reply to this debate will be able to deny, or at least to clarify, this situation, which I cannot help feeling is ominous.
In a recent speech the Minister for the Navy stated that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to purchase a second-hand aircraft carrier to tide the Fleet over until our own new British carrier could be built. Yet in last Sunday's Press we read that the Navy's carriers are to be phased out of existence, and in any case will get only a few, if any, of the Phantom fighters to be ordered from the U.S.A. I suggest that all this rumour and counter-rumour is very bad for the morale of the Service, and it is high time that Her Majesty's Government made a declaration of their intentions at the earliest possible moment.
I would ask the Minister who is to reply to this debate whether he can confirm that the cuts already going on in the Defence Services will not mean a cut in our overseas commitments. I cannot help feeling that cuts are being made merely to save money, without regard to our commitments abroad and to the defence of this country. Defence is the insurance policy of our survival, and we must be prepared to pay the premium, even at the expense of other much-cherished desires so longed for by the Party opposite.
176
If Her Majesty's Government really wish to save money on Defence, and at the same time maintain our commitments, I suggest that, instead of phasing out parts of the Navy, it would be much more logical to phase out a part of the Royal Air Force. I know that this policy would bring great divisions of opinion, but I feel sure it must be faced one day. I think it is agreed in most quarters that the manned bomber is on its way out and its rôle transferred to Polaris submarines. When that occurs, the R.A.F. will be left with Transport Command and a few fighters, which can well be flown from the flight decks of carriers. Also the Army should have control of its Tactical Air Arm.
Sooner or later, Her Majesty's Government, or any future Government, must face up to this phasing out of the Royal Air Force, however unpalatable it will be in some quarters. There is no doubt that a very great deal of money would be saved on Defence by this policy, and I am convinced that we must face up to this problem in the not too distant future. This problem must not be linked up with Service rivalry, but must be looked at solely in relation to essential overall Defence requirements. It is, of course, a highly controversial question, involving deep loyalties and established positions; none the less, it must be faced in the years to come.
Recent developments in Aden and Singapore bring nearer the day when we shall be compelled to give up these bases, and for these reasons alone I suggest that the aircraft carrier increases in importance from year to year, and even from month to month. Can the Minister to-day indicate the policy of Her Majesty's Government on aircraft carriers?
It is generally agreed, I feel, that the development of nuclear weapons has reduced the likelihood of land warfare between the major Powers; but against this we must not forget the steady rise in Soviet maritime powers. There is no doubt that the focus of international rivalry has shifted from the land to the sea. I suggest that it is therefore all the more essential for our Defence policy to move from a continental one to a maritime one. We have a number of residual responsibilities in the Indian Ocean and South-East Asia which are, of course,

177
the result of the aftermath of Imperial rule. These responsibilities absorb a large part of our defence forces, and I still maintain that the best way to contain them is by maritime power.
I feel that money can be saved on Defence to an appreciable extent if we get our priorities right; but as yet we do not appear to be moving in that direction. The Minister of Defence recently said that decisions must be taken at regular intervals. I presume that this means piecemeal, as matters arise, and when they cannot, perhaps, be deferred any longer. This is hardly the sort of Defence policy the country needs, and I hope that it will be possible for the Minister replying to this debate to clarify our Defence policy on some of the points I have raised.
6.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, this is the first opportunity we have had to say anything about the announcement as to the future of the Territorial Army which was made in this House at the end of last July. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has suggested that we should wait until the White Paper is available, and I will gladly go along with him in that in so far as I do not intend to talk about the affairs of the Working Party because not even the excellently controlled leakages of the Ministry of Defence give us enough to go on. Nor will I talk about the Cadet Force, because likewise I know their affairs are in the hands of a Committee. But I will say something about what is behind the announcement of July 29. I think this ought to be said now because it will be too late to say it when the White Paper is crystallised and in print.
Of course, as other noble Lords have said already in this debate, it is common ground that at the time of the last Election the two problems of Regular Army manpower and Home Defence were still problems for settlement, and therefore it was incumbent on whatever Government came into power to continue to search for a solution to those two problems. Although they both impact on the Territorial Army, they are to a very large extent quite distinct. The Regular Army manpower problem is one of solving an equation. Personally I very much doubt, though I know I am not always agreed
178
with, whether this equation can be solved by the British without recourse to selective service, any more than it can be solved by the Australians or the New Zealanders. However that may he, all the figures connected with voluntary military service in this country throughout the ages have been very constant and they are resistant to any efforts to raise them, or indeed to lower them.
They fall into three classes. There are the career Regular soldiers, who enlist in the Regular Army; there are the Territorial Army or Volunteers, or whatever you call them, who will go for a fortnight's camp and do a certain amount of training and are prepared to be called up full-time in an emergency; and then there is the third category, who at different times have been called Militia, or Special Reserve, or Ever-Readies, who take obligations for permanent service in peace time if they are called on. All these three categories have been resistant to any change and the number has been very constant in all three, unless in the case of the Militia you go back to the time before the Unemployment Insurance Acts when it was a form of earning an honest penny. These are the problems which the Working Party are dealing with, and whether they will solve the equation is in the lap of the gods. I am quite certain that, so far as the working party goes, they are trying and will try their very best.
The other question—that is to say, what Home Defence should be like, can be reached only in the context of the Defence policy as a whole. That is the point which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has made, and I would only add that in addition to the assurance given by Mr. Reynolds in another place, there was the equal assurance given by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, on June 17, when he said
"…the role of the Territorial Army forms part of the current Defence Review and the question of its organisation must be linked with this."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 267 (No. 87), cols. 193–4; 17th June, 1965.]
While we welcome that original announcement, we were full of dismay when we saw a very real risk of that announcement being gone back on. I have been trying as an ex-professional soldier myself, and an ex-inhabitant of the War Office, to puzzle out what went on in the Ministry of Defence.

179
I think I ought to say this from personal experience. There always has been a section of Regular Army opinion which is not very favourable to the Territorial Army. That type of opinion has more or less influence at different times over the years. There is always a tendency in the search for professionalism to disparage the amateur, which is what happens every now and then; and there is also another factor which gets to work on this, and that is that the top ranking staff officers in the War Office who handle these things very seldom—I am talking generally, not about any particular person—have first-hand knowledge of the Territorial Army, for the simple reason that the brightest and best of those people go to either Whitehall or Regular Commands and Staffs. Therefore, they are dependent not on first-hand knowledge, which I know is a pity for anybody who is making a plan. But then you get tendencies to bring in arguments, such as cost-efficiency, produced by the Treasury. I do not know what cost-efficiency means in this context, because whereas you can cost something which has happened or which is in process of happening, like administration in peace or war or training in peace, you cannot cost readiness for war, so far as I know, and I should not like to see anybody try.
The other thing about all this is that the particular handling of this exercise with the Territorial Army bears a very close resemblance to a similar exercise at the end of 1955 when a large number of Territorial Army units were converted to supplementary Reserve. Again the Territorial Army Advisory Committee, of which I was then a member, were not called in until they were to be confronted with facts. Again the result of that, the fruits of that exercise, are now dust and ashes, and in my opinion (my noble friends on the Front Bench must not mind my saying so) the Conservative Government were taken for a bit of a ride on that, in just the same way as I think the present Government are being taken for a ride on this. Noble Lords opposite may not agree. However, the plans were made and were put to the Ministers. I am not quite sure exactly where the initiative came from, but the plans of course were made on approved General Staff lines; that is to say, all
180
the aids produced by security, concealment and surprise were brought in, and so this burst on an astonished world in the way it did.
Of course, all this is absolutely excellent on two conditions: first of all, that those who have to plan have sufficient information to be able to make a proper plan, and, secondly, that if you are going to plan against an enemy you choose the right enemy. Did those who made the plan have sufficient information to make it and did they choose the right enemy, if by chance they are concealing these things from the Territorial Army authorities and the T.A. Advisory Council? And the answers I put to your Lordships are, No and No. I myself do not think it was in any degree possible to form any assessment, either of the problem of the reserves or of the problem of Home Defence, unless, before the plan was made, those concerned—that is, not only the Territorial Army people but also the local authority people in respect of Civil Defence—were taken into confidence.
We now come to this very much talked about subject of consultation. Of course, if you have full information on the matter in hand, whatever it may be, you do not need to consult anybody any more before you make your plan. But if you have not that information you do consult other people outside before you make your plan. Otherwise why do we ever have Royal Commissions and Select Committees and bodies of that sort designed for that particular purpose? I do not think either Ministers or staffs in the Ministry of Defence could possibly have had enough information available to them within the Department to make a sound decision on either of the two points at issue which I have just mentioned: can the Territorial Army provide enough people for the new and more demanding terms of service, and, secondly (as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, mentioned), if the Territorial Army are not to be used for Civil Defence, how are our homes to be defended, and by whom? I think it was a very great presumption on the part of the Ministry of Defence to suppose that they could obtain answers to those questions without consultation outside. If you want to know whether more people in the Territorial Army can be induced to accept the stricter terms of service, the only way to find out is to

181
ask the people in the front line—the Territorial Army associations, commanders of units and the employers' associations and unions who control the people who would have to volunteer. So, in this case, I think that consultations must have preceded any sound decision.
Again, if you are dealing with Civil Defence, surely it was impossible to discover the full impact of the decision to withdraw the Territorial Army from Civil Defence unless the local authorities who were responsible for Civil Defence were consulted. I can tell your Lordships that the local authority associations were consulted no more than the Territorial Army associations were. They discovered what was going on, and made their protest to the Home Office—and a very good thing, too! But I think it would be quite wrong for Parliament to approve any step to cut down the Territorial Army without knowing what is going to be the general content of home Defence policy. It was promised that we should know. I do not think we should touch it until we do know, whether it comes out in the White Paper or otherwise. Then again, the Home Secretary, I think, said in another place on November 4 last that the Civil Defence Review was still in progress. Why, then, are we told, on the one hand, that it is still in progress and, on the other, that they have decided that there is no need for the Territorial Army?
While all this was going on the Department lost no time. The announcement was on a Thursday, and there were full-dress conferences at the Commands on the Monday. Every attempt, as I see it (though I know that noble Lords opposite will not agree with me), was made to railroad the associations into agreement on these various points. If they had agreed, it would have been possible for Ministers to come back and ask, "What is all the fuss about? They have all agreed to it." To my mind, it was a most arrogant performance. To put it another way, certain people were busily engaged in trying to steal the horse and to leave Parliament, in due course, when, at long last, the White Paper comes out, to shut the door.
As I say, I have not attempted to deal with the consultations in detail. I have attempted to deal with the thinking and to produce some thinking of my own. If what I have said has any substance—and
182
I am quite sure that some of it has—then this is the time to say these things, in the hope that those concerned with this matter will begin to feel that the decision would have been sounder if more front-line opinion had been taken; and that until they have found out a little more about the implications of the policy they announced on July 29, it would be thoroughly wrong to suggest the break-up of the Territorial Army, to start doing it as they are doing it now; and equally wrong for Parliament to have anything to do with it, until it has a lot more information about the general policy for home Defence which the present Government may produce.
6.34 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to address some observations to your Lordships rather on the Foreign Affairs aspect of this matter than on Defence. Owing to absence abroad, I have not been able to take part in recent discussions on international affairs. I should like to apologise at the beginning to the House and to subsequent speakers, because I shall have to leave almost immediately after the close of my remarks owing to a long-standing engagement. Indeed, I nearly took my name off the list when I saw how the debate was dragging out. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if my remarks seem a little disjointed, because I shall have to do my best to compress the logical arrangement of the speech which I had prepared.
The debate this afternoon has brought out clearly the close relationship of Foreign Affairs and Defence. A mistaken foreign policy can obviously lead to a great increase in the cost of Defence. At the present time we are acutely conscious, so far as we can be, of the importance of saving money. No doubt, largely owing to the mistaken financial policy of the late Administration, the social programme of the present Government has to a considerable extent been cut down. I need only mention the universities, in which there is a great feeling of disappointment and frustration as the result of the recent announcements. If we could, in fact, save money—and I think that one obvious area in which we could save is on the Defence Estimates—the sort of difficulties which were alluded to in the debate yesterday, not only in

183
connection with higher education, but in connection with roads and otherwise, could, to a considerable extent, at any rate, be overcome.
We have, of course, been spending a great deal of money, as I suggest unprofitably, during recent years in the East, particularly in Arabia. I was most interested to notice the speech of Mr. Enoch Powell, which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, in his notable speech this afternoon. I must say that I found myself greatly in sympathy with it, as I did with his interpretation of Mr. Powell's observations at Brighton; and that was certainly the view taken by the Spectator, in a most interesting article, albeit a slightly mischievous one. It seemed to me to indicate the possibility of a solution that could be accepted by all Parties in regard to the expenditure in the Far East, and in the East generally. Aden is mentioned all the time. Are we really spending all this money on armed forces in Arabia because of Aden? I greatly doubt it. On this I agree with Lord Gladwyn's views. We have been told time after time that we had to have ports in Southern Ireland and in South Africa, and, on another occasion, in China, and airfields in Cyprus, otherwise our security was in jeopardy. We have lost control over most of these places which were said to be so essential to us, yet our security does not seem to have been jeopardised very greatly. I think it would be exactly the same in this connection.
It was interesting to notice this afternoon that noble Lords who speak for the Services have, in effect, indicated that they are prepared to give up Aden and Singapore, and some of these other places which until so recently were regarded by everybody as crucial, and are apparently still regarded as crucial. I suspect that our policy in Arabia is to some extent dictated by pure conservatism, that we have for a long time adopted this policy of divide-and-rule. On the whole, we tend to support the going-out order—the sheikhs and the small principalities in these places instead of the incoming democracy.
The Spectator article to which I have referred suggested that to some extent our policy was dictated by our trouble with
184
President Nasser some years ago, from which we have not recovered and which has led us, in pique, to oppose his designs in Arabia. I do not for a moment believe that this is true. I do not myself believe that the Arabs want Nasser there, any more than we do. But they may dislike him rather less than they dislike us. One of our difficulties in this country is that we always tend to imagine that people over whom we have been ruling like us very much. Of course they do not. But I have no doubt that, as soon as they had got rid of us in Arabia, they would be only too anxious to get rid of President Nasser as well. It seems to me that the real point of the situation in Arabia is that one has there the beginnings of a national policy. There is a strong and growing party in Arabia which wants to see Arabia as a new national State, and it is necessary to get rid of this outworn concept which we still seem to be following in that part of the world.
I was interested to read, in the introduction to Mr. Penkovsky's book in, I think, the Sunday Times last week, that it was as that important defector from Communism and the U.S.S.R.—somebody who was brought up as a Communist—began to realise, during the war, that it was Russia and not Communism for which he was fighting, that he recognised it was necessary, in the interests of Russia, as he saw them, to overthrow Communism. It was an ideological basis on which he joined up with the Western Secret Service. It is an obvious point, on which observers in the West have been commenting for a long time, that the U.S.S.R. began to win the war when they fought it as a national war and not as an ideological war. Unfortunately, the full implication of some of these rather obvious points is not always grasped. I am quite sure that nationalism whether we like it or not—and it has many evil aspects—is in fact the dominant force in modern international politics. It is very much more important than Communism, Fascism or Capitalism or any other ideological outlook on affairs.
The trouble about Arabia is that it is already infected with the bacillus of nationalism, which is much the strongest force in the modern world. The sooner we realise this fact and adapt our policy on that basis, the better. This would

185
enable us to save valuable British lives and a great deal of money which could be much more profitably spent in other ways. Arabia is obviously cut out to be a modern national State, and it is bound to become so in the end. Therefore the sooner we base our policy on a far-sighted view of this kind, the better.
In a quite different sort of way my theme of nationalism is relevant to Indonesia, and particularly to Borneo as well. Borneo is one of the ironies of modern international history. It is being fought over at present by two new sovereign States, neither of which has any real claim to it, except a sort of legalistic claim of a kind which, no doubt, was very relevant a hundred or even fifty years ago but which, in the conditions of the modern world, ceases to be relevant at all. Borneo is not in any real sense part of Malaysia, and never has been. Still less has it ever been truly part of Java, which is really the core of Indonesia. The native inhabitants are Dyaks who are neither Malays nor Javanese, though it is true there have been Malay settlers in the coastal districts.
Java argues its case legalistically, that it is entitled to take over the rights of the Netherlands Government. But how real were the rights of the Netherlands Government? It was a blatant piece of colonialism of a very modern period under which the Netherlands took over the largest part of Borneo. The Dutch did not land in Borneo until well into the present century. British Protectorates are, of course, of older standing, and they were only Protectorates until very recently indeed. It is quite ridiculous that either Malaysia or Java should be claiming Borneo on the basis of this shadowy legal claim.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? I think there is some confusion here. If the noble Lord will cast his memory back, I think he will recollect that Borneo became part of Malaysia—which was a new State which included Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore. Is the noble Lord referring to Malaya or to Malaysia? It opted to become a member of the Federation of Malaysia.
LORD CHORLEY: Who opted? We opted for it. The Borneans themselves had no say.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think the noble Lord must allow me to speak with some authority on this, as I was the principal negotiator in it. The people opted to join Malaysia.
LORD CHORLEY: You were a member of the British Government. The Borneans themselves, who are a very primitive people indeed, had no real chance of deciding whether they wanted to be brought into this. Borneo is a place which, like Arabia, might become a viable, modern national State. It is one of the largest islands in the world, nearly three times the size of Great Britain. It has no real affinity either with Malaysia or with Java. It should be handed over to the United Nations and given the opportunity to develop properly on its own footing. If you are going to divide it up in this way, all you are going to do is to lay up for yourselves trouble in the future. As Borneans become more educated they will become more nationalistic, and you will have the same situation arising. If I may turn to the final topic I wish to mention—
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, might I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment?
LORD CHORLEY: The problem in Vietnam is really the same—that of nationalism. We speak of it here in the West as the "Communist peril", but the whole of this business arose out of the old French colonial policy and gave rise in Vietnam to nationalist sentiments. If the French had withdrawn and granted Home Rule at a reasonably early stage, there would not have been any problem of Communism. It was, in a sense, an accident that Ho Chi Minh, who was a Communist, became the leader of the Nationalist movement. In that way he was able to establish Communism in North Vietnam. I do not believe the people of North Vietnam want Communism nor do I believe the people of South Vietnam want Communism. What they want is to be united together and to govern themselves—something which they were prevented from doing by the French and which, to some extent, they are now being prevented from doing by the Americans.
I am not suggesting that Communism does not come into this question, for it

187
obviously does, as a result of the historical facts which I have mentioned. That introduces a very difficult issue into this problem, but it cannot obscure the fact that the basic issue of all is that the Vietnamese people want to be one nation. It is that for which they are struggling. The Vietcong would not have any success in South Vietnam if all it was doing was trying to impose Communism on the people. The reason that it has had success is that it has based itself on the national aspirations of the people. It is quite true that as long as Communism prevails in the North, and largely as a result of the defeatist attitude in the Western papers over the last year or two, the Vietcong were almost bound to succeed. The Government in the North has been exceedingly obdurate and quite inexcusably unready to enter into negotiations.
I do not agree with all of my political friends, with whom, generally speaking, I sympathise on problems of this sort, that the United States is entirely in the wrong over this, and I think that our own attempts to act as honest broker, which were very well meant, might very well be more successful now. Anybody who knows anything about the toughness of the American people and the toughness of their Governments, ought to have discounted very considerably the newspaper reports, because it is quite obvious that when the United States has set itself to anything of this kind it is pretty well impossible to prevent its going through with it. But the fact that the Americans have succeeded in stopping the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong from conquering in the South does not in any sort of way solve this problem; and that, I think, has been made clear in all the speeches which have been made upon this subject.
The problem must be solved by agreement of a conference of some sort, and it does not seem to me that it is at all impossible to come to some arrangement about this. Now that it is quite clear that this Viet Cong attempt has failed, there should be a rather more sensible spirit in the North; and if the Government can find time from this obsessive problem of Rhodesia to "go it again", so to speak, and provide the media and negotiators for a conference, it
188
may very well be that something can be done. Of course, one very important aspect of this problem is that it is one of the sore spots in the very much improving relationship between the U.S.S.R. and the West. In a most interesting speech this afternoon, the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, was suggesting that the solution to the atomic war problem is a line-up between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. That is a most interesting idea. It is one which will obviously be very difficult to bring about, but it might surely start in Vietnam, because if you could bring the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. together in effecting some sort of sensible agreement which would enable Vietnam to be unified again, that might be the opening for the very sort of solution to this problem which the noble Duke was so interestingly putting before us.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, as the noble Lord says that he will be unable to stay, and he would not allow me to ask this question in the middle of his speech—
LORD CHORLEY: I am very sorry. I did not see the noble Lord.
LORD MILVERTON: —perhaps I may now ask him the question which I wanted to ask. What is the basis of his knowledge of Borneo and Malaya and Malaysia which enables him to state so-called facts, which, to my own personal knowledge, are utterly incorrect? Almost everything he said about Borneo is just not true, and I speak with some considerable experience. I was for several years the Governor of North Borneo and I spent 25 years of my life among Malayans in that area.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will just go and look in the Encyclopædia Britannica he will find the dates of the Protectorates. He will also find the date when the Dutch Army invaded Borneo, which I myself remember as a small boy. I think it was 1905. He will find it all there in the history books.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord that the Encylopædia Britannica is now owned by an American firm?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, may I remind the House that we ought to be getting on?
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will look in Chambers' he will find that this information is given in just the same way.
6.54 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, the field of debate to-day covers Defence and External Affairs, so I shall be in order, I think, during the few minutes for which I shall detain your Lordships if I revert to the most tragic event which is uppermost in all our minds. The noble Earl the Leader of the House called upon your Lordships to exercise restraint. I wonder why. What is there now left for us to restrain, except perhaps our tears? There was not much restraint about the Prime Minister's Statement this afternoon. Indeed, when I listened to the noble Earl reading out his words, those spiteful and vengeful words, I could not help comparing them with the sorrowful, the direct—yes, and the generous—words of Mr. Ian Smith in the broadcast this afternoon. If the tone of the two statements was a test of the merit of the two sides, then I have no doubt which side would have the right of it. Rebellion is an ugly word.
LORD CHORLEY: It is an ugly thing.
LORD COLERAINE: And rebellion is a very ugly thing. I know of only one thing uglier, and that is when a people surrenders, under the threat of force, its convictions, its tradition, and its heritage. It is often said that it takes two to make a quarrel. Where British people are concerned it takes two to make a rebellion. The Civil War was not caused by Hampden and Pym. The King and his Archbishop had something to do with it, too. The revolution of 1688 was not caused by Denbigh and Devonshire; it was caused by James II. And the rebellion of the American colonies was not caused only by the Americans.
I think we should search our hearts and see whether we can honestly say that the responsibility for this rebellion rests solely with Mr. Ian Smith and his Government. I do not believe that the decision was formed to-day, or that it was formed in Salisbury. I believe that it was formed over a long period of years, when a succession of Governments
190
sought to coerce a succession of Rhodesian Governments into courses of action which the Rhodesian Governments considered would be disastrous to the Rhodesian people as a whole. If you are to attribute blame for this rebellion, you have to go a good deal further back than to-day, and a good deal further back than last week. We brought pressure to bear upon a liberal and moderate Government under Sir Edgar Whitehead. We succeeded; we displaced it and we got a less liberal and less moderate Government. We then brought pressure on that Government. We succeeded in displacing it, and got Mr. Ian Smith's Government. Let us be honest with ourselves, my Lords, and let us accept a good deal of the responsibility for this tragedy ourselves.
There is another matter to which I think we might direct our minds, and it is this. When two different races are living together, it is a problem of the most appalling difficulty. It is a problem that we do not know, although we have touched the fringe of it—and even that slight peripheral contact provoked in our people here such a violent reaction that Her Majesty's Government were obliged to go back on their Election pledges and to introduce the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. Before we cast stones at others, I think we might examine our own consciences.
My Lords, there is something that I would say with all respect to Her Majesty's Government. They assume that behind them in this matter they have a united country. Let them not be too sure. Over the past few weeks, and, indeed, over the past few years, there has been only one voice on these matters from Parliament—Government and Opposition alike. There has been only one picture that has been drawn, and that has been of an Africa peacefully advancing to democratic freedom and security, obstructed only by a few white settlers in Rhodesia. That is an entirely false picture. But now, when the fog lifts and the silence is broken, as it will be, and when people begin to discuss not only one side but both sides of the question, I think the Government will find that the country is as deeply and as bitterly divided as it was 27 years ago; and they may find, too, that the country will turn and rend them when they know what has been done in

191
their name, as they turned and rent Mr. Chamberlain.
I wish I could see what the Government thought they were going to achieve by the measures which they have announced. At best, they will bring untold hardship to millions of Africans who have done them no harm: at worst, they will bring chaos to a continent. There is something that we need now more than revenge. What we have to do now is to try to build up the structure that has been destroyed through a long succession of blunders and misunderstandings. There is something I would say, too, to my own leaders. If they give blind support to a policy which is repugnant to a great body of Conservative opinion, and if they give Mr. Wilson a blank cheque to bring Mr. Ian Smith to his knees, they will wreck the Conservative Party.
7.5 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, has spoken with deep emotion, and I think we all appreciate that this is a situation of deep emotion, but I would assure him that there are some of us on these Benches who feel that emotion just as greatly as he does, even if we take a point of view opposite to that which he has expressed. But to-day is an occasion when I feel we should respond to my noble friend's invitation for restraint. During the course of the next week we shall have every opportunity of discussing this very tragic matter. Therefore, if the noble Lord will permit me to say so, it is not a wise thing to develop the Rhodesian question at this hour of the night in this particular debate. The noble Lord will himself have an opportunity of developing his arguments to an even greater length on Monday if he so desires; and it seems to me that the appeal for restraint must be responded to during the course of the debate this evening. I say this with the deepest respect, in full appreciation of the emotion which he has shown; and I assure him that those of us on this side of the House are not very light-hearted about what is going on.
My Lords, I am relieved at this moment of time in this debate to find that most of the things that I wanted to say have not been touched upon, and I hope not to take up too much of your
192
Lordships' time in expressing them. But before I come to the things that have not been touched upon, I wonder whether I might say a word or two about what I regard as the most important part of the gracious Speech. Something has not been said to-day which perhaps falls better from the lips of a man of my age. To-day is November 11. How easily we forget! As a man of my years, obviously my memory to-day goes back to where I was on November 11, 1918. It was on that day that I decided that I had a much greater interest in the future of disarmament than the British or any other armed forces. Therefore it was with great joy that I read in the gracious Speech the passage which was referred to by the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, earlier on—the passage which deals with disarmament. In the final analysis that paragraph is probably the most important, for whatever follows in the gracious Speech is of little avail if the nations of the world do not at this time turn seriously to the question of disarmament. This is not something just in the interests of our own country; this is something which affects the future of the whole of mankind.
I have been concerned in recent years that the word "disarmament" seems to have become, or had become, a dirty word; but it is refreshing to find that, thank heavens!, owing to some welcome improvement in international relations, it has been possible to give it such prominence in the gracious Speech. I would remind your Lordships that this is the first British Government to appoint a Minister for Disarmament; and the appointment of my noble friend Lord Chalfont emphasises this Government's determination in the field of disarmament. On the following passage, with regard to nuclear weapons, I remember, as a Member of the other place, how my late right honourable friend Hugh Gaitskell foresaw the need for limiting the number of nations which should have possession of this menace, the nuclear weapon. But I would remind the noble Duke, were he here, that his views at that time were not exactly encouraged by the then Government of the day. But my right honourable friend was right: the greater the number of nations with nuclear weapons, the greater is the menace—and that point does not need to be developed.

193
I will now turn to what I feel is a new subject in this debate, but one which has a close relationship with Foreign Affairs. It is something which is not often mentioned in your Lordships' House and it appears to have reached a stage where it seems to be of very little importance. It is that, since the breakdown of the Common Market negotiations, the only real political or Parliamentary contact that we have with Europe as a whole seems to be through the Council of Europe. I served there for some time as one of the British delegates and was then a colleague of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, who is winding up for the Opposition to-night. If I may say so, a friendship was then established that has never ceased; and I hope he may agree with the things I want to say with regard to the Council of Europe, the only link we have as Parliamentarians with the whole of Europe. We met there our opposite numbers, both members of EFTA and members of the Treaty of Rome, and we learned to value each other's views. Many lasting and valuable friendships were created in that assembly.
It is impossible at this hour to attempt to enumerate the very many accomplishments of the Council of Europe over the years, but because they may be quickly forgotten I would recommend to your Lordships a book written by Mr. A. L. Roberts, Secretary of Committees of the Council of Europe, on the accomplishments and set-up of the Council. My deep concern is that both the British Press and Parliament pay scant attention to the activities of the Council of Europe. I express the hope—I should want to say more but for the hour—that there will be an increased interest to maintain the only real relationships we have with our Parliamentary colleagues in the Continent of Europe. I believe these relationships are of tremendous value.
My Lords, may I for a few moments turn to Commonwealth questions? The thoughts of most people are to-day, obviously, on Southern Rhodesia. I am avoiding this subject; for what I am saying about other parts of the Commonwealth applies equally strongly to Southern Rhodesia. But I welcome the fact that since 1945 policies of both Conservative and Labour Governments have resulted in the independence of over 700 million people. My researches now
194
tell me that the territories for which the Colonial Office remains responsible have a population of only 10 million. Yet the number of territories is 31. Of these 10 million, over half are in Hong Kong and South Arabia. This means that the remaining 29 territories have less than 5 million people between them. And one of the most difficult problems which must be faced is the working-out of satisfactory arrangements for the future of our smaller dependent territories which, in some cases, have a population of only a few thousand. Yet most of them have ambitions of independence.
I welcome the present negotiations taking place in London on British Guiana, while I deeply regret the absence of Dr. Cheddi Jagan about whom I hold views different from those held by many people. I think it would have been most valuable had Dr. Jagan been at the London Conference, because I regard him as a man of great ability and a great believer in his own country and its future. But they are about to fix the date for their independence. I only hope that independence will bring much greater happiness to that territory. The Mauritius Constitutional Conference which met during the Parliamentary Recess decided on independence for that territory. Now I am told by the Colonial Office that progress is being made on independence for the South African territories of Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland. All this is a result of the policy, which has been adopted since 1945, of giving greater independence to our territories overseas.
Elsewhere there are many problems; but is it not true that in this particular type of territory progress towards independence is hampered more by internal, racial and religious differences and dissensions than by unwillingness for constitutional progress? Fiji is an example of this with the lack of trust there between the Fijians and the Indians. Perhaps the best example of all is that of South Arabia, whose progress towards independence is hampered not because of differences of view between Governments but, mainly, because of terrorist activities and the like. I would say, in passing, that I welcome the visit being paid to Aden at the moment by my noble friend Lord Beswick. I hope that the visits of our Ministers to Aden which have been going

195
on will ultimately result in greater happiness there and a move toward peaceful independence.
I have only one other thing I want to say. It arises from the fact that over many years I have had an interest in the West Indies. I know it is perhaps asking too much of my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to answer my question to-night, but perhaps he might be good enough to hand it on to see if I can get an answer. What sort of progress has been made with regard to the Little Six, the Leeward and the Windward Isles? Here, again, is an example of the problems encountered in the advance towards independence of the smaller territories. I say it with the deepest respect to our politicians and statesmen over there, but really it is a question of big fish in little ponds. And it is ridiculous to think of the whole panoply of Prime Minister and Government in the case of some of these smaller islands which have populations nothing like as great as that of an English provincial town. They cannot possibly be economically viable. I should like to see a much faster move towards the federation of those islands so that they might be in a more viable position for the attaining of independence.
My Lords, there were many other things I wanted to say, but it is 7.20 in the evening and I feel I have had my share of the time of the House. I close by saying briefly how much I appreciate the trade negotiations which are going on with Southern Ireland at this time, and how I agree with my noble friend Lord Taylor that the establishment of a Commonwealth Secretariat cannot fail to do great work. I apologise to your Lordships if my speech has been a little rambling and if I have spoken at some, length. But these matters are of great concern to me and I sincerely hope that I may be excused for having mentioned them, even if it is only because nobody else has.
7.20 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I propose to leave anything I may wish say about Rhodesia to a later opportunity which one will have in the days to come, but I should like just to associate myself with every word that was uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and to say
196
that I deeply appreciated his very moving expression of a point of view which I fully share. I have only one comment to make at this moment. It is that we all know that an absentee landlord in an agricultural country has been regarded as an affliction. But, my Lords, analogously, an absentee political master is a worse affliction to a British community in, say, Africa because of the probability of a complete lack of basic understanding of the circumstances and the atmosphere of the country for which they exercise, very unwisely, a little brief authority from this country.
My Lords, in the gracious Speech there is a reference to strengthening the United Nations, and I am particularly glad of the opportunity given to me by Lord Shepherd's eulogy of the United Nations to express my point of view, which is something less than praise. I was struck by the answer given to a supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, a few days ago when a question was answered by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, on behalf of the Government. It was whether they were taking any steps to initiate military forces under the control of the United Nations Organisation. The reply was that the circumstances did not at the moment allow it, but they had every sympathy. Then the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, asked, "Do the present Government really think that military forces can safely be entrusted to the United Nations Organisation?", and the Government's reply was, "Yes". My Lords, I regarded that reply without enthusiasm.
It is only three years ago that the then Foreign Minister of this country spoke like this:
"When we have reached a stage when a large part of the organisation which is dedicated to peace openly condones aggression, when an organisation which was founded to sustain law and order encourages politics which must endanger it, or when a refusal by many to carry their share of the cost brings the prospect of power without responsibility, it is an understatement to say that there is cause for anxiety."
The Prime Minister of the day of this country said:
"The effective operation of the Security Council has been made impossible by the Russian veto, used, I think, in all 100 times. … The whole foundation on which the United Nations was built has been undermined. … We can only reach some kind

197
of working arrangement not through the United Nations, but through direct negotiations between East and West."
The deep divisions on the Security Council have led to another development different from that envisaged in its Charter—that is, the most dangerous development, as I see it, of the Assembly into a kind of semi-executive authority. The United Nations Organisation is based on the principle of equal national sovereignty, but "One nation, one vote" does not correspond to the power position of the world. Some of the greatest Powers, such as West Germany and China, are not even members, and it is because they knew that rule by the Assembly was unworkable that the founders of the United Nations put all their faith in the Security Council.
This is the catalogue officially given in this country only a few years ago. At the end of 1961, 52 countries out of 104 had not paid their ordinary contributions for that year, and 6 had not paid for two years. Out of 104 on the Congo account, 79 were in default. On the Middle East account—that is, the force interposed between Israel and Egypt—65 were still in deficit. There is no way of compelling defaulting States to pay their contributions, or to prohibit them from voting. Here, again, is what has been called power without responsibility. I am emphasising this analysis of the United Nations because it is from United Nations that the most vicious and abusive attack has been made upon Rhodesia during the past few months.
The record of the United Nations in the political sphere is not one of the successes claimed by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, this afternoon. It is largely a record of failure and inefficiency, and the rulings of the International Court, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred so feelingly and with such respect, have been treated with no respect by anyone else in the United Nations. The rulings have been largely ignored. You have only to look at the numbers of them, from Abadan, from Suez, from the Suez Canal, the barring of Israeli ships, and all the rest of it right down to Kashmir and other occasions to-day. These things have been ignored. And the resolutions of the United Nations have been treated with an equal disrespect. My Lords, it is a
198
mistake to suppose that the United Nations is a barrier to aggression; it is merely a hindrance to action at the present moment, a home of pressure groups, and a place where the Charter of Human Rights is a mockery. The majority of the member countries are not democracies and they deny to their own peoples the freedom they preach to others. All this surely puts a premium on irresponsibility.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who spoke about the seeds of war, and said that the chief seed of war was poverty. I emphatically disagree with that. The chief seed of war is human nature and its incurable habit of cultivating a lust for power. It is that lust for power which is now aflicting the Secretariat of the United Nations. I think it was in the time of Hammarskjoeld that he tried to build up, what has been called, an international priesthood, mostly of detribalised intellectuals, and we were told that service to the United Nations was not incompatible with attachment to one's own country whose higher interests lie in serving the United Nations—only one needs detachment from national prejudices and narrow national interests.
Can we dare think that this superlatively denationalised group of political eunuchs are supposed to be going to run this world through the United Nations in future? One is reminded of the old lines:
"A wider are their spirit swings,
"Commands a juster view—
"We have their word for all these things.
"Of course, their words are true."
The thought of any army, or any other force, under the exclusive command of the United Nations, and of that command vested in the Secretary-General, fills one with apprehension. It is an attempt to turn the United Nations Secretariat into a world power. And a deplorably reckless ambition it is.
How can we justify keeping out of a so-called world organisation one-fifth of the human race? How can we keep out Red China, which has broken no rules, while seventeen nations who have earned dismissal, under UNO's own rules, for failing to pay their subscriptions, remain in the United Nations organisation? It is said that China would be a disruptive influence. Is the United Nations not already full of disruptive influences, which

199
are rewarded with the greatest publicity? In any case, the richest country in the world to-day, West Germany, is not a member. I refer to West Germany as the richest country in the world because I believe that, per head of population, her currency reserves are more than that of any other country. The idea of the "One man, one vote" procedure is such manifest nonsense in the United Nations—one nation, one vote!—that it spreads a lack of confidence in it. A majority of the General Assembly can be made up of States that provide less than 3 per cent. of the money—and many of them do not even pay any. The extremists make considerable impact because of the noise they make. Then who will authorise the use of United Nations troops? Who will call them out?
The last chance, surely, for real and lasting arbitration in international affairs lies in dispensing with the services of the United Nations, except in purely technical matters, where admittedly their work has been often very good. Regional organisations, such as used to take on this job of trying to maintain the peace—the Organisation of American States, the British Commonwealth, the Common Market and so on—are far more likely to have success. The United Nations was conceived in the false notion that the world was moving along well-ordered paths to natural brotherhood, democracy and the rule of law. The uncomfortable truth is that there is less genuine democracy today than there was in 1914. Of the 120 independent States, 60 are one-party dictatorships, and more than half the population of the globe live under authoritarian Governments.
Then, my Lords, what is the point of an assembly of minor representatives engaged in permanent squabbles, while real power lies outside of them? The would-be makers of policies are not those who have to pay the political price for their implementation; nor are they those who have the means to carry them out. There is a point in relation to the policy adopted by General de Gaulle in France over the Common Market countries, a point which Moscow and Paris tried to establish through last year's climax on the "financial crises" in the United Nations: they believe that world policing, and taxation for it, must remain in the hands of the
200
big Powers of the United Nations Security Council. The French initiative may be motivated, it is true, by the same caution towards a supranationalist Civil Service that has caused Gaullist attacks on the Eurocrats of the Common Market. No great Power can be forced into making what are called voluntary payments to the United Nations.
In conclusion, any attempt to arm and build up the United Nations Organisation into a World Power will be the greatest menace to world peace that we have ever invented. It is surely far better to keep the United Nations out of politics and confine its activities to technical matters: health, education, communications, exploitation of natural resources for the common good, fisheries, meteorology and such things. For Heaven's sake! let us see to it that the United Nations is not given any more power to do damage by interfering in contentious political matters.
7.38 p.m.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I seem to have lost my military friends and shall have to operate alone, but as an ex-submariner I am used to that, and in some ways I prefer it. I am glad that it has fallen to my lot to speak to-day, because, like the noble Lord, Lord Royle, I remember that to-day is November 11 and the 47th anniversary of Armistice Day, 1918. Like him, I have vivid recollections of that day, though they are different from his. My Armistice Day was spent at the Submarine Depôt at Harwich with the 9th Submarine Flotilla and I well remember the jollifications at having fought and won a war, which we were shortly afterwards told was the war to end all wars, though it has not quite worked out that way.
I remember even better, within the following week, receiving some 130 U-boats which came in to surrender. I took over eight of them with my prize crew. Your Lordships will remember that those U-boats were the remnants of the force which nearly brought us to our knees in 1917 by severing our Atlantic lifeline, and they were the forerunners of the larger force which nearly achieved the same thing in 1942. Twice in my lifetime we have nearly lost what has come to be called the Battle of the Atlantic. Small wonder, therefore, that my friends and I

201
take a close interest in our Defence preparations, particularly those in the submarine sphere, since it is well known that the Russians have over 400 sea-going submarines. I think the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who spoke from the Liberal Benches earlier, overlooked this fact in the remarks he had to make about our presence in the Indian Ocean. I do not in this debate, and at this hour of the night, want to go into a lot of detail, and I will confine myself to saying that the Russian submarine force is clearly large enough to operate, not only in the Atlantic, but in all the oceans of the world.
Another reason why I am glad to speak on Defence to-day is that two days ago was the 25th anniversary of the Fleet Air Arm attack on the Italian battle fleet at Taranto. There, in their outdated and ill-equipped Swordfish aircraft—generally referred to as "string-bags" they well and truly started the rot in the Italian fleet which culminated in that famous signal from ABC—better known in this House as Lord Cunningham of Hyndhope, Admiral of the Fleet—to the Secretary of the Admiralty:
"Be pleased to inform their Lordships that the Italian battle fleet now lies at anchor under the guns of the Fortress of Malta."
Now it is sad to think that there are no longer any Lords of the Admiralty and such a grand signal could not be sent.
Mention of Malta brings me to a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, on the subject of bases. I was not quite quick enough in intervening in the noble Lord's speech. He rather accused my Party of changing their view about bases. I do not know about my Party, but in self-defence I must remind your Lordships that again and again in Defence debates I have emphasised what I have described as the diminishing base factor, and the need for proper provision of Fleet support, or what some of us old-fashioned ones call the Fleet train. The last time I spoke on Defence, I briefly referred to this question of bases, and I said that I thought that Malta might be a better bet than Cyprus.
To come now to the gracious Speech, I do not find many references there to this all-important question of Defence, with the notable exception of a measure to reorganise the Army Reserve and the Auxiliary Forces. I listened with great attention to what the noble Lord, Lord
202
Shepherd, had to say on this matter, and I was particularly interested in his account of the grilling (if that is the right word) he was given by some Territorial soldiers when he visited them during September. I think the reason why he got a grilling, and the reason why there is so much disturbance and anxiety about the Territorial Forces, is the lack of proper public relations. I do not think the intention to reorganise the Territorial Army was put across in a very intelligent way. In industrial circles, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, will know, we call this good or bad communications. I think there have been bad communications in this case.
I am not going to speak at length on the Territorial Army. The measure referred to in the gracious Speech will no doubt be debated in this House, and although I am a sailor, I may well intervene in that debate because I have had a long interest in the Territorial Forces, the Special Reserve and so on, as my father was a member of one of the units up to the day of his death. But I find it almost impossible to understand how such a measure could be produced until this famous Defence Review is complete. Nevertheless, although this measure is presumably in print somewhere, I hope it is not too late for the Government and their advisers to study what happened in North America a few days ago when this catastrophic power cut came. I read all the accounts of it I could, and no doubt there was chaos and confusion, which is naturally similar to what might happen in this country in the case of nuclear attack. I think it is greatly to the credit of the American authorities that, according to every account I have read, the National Guard, or the American equivalent of the Territorial Army, was on the job directing traffic, looking after the public, dealing with riots in gaols, and so on.
I also note that the gracious Speech states that the Government intend to work for a generally satisfactory organisation of the nuclear resources of the allies. This is not the time to probe into what is happening in the M.L.F. and A.N.F., although, as I said on the last occasion when I spoke, I devoutly hope that both have been sunk without trace. Nevertheless, I shall await the Government's proposals with interest and

203
anxiety, since the real problem is not so much the equipment and manning of these Forces, as the command structure. In fact, I asked a question in the last Defence debate about that very point, and did not receive an answer. But, whether you call the force M.L.F. or A.N.F., or whatever its equipment and manning is, this is really the million dollar question: what is the command structure?
My Lords, there are a number of other matters to which I should like to refer, but I refrain from doing so because I realise that until this Defence Review is complete one cannot get an answer. From what has been said, I think, unfortunately, that we shall not see this Review before February next, when no doubt we shall be able to debate it in depth and detail. But on rereading our debate yesterday, I see that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said (I heard him say it, but I have checked his actual words) that no one hoped for the Review debate more than he did, and perhaps it may come sooner. This long period of gestation is, however, causing a lot of speculation, anxiety and uncertainty, not only in this country but among our allies and in the Commonwealth.
My noble friend Lord Teynham mentioned some of the concern in the Fleet, and that the Ministry of Defence had had to send a signal to the Fleet trying to allay their alarm. But, like my noble friend, I read in my Sunday newspaper that aircraft carriers were out; that naval pilots and aircrew who might prove redundant would be offered jobs in the R.A.F. This, I admit, considerably shocked me last Sunday morning. But with the evening post the day before I received a little magazine to which I subscribe. It is called Navy News, and is published for the Fleet in Portsmouth—and most useful and interesting it is. In that publication, I found a full report of a speech which the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Defence for the Navy had made to the R.N.V.R. Officers' Club. Although I have not seen any reports of this speech in the National Press, it was fully reported in this publication which I have here.
He said:
"The new aircraft carrier programme was right in the centre of the stage of the Defence
204
Review. No decision has been made, but we are considering CVA 01 and CVA 02."
I am very glad to hear it, though I wish we could get rid of these rotten Americanisms. The report went on to say that the Minister, "speaking deliberately", said:
"To end the speculation of the last few months, we are also considering, without commitment, whether a second-hand American carrier would improve our capability for a few years in the early 1970s. Second-hand carriers would do as stopgaps—they will not do as substitutes for new carriers."
These sentiments are absolutely unexceptionable, so far as I am concerned. I find them in this little Naval newspaper, and not elsewhere.
The Minister made two further remarks in this speech which, with your Lordships' permission, I will quote. Referring to the Far East he said:
"By simply being there in these waters the Navy stops the war spreading. That was the great task our Armed Forces were performing in many parts of the world—not fighting wars, but preventing them."
Finally, he said:
"Whatever Government was in power, the Navy was inevitably called upon to do too much with too little."
My Lords, I could not agree more with that statement.
I was brought up in the firm belief that there was nothing that the Navy could not do. I still believe that the Navy can do anything, but it can do it better if it is given the proper tools; and that is what I ask this Government to do. I can only hope that, when the Defence Review finally appears, it will show that this Government are on the same wavelength as the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy.
During the time of the first two Socialist Governments after the recent war (such is my age now) I had many Service friends kinsmen, acquaintances, and even contemporaries, who were serving in the higher echelon of our Defence organisation. One and all told me that they had the highest possible opinion and the greatest regard for the Socialist Ministers in charge of the Defence Departments at that time. I fully accept what I have been told. I am too old to have any "buddies" or pals in the higher echelons of the Ministry of Defence to-day, but I can only hope and pray that they still have the

205
same feeling about their Socialist masters. I hope so, because I hope that our preparations for defence will be adequate. They have not always been so, and I distribute my criticisms on any Government in office, since I have been conscious of Governments, that any noble Lord cares to mention.
That brings me nearly to an end of what I have to say. I recently read a book called Spotlight on Singapore, which is a well written, personal story of the tragic capitulation of that fortress, largely due to inadequate preparations of one sort or another. The author of this work quoted some words which seem to me to be worth while and applicable to our present situation. Perhaps I could put it better by saying that they might be a useful warning to our present Government. The words were written, not by the author of this book, but by another writer on maritime matters. He said:
"Inadequate peacetime provision for wartime requirements is an inevitable symptom of democracy. It is the people themselves, subject to the hopeful, fumbling, imperfect workings of democracy, who are fully responsible for their own defence. They understandably and invariably demand security at the lowest possible cost. Yet it is these same people who, when the time comes, die bravely and unquestioningly in unescorted ships, in obsolete aircraft and behind outranged guns."
My Lords, I hope and pray that when this Defence Review appears it will show that our young men, maybe our children, will have no chance of being asked to do what I have just read out. Therefore, I await the Defence Review with interest, but I cannot conceal that I shall study it with a very critical eye.
7.56 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: My Lords, I feel that before starting I should declare an interest, as I happen to be a serving officer in the Territorial Army. I, too, have to make an apology that, owing to the late hour, I do not think I shall be able to stay for the completion of this debate. I have to return North to-night to make arrangements for Remembrance Day on Sunday, to which earlier reference has been made.
I have the honour to command one of the many battalions whose services, are no longer required under this proposed reorganisation or, should I say, the disbandment of the Territorial Army. That, in fact, is the case—the Territorial Army
206
is to be disbanded, and the Army Emergency Reserve is to be reorganised. In my opinion, the word "reorganised" appears to have been used as a slight smokescreen under which the Government can do what they wish with the Reserve Army. I understand that the basis for the Government's thinking is that they feel there is no longer any need for a Home Defence Force as such. I feel that no real argument has so far been put forward to support this case. I would contend that it is very difficult to make out an adequate case. I say this because, in my opinion, no matter what form of attack may occur, whatever happens to this country, there will always be a need for organised and disciplined groups of persons ready and willing to do any task that may be required of them. I also add that the knowledge that these groups or persons exist may well have been in itself, and may well be in the future, a deterrent.
I understand that the Government, in making proposals, have taken note of some of the advice given to them by soldiers who are at the moment serving in the Army abroad. I would ask this question: are Her Majesty's Government sure that this advice is true? Are they not hearing what they would like to hear? I would also ask whether they know if these soldiers have had any experience in dealing with the voluntary forces. I wonder whether their thoughts are not engendered by the fact that at present they cannot control these forces—they can only train them and lead them in war. I must ask the Government whether they will think of this when considering what we have to do.
My final point (I do not wish to keep your Lordships long) is that there is an opinion going around that Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's officials within what I would term the "Ministry of No Defence", would not be at all sorry if the Territorial Army stopped to-morrow, and are not particularly keen that the suggested new reorganisation for the Army Emergency Reserve should work. I hope that it will be possible for Her Majesty's Government to deny this suggestion, and to do so with some conviction. Because meantime, I would remind your Lordships, some of us have to go on and keep these forces in being. We will do our best, but we look very

207
much for support from Her Majesty's Government, who in fact command us.
8.1 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, you will be relieved to hear that I am not going to make a speech. I had intended to talk about Rhodesia, but since the events to-day I feel like one of the inhabitants of New York in the recent blackout, and I think it will be much better to keep quiet until the lights go up on Monday and I speak in that debate. As I am on my feet, I would record my very deep sympathy with the loyal subjects in Rhodesia that the negotiations have broken down.
8.2 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I have not had the honour of addressing your Lordships for some time, but I want to reassure noble Lords who have had the fortitude to remain in the Chamber that I have no intention of trying to make up for lost time by addressing your Lordships at great length. There are several points which have been raised in this debate and which I should like to take up before Lord Walston comes to reply. I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, with great interest. I found myself in sympathy with him when he asked Her Majesty's Government to make a declaration of intent; and here I share the views of my noble friend, Lord Dundee, when he referred yesterday to the observation in the gracious Speech referring to the E.E.C. It goes so far, but in my view and in the view of many of my noble friends it does not go far enough. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Walston, will be able to tell us whether he feels that Her Majesty's Government can make a declaration which is somewhat more clear and definite than we had in the gracious Speech.
I should like to go back to the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who wound up for Her Majesty's Government in the debate yesterday. He said that all that we considered in the question of Defence and of Foreign Affairs must depend upon our having a sound economy at home, and of course this is absolutely unexceptionable. We must all agree that this is so. On the whole, I have little criticism to make
208
about such parts of the gracious Speech as referred to Foreign Affairs and to our external relations, but, alas!, I have little confidence in the policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to putting our financial position in a sound posture, and because of this I fear that many of the good intentions that Her Majesty's Govment may have will not be able to be carried out. This is a source of great sorrow to me, for I feel that progress is being made in the world and that we are edging slowly towards an era where peace may be achieved, if only because of the balance of terror to which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, referred. This balance of terror does exist.
I would refer again to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, as I see he is back in his place. He put certain interpretations on the remarks of my right honourable friend, Mr. Enoch Powell. I am certain that he had no intention whatsoever of putting a false interpretation on those words, but it may be that an emphasis was put on them by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, which was not intended by my right honourable friend. I would say to the noble Lord that I am with him and I am with Mr. Enoch Powell in the belief that it is necessary seriously to reconsider our whole defence position, and it is for this reason that we all await with such impatience the publication of the Defence Review.
Many noble Lords, far more qualified than I am, have spoken with great anxiety about the delay in the publication of this Report. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in a very able and restrained speech particularly referred to this. My noble friend, Lord Ampthill, and others have said that great harm is being done to the Armed Services by withholding this vital information. The noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, for whom I have the greatest regard, said absolutely honestly—and I know he meant this—that no one wished more than he did that this Report should see the light of day; and I feel that this is probably the view of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and other noble Lords on the Government side. I beg them to do all in their power to ensure that this Report is held up no longer. Perhaps at this late hour it is not the time to think of possible reasons why the Report has not seen the light of day, but it will not profit them

209
anything to hold it up longer. I beg them to use all the influence they have to see that it is published.
LORD SHEPHERD: Will the noble Marquess allow me to interrupt?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: If the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will contain himself, may I say that I know this Report is complicated, and I am not suggesting that indecent speed should be indulged in, but I think we have waited long enough.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the objection I was taking to the remarks of the noble Marquess was in connection with his use of the words "held up". They seemed to contain some implication that we were deliberately withholding the Report. This is not true. It is a complex report, is takes discussion and analysis, and it takes time.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Of course I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, and it was not my intention to give a false impression.
My Lords, I am afraid it is going to be difficult for me not to have rather a jumbled speech—there have been 19 speakers—but I want to emphasise one or two of the observations which have been made by my noble friends on this side of the House, and to remind the noble Lord, Lord Walston, when he comes to reply, of certain questions which have been put to him because unfortunately, for reasons which have been explained, some of the people who put those questions are now absent. In the first place I would remind the noble Lord of the question put to him by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, on what he considers to be the position of Her Majesty's Government in the nuclear sphere. I think this evening we should have some clarification from the noble Lord, Lord Walston, on that point. Also the noble Earl put the question, what exactly do Her Majesty's Government consider our NATO commitments to be? I would repeat a view which I share wholeheartedly with him, and that is that there should be no question of any reduction in our commitments to NATO unilaterally. They should be made only if it is thought wise by all concerned, and only then in agreement should this come about.
210
I should also like the noble Lord, Lord Walston, to apply his mind this evening to the question of arms being bought in such large quantities by the European Powers from the United States of America. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give us some assurance on this point. Is it the intention of the Government to continue this policy, or are the Government prepared to consider the proposal put by my noble friend that we should buy from the United States of America only in the proportion that she is prepared to buy from us? I should like very much to hear the views of Her Majesty's Government on this point. Also, there is the possibility of an increase in the size of the NATO Mobile Force. I think noble Lords on this side would be grateful if they could have some information on this subject also.
Still dealing with questions of Defence, several noble Lords of very considerable experience have spoken with very much concern about the proposals of the Government in connection with the Territorial Army. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in his concluding remarks will be able to give us some indication that the Government are prepared to look at this problem again.
The noble Lord, Lord Royle, an old friend of mine in the Council of Europe, spoke on a line quite on his own. His speech interested me particularly; it was quite a different line from that of other interesting speeches. I wholeheartedly agree with him. At least the experience I had in the Council of Europe was very valuable indeed. This is an organisation which I think has been given insufficient attention in the Press of this country. It may have been perhaps through our own fault, because when we came back from the Council of Europe we did not speak sufficiently about it and try to convey to our colleagues in both Houses the importance of this organisation. It may be so. I hope this may be corrected.
As the right honourable gentleman, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, has said on so many occasions, this island of ours has too much experience and too much to give to contract out of its world wide responsibilities, and I am quite certain that it is not the intention of the Government that any such thing should happen.

211
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked my noble friend Lord Jellicoe whether it was still the view of the Opposition that we should fulfil our obligations to Malaysia. He got a categorical, "Yes". Of course this is so, and I for one am glad that the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister has so faithfully carried out our duties and obligations in that part of the world—a very difficult problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd knows, and as I know too. I do not myself despair of the possibility of some reasonable solution in that part of the world. I believe we are buying time. I believe we must impress upon the people of Indonesia that they cannot succeed in their intention and we must hold fast here.
There is a great tragedy being enacted before our eyes in this part of the world. Indonesia is potentially one of the richest countries in that part of the world. If only it were properly administered and the natural wealth and resources could be developed, what a difference it would make! I know the feelings of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the intervention of the United States of America in Vietnam, and here, too, it is my view the Americans are buying time. It is not very difficult, if one looks at the map, to see what could be happening in this part of the world; on the one hand, the United States of America are holding a very serious situation in check, and, on the other hand, we with our allies are fulfilling the same duties, the same function, in Malaysia. I should like to say here, and put it on record, how pleased I was that the great Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand decided they were able to participate more fully in the activities in this part of the world. I have often felt that we have carried too much of the burden alone, and I think that at last perhaps it is being realised by the older members of the Commonwealth that they too must play their part.
Yesterday, in what was a very remarkable speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey—and although he is not here, I would pay my tribute to the great contribution I thought he made to the deliberations in your Lordships' House; we are very fortunate to have him with us with his great experience of O.E.E.C.
212
and O.E.C.D.—I was particularly glad that Japan was referred to as having joined this organisation. When one looks at the words in the gracious Speech one sees that it is the determination of Her Majesty's Government to co-operate with other industrial countries to help those countries less fortunate than they and ourselves.
In the time of Sir Alec Douglas-Home's Foreign Secretaryship a close association was set up between ourselves and the Japanese. I understand that this has continued. I sincerely hope that we shall continue to consult closely with them, for if we look at the map again (and one must have a proper Weltanschauung; it is no use looking at a little bit; one has to look at the whole thing), we can see that the emphasis of importance is going more and more into that side of the globe. And here I believe the Japanese have a considerable rôle to play; they are a great industrial people, hard-working, and will be able to assist in raising the standard of living of the peoples in that part of the world.
We come back all the time to the same thing. If in this country we are not able to re-establish our economic position we shall not be able to do any of the things we ought to be doing in the rest of the world. This is not a Party political matter; this is something in which we are all engaged together, and I, for one, most certainly do not denigrate the National Plan that Her Majesty's Government have produced. Alas! I have little or no faith in the economic ideas of Her Majesty's Government, because I feel that the ordinary feelings of human nature are so discounted. The incentives that man must have to work hard are often taken away; and this, it seems to me, is where we are going to fall down. If this country is going to be able to play its full part—and there is a great deal of good will in the country—men must be given sufficient encouragement to work hard, and must be able to save, to put away some money, and hand it on to their children.
To move to a rather lighter note (though I was not in the Chamber when the point was raised), I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred to the possibility of creating a Commonwealth University. This is something that

213
I have often thought about, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has often thought about it; and I am glad to hear it was discussed this afternoon. It seems to me that this is clearly something to which perhaps Her Majesty's Government might give serious consideration. I understand that Lord Taylor's idea is that members of such a University would feel a special bond of Commonwealth: they would feel not only loyalty to their own country, but also loyalty to the Commonwealth University. They would be mixed up together, in very much the same way as Lord Royle and I were mixed up with European Parliamentarians. I think that it did us a world of good. I have no doubt that, if it could be brought into existence, a scheme of this nature might be most imaginative and helpful. I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Walston, to be able to give an opinion on it to-day, but I hope that this suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will be seriously considered.
I promised that I would not detain your Lordships long, and I have no intention of speaking any further. I would only say that we on this side of the House shall not oppose simply for the sake of opposing, but we shall watch the progress of Her Majesty's Government with great vigilance. Where we feel that Her Majesty's Government are going the right way, we shall support them and give our assistance and our counsel; but I warn Her Majesty's Government that there is much that causes grave disquiet, and where we are in disagreement we shall be active and strong in our opposition.
8.21 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, this debate, a long debate, divides itself naturally into two sections: one dealing in general terms with defence, and one dealing in general terms with foreign policy. I think it would be most convenient if I were to deal in that order with the points that have been raised during these last hours, and I will do my best to answer the specific questions that have been put to me. Your Lordships will forgive me if I omit some of them—some perhaps because the time is getting late, some perhaps because of
214
my own faulty memory or inability to read properly my notes. I must confess that I am not assisted in answering them by the natural and excusable absence of so many of the people who have asked these questions because they will not be here to prompt me and remind me of what I have left out, though I must thank the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, for his valuable recapitulation of some of the more important questions which have been put to me.
It seems to me that everybody agrees that we were right to have a Defence Review. Where we are being criticised is that that Review has taken too long to produce. Where we have almost been criticised—tentatively criticised, shall I say?—in advance, is that maybe that Review will be too narrow. I have forgotten which noble Lord it was who said, quite rightly and properly, that the Defence Review must not be purely a review of military commitments but must be a review embracing our whole position in the world, the whole of our foreign policy, our Commonwealth policy, our overseas aid policy and all the rest of it. That is absolutely right, and that is the reason why it is taking such a long time to do this.
I freely admit that it would have been better if such a Review, in a depth of that kind, had been carried out by previous Administrations. Then possibly we should not have got into some of the anomalies that we have got into at the present time. But we strongly believe that it is far better, in a matter as vital as this, that we should conduct this Review properly, balancing up all these enormously complex and conflicting aspects of the problem, and should come out in the end, whether noble Lords opposite or noble Lords behind me agree with it or not, at least with what is a well-thought-out and substantiated Review, than that we should quickly rush off in a matter of a few months ideas which are going to affect the security and welfare of this country for generations to come. So I make no apology for the length of time that this Review is taking and, without anticipating too much, I make no apology for the quality of the Review when it eventually appears, which I hope will be early in the new year.
The other general criticism that seems to me to have been made is that we are

215
spending too little money on Defence, and that there are so many things that we ought to be doing; and many noble Lords with their own particular knowledge and expertise have pointed to the things which we are neglecting to do. But, as the noble Marquess so rightly said, the crux of the whole matter is our own national economy. As noble Lords pointed out yesterday, and as they will point out in the course of debates to come, we must have money for our own national economic development.
We have been taken to task for cutting down on the road programme. We have been taken to task for cutting down on the education programme. We have been taken to task for cutting down on the housing programme. All the way through there are many people, in all parts of the House, who will criticise us for cutting down on domestic affairs, or on their own particular matters in which they have great interest—and a most objective interest, too. But it is not possible to do all that is wanted by the users of roads; by those who believe that we must have education in order to survive; by those who believe that the way to peace is by helping the underdeveloped countries, as the noble Duke so rightly said; and by those who believe that we must have a strong Defence Force, and, on top of all that, as the noble Marquess said, give greater incentives to production.
His doubts on the success of our economic policies were based on the fact that we were not giving sufficient incentives, by which I take it he meant that taxation was too high—I see that the noble Marquess nods assent. How is it going to be possible for us, if we are realistic about this, and if we are honest about it, to go ahead with an expanding Defence programme, an expanding domestic programme, and, at the same time, reduce taxation at home? It does not add up. The fault of the previous Administration was that it allowed itself to get into that situation, and that is why we have had, in regard to Defence and so many other ways, to take this drastic action.
Although I agreed with many of the things in the noble Marquess's speech, I cannot share with him his apparent low opinion of the people of this country. According to him, they cannot work
216
either for the good of the country or for the good of the community in which they live; for the society in which they live or the ideals in which they believe. Apparently, according to his doctrine, they can work only if they are bribed with money to work. I have greater confidence in the people of this country than he has.
I turn now to some of the questions which have been asked. In the nuclear sphere what are our intentions? These will be debated at greater length, of course, in the course of a week or so. But our intentions are quite simple. We believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is dangerous to the peace of the world, and therefore we are bending all our efforts—my noble friend Lord Chalfont, in particular, is devoting all his time to this at the present time—to getting agreement on a non-dissemination treaty. At the same time, we believe, as a responsible member of NATO, that in NATO there must be not a dissemination of new weapons but, given suitable safeguards, a proper sharing of the nuclear potential of NATO, so that it continues to develop into a genuine defence organisation rather than just a series of alliances.
There are difficult and conflicting points of view about that, not so much in this country but, as has been pointed out, in particular between some of our NATO allies, on the one side, and the Soviet Union, on the other. What we wish to do is clear. I still hope that we shall be able to persuade the Soviet Union that any suggestions which we put forward, such as A.N.F., for the greater knitting together of NATO in no way run counter to our views about dissemination and our desire to prevent dissemination, not only in Europe but among all the other countries of the world which are on the threshold of producing nuclear devices, however primitive (if that is the right word to use) they may be when set against the standard of the advanced countries.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, am I to understand from what the noble Lord has said that the Government are still in favour of the A.N.F.?
LORD WALSTON: We are in favour of the A.N.F. and we have always been in favour of it. We have made this perfectly clear. We do not believe that

217
the A.N.F. is the one and only answer to the problem. Other suggestions have been put forward, such as Mr. McNamara's suggestion of his Committee, the original M.L.F. suggestion. All we are saying is that we consider that the A.N.F. at the present stage will combine our two objectives in the most efficient and desirable way, but if others come up with more efficient ways and can persuade us they are so, if they are things which gain acceptance and which do not run counter to our own overall views, then we would not say "A.N.F. is ours. We will stick to it and will not move to anything else." We still believe that A.N.F. in the context of to-day is the best solution which has been put forward.
The second question concerns our NATO commitments. I say very firmly, without any hedging at all, that we will embark on no unilateral reductions in our NATO commitments. On anything we propose to do we shall consult with our other NATO allies and will undertake it only after the fullest possible consultation and, we hope, agreement with all of them.
The third question related to arms from the United States, a point which was first put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. It was suggested that we should buy from the United States arms in proportion to the arms that they buy from us. Of course, we should like to be in a position where we are able to produce within Europe as a whole—not in this country alone, because we know we cannot do that—a large part of the armaments we require. We are working towards that in collaboration with the French, the Italians and the Germans in various forms of production, both civilian and military. But if the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, gives serious thought to his suggestion, I do not think he would stand by it for very long. What in fact he is suggesting is that we should put ourselves in a position of denying to our own troops the most efficient weapons, possibly sending them out to fight a battle with weapons which are known to be inferior and are accepted to be inferior, slower, older, more costly, and therefore with fewer of them. He himself specifically mentioned possible late delivery dates. His words were, "even though the price, performance and delivery dates are less favourable". That would entail
218
sending our men out to fight battles not only with more expensive weapons but with weapons of lower performance and weapons which are obsolete because delivery dates of the new ones are too slow. That no Government could possibly do.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: My Lords, but is this not the case already?
LORD WALSTON: I am perfectly prepared to accept that in certain cases our own Armed Forces do not to-day have the best or the most efficient weapons. I think that is absolutely true. I do not want to embark on a Party political wrangle here or to suggest what are the underlying causes of that position. I am now dealing with the future, and I am saying that to the best of our ability we will ensure that in this country and in Europe we produce efficient weapons. But we shall not jeopardise the efficiency or safety of our own soldiers, sailors and airmen by tying ourselves, as the noble Earl suggested, to buying weapons of inferior quality.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: My Lords, I do not like to interrupt the noble Lord again, but is there any guarantee that weapons bought from the United States are any better than those produced in Europe?
LORD WALSTON: We must be guided in this matter by the experts with their knowledge; and we have undertaken, and we will undertake, so far as it is possible for us to do so, to get the most efficient weapons as advised by our experts. I can go no further than that.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, when we realise, from what happened in the United States the day before yesterday, how vulnerable a very large country like that is if an emergency should happen, is there not a danger in the fact that we should be entirely dependent on them for our own arms?
LORD WALSTON: There is, of course, a very grave danger if we become entirely reliant on any single supplier for anything. But we have no intention whatever of doing that. That is why we are now trying, rather late in the day—though we did it as soon as we had the chance—to build up collaboration with other European countries which are advanced in these matters, so that we have a large

219
part of our armaments manufactured in this country, some manufactured among our NATO Allies and some coming from across the Atlantic. There is no suggestion that we shall buy everything from across the Atlantic. I am saying that I cannot tie myself to say that we can buy from the Americans only in proportion to what they buy from us.
On the question of the NATO mobile force, I am very glad that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, raised this point. I can assure him and other noble Lords that we fully appreciate the importance of this concept. We ourselves at the moment provide a land and air contribution to the force. The overall size of the force depends on a number of factors, including the requirement for defence of the flanks in the priorities established by Governments for the deployment of their forces committed to NATO. But the size and type of the force is kept under constant review, and we give our fullest support, in our capacity as a member of NATO, to the concept of the mobile force.
The final major question of which the noble Marquess reminded me is a question raised by many noble Lords, that of the future of the Territorial Army. There I cannot do very much more than to ask your Lordships to await the publication of the White Paper which will be appearing shortly. The whole question of the reorganisation of the Reserve Army, including the Territorial Army, as your Lordships know, was announced by the Secretary for Defence in another place in July. When the Review has been completed and the White Paper appears, I hope that some of the fears which have been expressed by noble Lords will be allayed; though I cannot by any means promise that, at the end of the day, all of them will go away satisfied.
Again, the specific questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, on the future of the aircraft carriers, are something which will have to await the Defence Review. How much we shall rely on aircraft carriers, how much we shall rely on bases, where those should be and all the rest of it, are very integral parts of the Defence Review and can be dealt with properly only when that matter is discussed. I hope that I have dealt with the
220
majority of the questions that have come up under Defence.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: My Lords, I do not like to interrupt once again, but I asked whether Her Majesty's Government wished the Territorial Army to remain in being in the meantime. May I have an answer, please?
LORD WALSTON: Most certainly. I think now, even though I may have missed some of the questions which have been asked, that it would be advisable to move on to the Foreign Affairs side of this debate.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, before the noble Lord moves to Foreign Affairs, I wonder whether I may ask him to clear up one point. He said a moment ago that the White Paper on the Territorial Army would be appearing shortly. A little earlier in his speech he said that the whole Defence Review would appear early in the New Year. Does that mean that we shall be expected to approve the proposals for the Territorial Army before we have the whole Defence picture?
LORD WALSTON: Certainly there will be an opportunity for discussing the White Paper and to approve or disapprove it before the whole Defence White Paper comes out.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: My Lords, I am sorry to keep interrupting, but I asked a question just now to which I got the answer "Most certainly." I waited for an answer but I have not had it, so I take it that the answer is in the negative.
LORD WALSTON: The answer is, Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: What is "Yes"?
LORD WALSTON: To keep it in being.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: Would Her Majesty's Government say so outright, and not just give the answer "Yes", which might be the answer to anything?
LORD WALSTON: I have always been led to believe that the clearest and most concise answer that can be given to any question is a "Yes" or a "No". I gave the noble Marquess a "Yes" answer and I do not think I can amplify that. I can circumlocute it if the noble Marquess would like that, but it would take

221
a great deal more time. I must say that it is sometimes rather rare to get a straight "Yes" or "No" in answer to a question of that sort.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, in fact the noble Lord did not give the noble Marquess a straight answer. The noble Marquess said, "Are you going to give me an answer?", to which the noble Lord replied, "Certainly".
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I understood that the question of the noble Marquess was whether the Territorial Army should continue in being, and my answer was "Yes". There was no desire at all on my part to prevaricate.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: My Lords, certainly I accept the noble Lord's explanation most willingly. But as I have already explained, there are some of us with the job of keeping the Territorial Army in being at the present moment, and something more specific would have made our job a little easier.
LORD WALSTON: Now, my Lords, perhaps I may turn to Foreign Affairs. I should like to start by congratulating in his absence the noble Duke for what I thought was an admirable, thoughtful, constructive and helpful speech. Naturally, there were one or two points to which I took exception, but I shall not labour them. He spoke very movingly on the importance of bridging the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots", and once more made us realise that you cannot have a successful foreign policy, you cannot have a peaceful world, so long as this gap continues to grow, as we must confess it is at the present time. I can assure the noble Duke that we are at one with him in giving all the help we can to the permanent organisation in Geneva set up as a result of the UNCTAD Conference last year; and we certainly appreciate the part which was played by the present Leader of the Opposition in getting that going. I also agreed with the noble Duke very much on the importance of preventing what he described as the disastrous collapse of primary producer prices, particularly in the developing countries; and there we shall take such initiatives as we can to remedy that situation.
Let me now, as rapidly as I can, go quickly round the world, not stopping
222
very long in the different places, and starting in the Far East. I endorse the attitude of the noble Marquess when he talks of Japan—a great country, a country which is developing at an enormous pace and is, I am glad to say, coming into the world picture in a way which is most valuable. We have had many contacts recently with Japan. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State was over there not long ago, we had a visit from Prince and Princess Hitachi and our own Princess Alexandra was over there; and in many other ways we are building up a relationship with Japan which I believe will be of value, not only to us and to Japan but to the whole of the world.
Then there is all of South-East Asia—Vietnam, Indonesia—potentially rich countries where, as the noble Marquess said, with the Americans we are, in his words, trying to buy time. But we are also trying to prevent, and succeeding in preventing, the engulfment of these new countries by a greater neighbouring Power. Although I know there are many who accuse us and the United States of aggressive intent in these actions, I would ask them if one can really support the accusation of aggression when two considerable military Powers confine their activities—as the United States does with small exceptions, and as we do with no exceptions at all—simply to repelling attacks, instead of going out, as could so easily be done with the overwhelming force available to them, compared with the opposition's, to attack those who are attacking our friends and allies. I think that that alone should give the lie to those who accuse us of any aggressive intent in that part of the world.
I should like to pay tribute to the Commonwealth contribution which is being made to the forces in Malaysia, from New Zealand, from Australia, and from Fiji also, who are helping with fellow members of the Commonwealth in this struggle against the confrontation from their large and potentially very rich neighbour, which is not satisfied with developing its own riches but appears to be driven on to this senseless confrontation.
Then there is the sad story of the subcontinent, mentioned only by my noble friend Lord Attlee. It has been one of the great tragedies of the past months

223
that two fellow members of the Commonwealth, two great countries, India and Pakistan, who have in the past years made such progress—economic progress and social progress—and with whom we have so many close ties, should now or in recent weeks have been killing each other. We have done and are doing all that we can as a friend of both of them, as fellow members of the Commonwealth, through the United Nations, to prevent this. A cease-fire has been agreed upon and is—within limits—being observed. We shall continue in that way to work for a solution of this very thorny problem, which in the long run can only be arrived at with good will on the part both of India and of Pakistan; with a realisation of their own greatness and a realisation of their own responsibilities, one to another.
Then there is Africa, and I should like to agree with at least one point made by my noble friend Lord Chorley, although he did not speak of it in the context of Africa; that is, the importance of nationalism in so many new countries. It is a driving force among them, and it is right and proper that it should be. It is something which we have ourselves. We have it so much inside of us that we sometimes cease to realise it. If you look back to the history of Europe, you will realise what an influence it had in creating, first of all, the Principalities and the Duchies. Then the countries, as they got larger and larger, began to develop their national pride. That is a right and proper stage of evolution. But what we do not want to have, at the same time as that nationalism and that sense of patriotism among the citizens of these new, emerging countries, is economic nationalism, because we know that that cannot lead to economic progress. What we want is the greatest amount of economic spreading of resources, of expertise, of technical "know-how" and of capital, in such a way that it is going to benefit not simply one small country, or even a large country, but the whole area, possibly the whole continent.
Here I should like to pay a sincere tribute to the work of the Economic Commission for Africa and to their great Secretary General, Mr. Robert Gardiner, at the successful conference which was held only a few days ago in Zambia. We think of that part of the world now
224
with sorrow and with despondency, but what came out of Zambia, through that conference only last week, is of very great portent for the future of Africa, and will possibly have, as I hope it will, a greater effect on Africa than some of the events which have been taking place there in the last twenty-four hours.
I should like at this stage to break off in my tour around the world to mention the suggestion by my noble friend Lord Taylor of a Commonwealth University—an admirable plan, in my view. As he so rightly said, it must be a Commonwealth initiative, and not one coming solely from this country. So I would suggest to him that he should put his plan forward to the new Commonwealth Secretariat, and I will certainly ask my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will consider this idea very sympathetically.
There was also the moving and admirable speech of my noble friend Lord Royle. He spoke of so many things which were important, including the Council of Europe—something which is not understood enough, not talked about enough. He also said (and I think this was the most important point he made) that so often in developing countries is progress hampered by internal religious and racial dissension. That, my Lords, is very true, not only in developing countries, but in other countries also; and we must attempt by our example, wherever we can achieve it, to show that multiracial societies and societies of all types of religion can and do exist. And they do, my Lords. I know many people turn a blind eye to them, but think of Trinidad, think of Jamaica, think of Kenya to-day, think of Zambia or of some of the High Commission Territories—Swaziland, for example—where you get multiracial societies, some well developed, some still struggling. It is the same in some foreign countries, too. Brazil is another example of it. These things can be done. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, is not in his place at the moment, because I think he should ponder on those problems when he talks of Rhodesia and of the tragedy which is going on there, and should realise that this is not a matter which affects only Rhodesia and the United Kingdom but is a matter which affects all

225
the countries of that part of the world which are trying with some success to produce a multiracial society.
My Lords, let me now deal solely with Europe as my final point. There are so many parts of Europe, of course, but I should like to make special mention of Germany at the present time. Other noble Lords have already reminded us that to-day is November 11. I think that we must—and now I believe we all do—accept the fact that the dark nightmare period from 1914 until 1945 is behind us, and that what happened then is something that should never enter our attitudes when we are discussing the future of Europe. Germany has a long history of alliance with ourselves, going back into the past centuries, and it has, I am sure—and we have with it—a long future of alliance. I am happy that the very successful visit of Her Majesty to Germany is being followed up in so many good and productive ways. We are looking forward to welcoming Dr. Schroeder, the German Foreign Minister, on his future visit to this country, which I hope will be the first of many.
I come now to a point which is so close to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and many other noble Lords, on both sides of the House. It has often been said that we are part of Europe, but I do not think that it can
226
be said too often. More than that, we are a major European Power, and we have been for many centuries. I can assure your Lordships that we shall continue to play our full part in Europe in our various rôles as the senior member of the Commonwealth, as a member of NATO and of EFTA and, I sincerely hope, before not too long, as a member, in company with our EFTA partners, of a still wider European Market.
My final assurance to your Lordships is that, whatever we do with our Defence Review, whatever economies are forced upon us, we will never contract out of our world-wide responsibilities. We will ensure that the money we spend on Defence, which will be the maximum we can possibly squeeze from the other essential requirements of our economy, will be well spent, and will be spent in those areas where it will make the maximum impact on the maintenance of peace and on the spreading of Western ideals.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Derwent, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes before nine o'clock.